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: DBCowboy
Lets just pick someone with leadership skills, morality, fairness, ethics, values.
Does anyone come close? Other than Batman?
originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
It sounds pretty awesome when you put it like that.
originally posted by: BubbaJoe
Please provide a source for such great information.
Thirty thousand people, nine percent of the Icelandic population, are below the poverty line, while 13 percent are at risk according to a new report from the Red Cross, ruv.is reports.
According to the report, the largest group on welfare are young people, young men in particular. A total of 3,000 young people receive financial support from the municipalities.
Unemployment is highest among 18-24 years-olds, or 7.7 percent compared to the average unemployment rate in the country, which currently stands at 4.5 percent.
Thirty Thousand Below Poverty Line in Iceland
The world’s richest country is Norway. The population of Norway is 4.5 million people. Despite the wealth of the country due to oil commodities, poverty still exists. In the capital of Oslo, 8.3 percent of the population suffers from poverty. The populations that are affected the most by poverty are immigrants, families with children and single parents, and those who are on social security.
As of 2014, child poverty is on the rise in Norway. It is estimated that 78,000 children are suffering at this time. Three point four percent of children are living in a state of ‘relative’ poverty. In Norway, it is defined as households with income below 50 per cent of the national median.
A Look at Poverty in Norway
originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: xuenchen
Historically no system has succeeded for more than a few hundred years. What is your point?
originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
The proof is in the pudding, when ever ats right wing watch dogs fill your thread with commie this and look at that commie, you Know its working.
Class conflict, frequently referred to as class warfare or class struggle, is the tension or antagonism which exists in society due to competing socioeconomic interests and desires between people of different classes. The view that the class struggle provides the lever for radical social change for the majority is central to the work of Karl Marx and the anarchist Mikhail Bakunin. However, the discovery of the existence of class struggle is not the product of their theories; their theories can instead be seen as a response to the existence of class struggles.[citation needed]
originally posted by: neo96
originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: xuenchen
Historically no system has succeeded for more than a few hundred years. What is your point?
Well CAPITALISM has been around since man has been calling himself civilized.
For the record that is MORE than a 'few hundred' years.
originally posted by: Isurrender73
originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Isurrender73
LOL , Spoken like a True Anarchist ....
I prefer Revolutionary or Mutineer, but I will wear whatever label you like.
originally posted by: Metallicus
First let me say that I was delighted to see a Democrat like Jim Webb in last night's Democratic debate. I think if he were to be the Democratic candidate I could vote for him depending on who was on the other side of the aisle.
However, the other candidates were absolutely loony toons crazy. I couldn't believe the blatant attacks on Capitalism and America.
Now, don't get me wrong. I think that there is plenty wrong with America, but I also don't believe that the fundamental system is broken. Anyway, it is scary how mainstream these folks are becoming. They are a threat to the very fabric of the country I love.
So do you agree with the article premise? Are THESE the politicians we deserve?
I hope not.
It’s comforting to project all our anger onto politicians. Lord knows, they deserve a fair amount of it. However, the difficult reality is this: America’s biggest problem is its citizens, not its politicians. Indeed, its politicians are a symptom, a reflection, of its people. They may manipulate and coerce and propagandize, but when it comes down to it, in a democratic system, if a bunch of lunatics and scoundrels are in power it’s because the people chose to put them there. The sickness originates, then, with the people. And the people’s sickness is rooted in the soul.
My mind kept going back to this fact last night as I watched the Democrat debate on CNN. To be honest, I’m not totally sure why I watched it. Clearly, a person must have some serious psychological issues if they elect to spend an evening with Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. It’s like choosing to be mentally water boarded for two and a half hours. Only a troubled man would willingly subject himself to such torment. I’ll be making an appointment with a therapist later today.
and more
With the frazzled Muppet from Vermont leading the way, all of the candidates (except Jim Webb, who apparently stumbled into the wrong debate) spent the first several minutes complaining about “income inequality.” This was a theme they’d all return to incessantly throughout the evening, because there’s nothing more exhilarating than listening to old rich white people complain about old rich white people. Bernie Sanders lamented again and again that the “middle class is collapsing,” but never expressed any interest in seeing us poor middle class folk move up and out of the middle class. For Sanders and the rest of them, the “middle class” should be all we peons aspire to. Success and wealth ought to be solely possessed by the left wing ruling class. Wealth is evil, you see, so that’s why we should let our great and generous protectors carry the burden.
Middle Class! Inequality! Greed! Middle Class! Inequality! Greed! I can’t really blame them for shouting socialist catchwords all night. This is what their voters desire. They don’t desire capitalism, because capitalism means opportunity and freedom, and opportunity and freedom mean hard work. Economic freedom is so unpopular among liberals that Bernie Sanders openly disavowed it to the sound of roaring applause. Clinton was hesitant (for now) to fully label herself a socialist, so instead she said she’s a sorta-capitalist who thinks “capitalism has to be saved from itself.” This is another way of calling American people children who need to be rescued by benevolent bureaucrats, but that’s OK because Democrat voters fervently wish to be treated like children. They want their own failures and struggles in life to be the fault of “the rich” and they want a president who will magically make it better.
It’s a bit awkward, of course, because they already voted for a guy who promised to do just that, yet the “income inequality” has only gotten worse. This, as Hillary asserted several times, is still the fault of the Republicans. Even when we had a Democrat president and a Democrat Congress, all of our economic woes could be laid at the feet of Republicans and “the rich.” But not every “the rich.” Just “the rich” who aren’t Democrat politicians, or Democrat donors like Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Chase, or union leaders, or Planned Parenthood executives, or Hollywood liberals, or university administrators, or any other group comprised mainly of wealthy left wingers.
Source
originally posted by: Isurrender73
originally posted by: neo96
originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: xuenchen
Historically no system has succeeded for more than a few hundred years. What is your point?
Well CAPITALISM has been around since man has been calling himself civilized.
For the record that is MORE than a 'few hundred' years.
Socialism has been around since the very first society of humans exisisted. Some hunted, some gathered, some took care of children, no money yet all people shared the commodities.
Your point?
originally posted by: neo96
originally posted by: Isurrender73
originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Isurrender73
LOL , Spoken like a True Anarchist ....
I prefer Revolutionary or Mutineer, but I will wear whatever label you like.
Yeah a revolutionary, and mutineer doesn't hide behind government, and politicians.
They want something they do it one their own.
Instead of voting by proxy for someone to give them things they can't EARN on their own.
originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Isurrender73
Our founding fathers were a bunch of rich old white guys.
Ya know the evil one percenters.