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.

 

Which Side Are You On?

page: 1
22
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+1 more 
posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 01:31 PM
link   
In 1931 a young wife of a miner named Florence Reese wrote a song that became popular among Socialists and Progressives



This song was first nationally prominent by folk singer Pete Seeger. Since then it has been produced by Dropkick Murpheys and Natalie Merchant.

If you don't know about the miners' wars in the 1920s, 1930s and 1970s and not even the UK strike in 1984, then you might learn some history and how this history affects your liberalism of today.

The 1920s and 1930s is a mixed time for the United States, under the direction of President Herbert Hoover (R), the nation went from obscene lavishness to the Great Depression in one day. At that time the coal miners in Kentucky, Tennessee and West Virginia were being threatened, harassed, beaten and killed in an effort to bring unions to coal mining.

Who opposed them? The Democrat Party.

They were then labled as Socialists because it went against the prevailing notion of corporate greed found very early on in the Democratic Party. Yes, the Democrats were corporate greedmongers, in favor of big businesses, especially big businesses in the West. Andrew Jackson (D) signed the Indian Removal Act of 1828, forcibly removing all Native Americans, the largest group were the Cherokee, from east of the Mississippi into Oklahoma Territory along the Trail of Tears. The saddest blight outside of slavery (a Democratic institution) was the genocide of Native Americans.

Had it changed platforms? Some say yes..but not by the 1930s. The Depression was so bad that the soup lines were immense and giving rise to the popular phrase "Brother, have you got a dime?"

Now, fast forward to the miners' strikes. In 1931, Florence was married to Sam, a union organizer in the coal mines. As the local sheriff went to arrest him illegally, Florence had gotten word to him to not come home and the sheriff and deputies without warrant not only searched the home, they waited outside for Sam to return. The war on coal was waged from the Democratic side, and a bill called the National Recovery Act, introduced by Robert L. Doughton (D-NC).



The National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) was a law passed by the United States Congress in 1933 to authorize the President to regulate industry in an attempt to raise prices after severe deflation and stimulate economic recovery.[1] It also established a national public works program known as the Public Works Administration (PWA, not to be confused with the WPA of 1935).[2] The National Recovery Administration (NRA) portion was widely hailed in 1933, but by 1934 business' opinion of the act had soured.[3] By March 1934 the "NRA was engaged chiefly in drawing up these industrial codes for all industries to adopt."[4] However, the NIRA was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1935 and not replaced


Unfortunately, the same verbage and language has been used since that unconstitutional act. But continuing with the war on coal,



According to Obama, it will generate billions of dollars. OK, for whom? The billions of dollars in investment into green or renewable energy will only generate revenue for those CEOs of those companies. It will not generate billions of dollars for a massive number of employees at any wind or solar plant, getting energy from the wind or sun, yet charging you the same amount for water, coal or nuclear power plants. Not only that, the taxes you will have to pay for them will not offset the cost to you. They get free energy and then in turn make you pay for the free energy. Does that sound very Democratic to you? No, it sounds Republican, doesn't it?

So which side are you on?

The United States under a Republican president saw an economic boom and then crash and burn, not because of the Republican party, but excessiveness of not only the American public, but several business leaders that all relied on coal, and yet coal miners were the least paid, the most harassed and fought the hardest to bring the one resource that our infrastructure depended upon.

Not only did Hoover understand mining, he distributed his Presidential paychecks to charity. WHAA? A REPUBLICAN 1%er who donated all of his money to charity? WHAAA? A Big Business friendly Republican gave his money away to the less fortunate? The next President to do so was Kennedy.

Not only did this Republican President try to stem the Depression, he introduced the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, he also raised the tax level on the 1% from 25% to 63% and increased corporate taxes enough to balance the budget. At the same time the Democrats were waging war on coal, putting miners out of work, killing striking miners and raising the prices on coal that generated billions of dollars for those in the Democratic party.

Now, we have a repeat, a Democratic President offering you a free energy source, that will generate billions of dollars, while you pay for the privilege of getting that free energy, at a cost.

Not only that, the one industry that has had the most industrial deaths by murder, their blood is systematically being bleached out by the same side that claims it wants to bring more jobs. Tell me if the wording is not the same

stimulate economic recovery


What was the purpose of Cash for Clunkers? What was the purpose of bailouts of auto companies? And what is being said every week by the same guy who blames it on everyone else why he can't stimulate the economy by handing out free phones?

Another quote by the same Hoover

dictators organize from the top down, democracies from the bottom up
and might I just ask which side is proposing that we organize from the top down?

Yes, we had a Great Depression that was caused by many factors, but you cannot exclusively say that It was the Republicans who caused it when Democrats were waging war against the very industry that so many other industries relied on. And if you don't think so, every consumer good that you have depends on coal in some way. Not only does it provide energy, it provides the resource for steel production. If you don't think that's important, just go ahead and dig out all of the food in your refrigerator. And while you are driving to the store to buy more, remember to thank the coal miner that provided the auto worker the resource to make the car you drive in, the construction worker the road you drive on and the building you bought the food at, the truck driver who drove a steel truck, the farmer who drove the steel tractor, the electric company who brought you the coal-powered energy and every factory worker that operates a machine made out of steel.

And for goodness sake, thank the coal miner who brought you the internet via electricity, just so you can get on here and bash the coal industry for polluting your air and destroying your land, which wasn't yours to begin with, it belonged to a Native American who was forcibly evicted from their homes, much like the Albertan First Nations would be under the Keystone Pipeline. But hey, if you don't mind benefitting from someone else's blood, sweat and tears, remember to thank your liberal friends who are hugging trees after driving their steel made cars to the national forest.

Hoover, wasn't such a bad guy after all.


edit on 8/16/2015 by WarminIndy because: (no reason given)



+1 more 
posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 01:37 PM
link   
Unlike many...

I do not need to feel the "comfort" of belonging to a "side".



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 01:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: nullafides
Unlike many...

I do not need to feel the "comfort" of belonging to a "side".


So you are comfortable benefitting from a particular side?

That's good that you are not partisan, but I think you would have to give credence for your benefits to some side or other.



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy

I'm on my side, cause no one else is and that way
I only have to worry about me and mine.

SnF tho bigtime.



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 01:47 PM
link   
treebeard from Lord of the rings said it best




Side? I am on nobody's side, because nobody is on my side



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 01:48 PM
link   
We were smoked there ARE no sides.
Look to cash and you'll find the villian.



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy

The problem is trying to point to either side as the good guy or the bad guy. Most of our presidents have no respect for the democratic process which makes them facisist. Facisist on the left facisist on the right.

Democracy is not republican or democrat, democracy is the majority deciding what is best for the majority, regardless of party affiliation.

What is best for the 99% is to protect the people from the currently uncontrolled greed that has turned the nation into a facisist corpocracy. The laws are all designed to sound good but continue to transfer the wealth of the 99% to the top 1%. We have been stuck in this current cycle of for quite some time.

Market crashes are orchestrated by the 1%. Wall Stree is a fraud used ro falsely manipulate the economy.

Only natural disasters should cause shortages. And with today's technology we should be able to find ways to overcome even the problem of regional natural disasters.

Financial collapses outside of natural disasters must be orchestrated by some other power. And the only power that can artificially crash a market is money. Too much money in the hands of too few people have given them the ability to manipulate markets as they please.

When markets crash the 1% win and end up with even more control then before the crash. That alone should be enough for people to understand that Wall Street is a scam.

The elitists have been able to have the tax payers pay for every mistake they make. Since they know they will be bailed out by our tax dollars we should no longer imagine these are mistakes.

These programs should be seen for what they truly are. Very well orchestrated problems that continue to transfer wealth from the 99% to the 1% who have an insatiable desire for money and power.

I take the side of the workers who are the ones who actually generate goods and services. Without the 99% the 1% could not exist.
edit on 16-8-2015 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy

Union Proud, Union Strong.....

www.sagaftra.org...

and

iatse.net...



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73

If a poor person were to win the lottery that is quite large, say they win $450,000,000 tomorrow, would they suddenly become a 1%er and need to share that with you who didn't buy a ticket?



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 01:59 PM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy

You'd pay 10% of that ,so not really.



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 02:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: WarminIndy

You'd pay 10% of that ,so not really.


Well, actually the lottery winner would pay more than 10%. He would actually pay 39%.

But still, would that 1%er lottery winner be obligated to share his wealth with you even if you didn't buy a ticket? Would you picket that lottery winner's home? Would you Occupy Lottery Winners? Why aren't you?

See, we have so many Occupiers sitting outside of businesses that provide jobs, but you don't picket every convenience, liquor or grocery store that sells lottery tickets, neither do you Occupy casinos that generate billions of dollars.

Greed is ok as long as its the little guy, I assume that is what you mean. But really, would you go to the lottery winner and ask for a handout even though you didn't buy a ticket?



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 02:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: WarminIndy

Union Proud, Union Strong.....

www.sagaftra.org...

and

iatse.net...


Oh, you are a theater and screen actor. Good for you and congrats.

I hope you will get a good audition soon so we will see your talents. Good on you.



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 02:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: nullafides
Unlike many...

I do not need to feel the "comfort" of belonging to a "side".


So you are comfortable benefitting from a particular side?

That's good that you are not partisan, but I think you would have to give credence for your benefits to some side or other.





No. I do not need to give anything to anyone.

What I do give, is without hesitation, or desire of recognition or reward.



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 02:13 PM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy

I only have one question:

Which of the two main political parties in this country has supported the Union movement for the greatest period of time?



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 02:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: nullafides

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: nullafides
Unlike many...

I do not need to feel the "comfort" of belonging to a "side".


So you are comfortable benefitting from a particular side?

That's good that you are not partisan, but I think you would have to give credence for your benefits to some side or other.





No. I do not need to give anything to anyone.

What I do give, is without hesitation, or desire of recognition or reward.


Huh?

I asked you if you benefitted..not if you are on benefits and not if you give to anyone.

You do benefit, whether you realize it or not, from the blood, sweat and tears from someone else.



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 02:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: WarminIndy

I only have one question:

Which of the two main political parties in this country has supported the Union movement for the greatest period of time?



Ask those in the unions...those parties that are socialist..which would be most at different times.

The Democrats say the parties changed platforms over time, so the Democrats are like the Republicans, so it would mean the Republicans and not the Democrats.

Oh, you were wanting me to say Democrat? You can't have it both ways, if the Democratic party never changed platforms, then the Democrats are going to have to account for slavery and genocide. But if you say they actually changed platforms, then the Republicans.

But I am neither Republican or Democrat.

So, if you figure out whether they changed platforms, then perhaps your question would be valid.



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 02:20 PM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy

I asked you a basic question.

You responded with empty rhetoric.

Fair enough, let's try another.

Which of the two main political parties, in the US in 2015, are actively working to limit and/or destroy Unions and the Union movement?



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 02:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: Isurrender73

If a poor person were to win the lottery that is quite large, say they win $450,000,000 tomorrow, would they suddenly become a 1%er and need to share that with you who didn't buy a ticket?



If I were to create a system it would include a wealth cap of 50 million. So the lottery would never pay out more than 50 million. More winners winning a little less, but still plenty to live comfortably without having to work again.

As for a tax on lottery winnings, I think it makes more since to tax the purchase of the tickets and let the person walk away with the full amount won.



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 02:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: WarminIndy

I asked you a basic question.

You responded with empty rhetoric.

Fair enough, let's try another.

Which of the two main political parties, in the US in 2015, are actively working to limit and/or destroy Unions and the Union movement?



Democrats.

Why else do you think Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) had to apologize to West Virginians? Oh, sorry, he first begged West Virginian coal miners in unions to "Have that epiphany and vote Obama" and then after his next epiphany, publicly apologized.

The UAW said the same thing...they recanted.

So, who is going against unions, really? The coal industry is unionized, who would be effected by bankruptcy? Can the Democrats give away enough free phones to coal miners? Is that going to take care of the problem?

And are the coal miners who have better insurance outside of Obamacare really going to benefit? No.

See, you guys seem to think the Democrats are looking out for your best interest when they are financially making a whole lot off people, there ain't a single Democrat senator or congressman who are going hungry tonight. Think about it. They have people standing in line for a free phone, wow, such a brilliant idea.

Why aren't the Democrats actually investing in foodstuffs for all the people and freely distributing the food to every home?



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 02:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: Isurrender73

If a poor person were to win the lottery that is quite large, say they win $450,000,000 tomorrow, would they suddenly become a 1%er and need to share that with you who didn't buy a ticket?



If I were to create a system it would include a wealth cap of 50 million. So the lottery would never pay out more than 50 million. More winners winning a little less, but still plenty to live comfortably without having to work again.

As for a tax on lottery winnings, I think it makes more since to tax the purchase of the tickets and let the person walk away with the full amount won.


Won't work.

You said "live comfortably without having to work again".

Who is going to plant and harvest your food and drive it to you? Should all of these winners live so comfortably they should never work again?

That doesn't seem to be very workable if you ask me.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join