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.

 

Republicans are 95% Corrupt, Democrats are 75% Corrupt

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bout Time
In the Campaign 2004 forum and in the live presidential debates, this one one of the recurring questions - "Would the UN dictate American Security under Kerry?"


So you are saying that Kerry explicitly acknowledged his belief in America's right to act unilaterally when need be, and made no statements during the campaign that would contradict this? I'll play fair- I'll google like hell for answers later today, but I'm not sure if I should expect to find any such quotes.


John Kerry voting for the type of military that is needed for todays warfare - mobile, rapidly deployed, instead of the military industrial complex wasteful expenditures like cold war weapons meant for protracted land wars with Russia, had lim labeled as anti-military.


So Kerry has picked and chosen his the types of appropriations he supports? It's not true that he has opposed virtually every cent of military spending proposed since he entered the senate, including the USS Ronald Reagan (aircraft carriers being instrumental to our new more fluid military environment)? If you just happen to have a link where I can check up on his full voting record that would be great, but again I'll take it upon myself to look later also.


Global Test was a soundbyte beaten in the news cycle by trhe minister of propaganda, Karl Goebbels Rove. Here's Kerry's response: ""They're misleading Americans about what I said. What I said in the sentence preceding that was, 'I will never cede America's security to any institution or any other country.' No one gets a veto over our security. No one.

Not all Republicans like the smell of bs in the morning. The global test thing isn't what threw me because I was listening when he first said it and Bush's response sounded like he'd just been insulted in words he didn't understand.
How about his repeated implications that he could somehow have gotten France and Germany to play ball? It seems extremely likely that these statements were designed to avoid the direct question of "If nobody else would back us up, would you have removed Saddam?". Why? Because his record is conflicted on that statement and the bottom line answer is probably no. This is a man who during his Vietnam protest days said he was an internationalist and would only like to see US forces deployed under the consent of the UN security council.
Kerry got his start protesting military action, he has given zero support to military budgeting (unless his staff let Rove get away with an easily debunked bold-faced lie), he has made statements and votes which make his position on Iraq seem almost unknowable except of course that he is opposed to Bush even if it means opposing his own previous votes and statements. I'm sure Kerry has some ups to him- most politicians offer something at least- I'm just saying that his somewhat admirable pacifist tendencies are going to get in the way of some aggressive actions that will need to be taken if America is to continue its prosperity and security through this century.


As a point of reference & definition, the global test is what President Bush did prior to the 1991 Gulf War. It resulted in an allied forces concensus that the action was legitimate; hence, we endured only a shared burden & a shared cost.

Bush 41s global test was a means of assembling overwheliming force, sharing costs, and above all securing the ability to operate from Saudi Arabai witout facing other opposition. Much of this was born of the Vietnam complex- America had expected thousands of casualties from Iraq and thus didn't think it wise to risk expanding the war to include Ba'athist Syria.
With that fear gone, there is little doubt in my mind that Bush 41 would have made his move on Saddam even if the world had told him to slag off.
It's also important to remember that the Soviet Union still existed in 1991. Having a huge well armed enemy creates a global test of its own.



You mentioned something else very interesting: Venezuela. That country happens to be the only democracy in that part of the world that has had consecutive, democratic votes that were untainted. The people elected Chavez....we've tried to overthrow him. As with most countries, you have a two class system, the rich & the peasants. Convicted felon and Bush crime family Stalwart, Juan Otto Reich, had been hyper active in the country prior to their first overthrow attempt by that gentry class ( you see, Chavez won't f**k his people in order to make the rich ones richer ). If you remember, the Bush administration recognized the illegal overthrow of the Chavez government before it was even complete, and then had to backpeddle when the gov. & people were able to maintain solvency.
Think about that: the Johnny Appleseed of Liberty & Democracy was setting up & looking to tumble the only other free elections democracy around!!!

Believe it or not I knew about that and I have posted about it in the past. In fact I've been saying that we don't need to be trying to take Venezuela and Cuba by the balls because it's only driving them into military cooperation with our rivals/enemies. My point is that there is growing movement towards China/Russia's side in a part of the world strategically vital to the US, and one of those countries is hosting an unpopular revolutionary group in a neighboring nation.
In a perfect world we'd know that the UN would never tollerate manipulation of Latin-American politics designed to threaten our strategic position, but since we don't have that luxury we are going to find ourselves needing to take aggressive action with or without the UN's say-so, probably including helping Columbia with FARC and possibly in the future having to militarily enforce the neutrality of the Panama Canal. I don't think Kerry is the man to do that.
You show me the ideal candidate and I'll show you a far less cynical and less republican vagabond.

Anyway, looking forward to mulling over the facts later. If you have links that will make it easy on me please don't be stingy.




posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
So you are saying that Kerry explicitly acknowledged his belief in America's right to act unilaterally when need be, and made no statements during the campaign that would contradict this? I'll play fair- I'll google like hell for answers later today, but I'm not sure if I should expect to find any such quotes.

The problems occurred when portions were taken as whole; I quoted below exactly what he said ...in a nutshell, he would never abdicate Americas defense perogative. What he did say is that actions, like Kosovo or Iraq, need to be shared efforts. After the clusterf**k that Team Bush has put un in there under completely false pretenses, can you argue that Kerry is wrong on that?



So Kerry has picked and chosen his the types of appropriations he supports?

Of course, all Congressmen do. It not the core, but the riders attached that have most things declined ( i.e. the Patriot Act being a 32 page document at it's inception, that grew to a 500 page document covering Hooters & Eli Lily).

It's not true that he has opposed virtually every cent of military spending proposed since he entered the senate, including the USS Ronald Reagan (aircraft carriers being instrumental to our new more fluid military environment)?

No, it is not true. Republican Senators had defended Kerry as such. Here's the non-partisan factcheck.org and their breakdown on the propaganda that was the mainstay of GOP campaigns: More Bush Distortions of Kerry Defense voting Record


How about his repeated implications that he could somehow have gotten France and Germany to play ball? It seems extremely likely that these statements were designed to avoid the direct question of "If nobody else would back us up, would you have removed Saddam?". Why? Because his record is conflicted on that statement and the bottom line answer is probably no. This is a man who during his Vietnam protest days said he was an internationalist and would only like to see US forces deployed under the consent of the UN security council.

Of course he would have been able to get France & Germany to play ball. The sticking point is that Team Bush refused to share the wealth of the newly plundered Iraq, tying up all contracts prior to the planned invasion with firms that half of Team Bush used to work for.
I would have hoped he would have left Saddam alone for the time being. Nothing, absolutely nothing, about Iraq signaled a clear & present danger to America or Amricans abroad. Scott Ritter, the IAEA, Hans Blix and common sense was fully vetted by the inspectors quitting & going home, saying that there were no WMD's. Containment worked, Saddam was not then nor now a threat.
The Context on Kerry's protest days wish on internationalist policy:
- may none of us have to account for the s**t we slung in our twenties, before we even remotely started on our real jobs, famalies &relationships
- the man just came back from the front & having friends die over a war predicated on unilateral hubris.....I can see why he'd say that, his own Congress & President didn't self check like they were suppose to, so an outside check sounded preeeeeety good to him , I'd bet.


I'm just saying that his somewhat admirable pacifist tendencies are going to get in the way of some aggressive actions that will need to be taken if America is to continue its prosperity and security through this century.

That's only true if America continues in a PNAC global hegemony initiative; then yes, we will have to fight a never ending string of wars just to stay in place, much less advance.


With that fear gone, there is little doubt in my mind that Bush 41 would have made his move on Saddam even if the world had told him to slag off.

Of course, his was already a failed presidency at that point, as was his son's prior to 9/11/01. An invitation for Iraq to take Kuwait was preactically hand ingraved by the Bush team in 1990.


My point is that there is growing movement towards China/Russia's side in a part of the world strategically vital to the US, and one of those countries is hosting an unpopular revolutionary group in a neighboring nation.

You know why? China & Russia are doing it the old fashion way: they are investing in those countries and establishing legitimate trade. The word 'legitimate' means legal, but does not speak to the reality: it's a sweet heart deal where money is being thrown at Latin America, with the only tangible return for China/Russia is influence.
That's how America used to do it...what happened? Well, we established it, handed it off to corporation to proctor, it turned to a rape and here we are. Now, our "influence" is being the muscle behind Chevron & protecting their pielines or squashing peasant uprisings because Monsanto spayed their field & their kids have deformities.


In a perfect world we'd know that the UN would never tollerate manipulation of Latin-American politics designed to threaten our strategic position, but since we don't have that luxury we are going to find ourselves needing to take aggressive action with or without the UN's say-so, probably including helping Columbia with FARC and possibly in the future having to militarily enforce the neutrality of the Panama Canal. I don't think Kerry is the man to do that.

Interpretation. I see Kerry as someone who can react to a bad situation & turn it advantageous. Bush, on the other hand, as Texas Gov. & American president, took something viable & left it worse than he found it.


You show me the ideal candidate and I'll show you a far less cynical and less republican vagabond.

Show me one too! I'll tell you this: that person will show themselves in the next 4 years, and it won't be the genteel & complacent whisper on the wind you're talking about. With the economic, environmental, social & international disasters as we are to endure under this CABAL over the next 4 years, that leader better be able to piss fire & crap sparks.



posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 10:08 PM
link   
If we weighed this today, what would you say the percentage is?

I think its somewhere around 60/40



posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 10:27 PM
link   
I tell you Dg with the way things are now and the true colors of the Republican party showing up I will have to agree with you.



posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bout Time
"The Republicans are 95 percent corrupt and the Democrats are 75 percent corrupt".


I didnt know you could have a ratio of curruption to non-curruption.

where again did u get this statsistic?



posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 10:42 PM
link   


Republicans are 95% Corrupt, Democrats are 75% Corrupt


Which is exaclty why im part of the green party



posted on Apr, 1 2005 @ 06:02 AM
link   
I'm going to explain my perspective on this because I've heard a lot of theories on this liberal, that ultra-conservative way, etc. Percentages on which is better, etc.

When in reality it's primarily all an economic strategy differences.

Here's a breakdown as I see it, you can add your take if you like.



Republican Idealogy: (better)
People in general should be independent, carrying their own weight, and be personally responsible. People therefore choose to be what they are for the most part and should be left alone. As individuals we realize people need help, but by helping others you drag yourself down.

Democrat Idealology: (not bad, but can get bad)
People in general should be independent, carrying their own weight, and be personally responsible but if need help, will recieve it from the government as a pooled taxpayer contribution to society.

Republicans on Economics: (restrictive)
Trickle down economics works best. When the wealthy get money they create companies, build big things like boats and ships, and create a lot of jobs. This trickle down effect is good for the economy.

Democrats on Economics: (better because it's more flexible, like a checks & balances for companies)
Trickle down economics works sometimes, but is ineffective when the rich don't want to spend or hire. Then trickle up economics is needed through government intervention and job stimulation.

Republicans on Social Issues: (more stable)
For the most part people are free to do what they like, but at the same time should uphold not only the law but the values this country was built on.


Democrats on Social Issues: (more modern and flexible, unstable)
For the most part people are free to do what they like, but at the same time should uphold not only the law but the social rights of others in the present.

* neither are really a big deal to me from this general perspective.


-----

Republicans on Taxation/Social Responsibility: (what I personally prefer)
Why punish ambition, productivity, a driven effort, creativity, and talent with higher taxation. This encourages jobs to go overseas based on pure logic. There is no conspiracy, everyone does what is in their best interest. You can't save everyone, and shouldn't because you'll just hurt yourself. Better to save yourself and the ones you care the most about.


Democrats on Taxation/Social Responsibility: (good to a point)
Why punish the poor and middle class who are already suffering so the rich can get richer at their expense. The rich should be socially responsible by making an effort to look out for the poor, homeless, and sick.

*Big Spending/Reaganomics: both Republican and Democrats now

------------------------

Now to say which one is good, evil, better or worst, I add, depends on the current economic situation. At one point in time you may need one, at another time another.

For the record, I consider myself more of a Republican in idealology. But the last election, I favored Kerry and before that, I favored Bush.

Fool me once.....



posted on Apr, 1 2005 @ 06:08 AM
link   
I hate typing one liners but seeing that this really isn't conspiracy, shouldn't this be on PTS? Bout time, why did you decide to place this on ATS. PTS needs threads like this, that's its sole purpose.



posted on Apr, 2 2005 @ 02:36 PM
link   
The only way to get the coporate contributors out of goverment, is to get rid of the Lobbyist. How would you do this persay? By allowing anybody that wants to talk about the news in areas give free air-time to it's candidates. Local news stations would give time for debates for congressman in their area. Giving equal amounts of time to candidates would make it so congressman wouldn't have to raise $10,000 a day just to get re-elected, and really allow them to get down to the issues that affect you and me.



posted on Apr, 2 2005 @ 10:36 PM
link   
Quote: "Republicans have no guts; have you ever seen such a bunch of 'yes men' as assembled now? Snake oil salesmen to the last. By your statement you're one of those lost souls who thinks that Iraq had something to do with the US being 'attacked' !?!"

Good Job "Bout Time"! I Agree with your first Post as well! Thanks for starting the Thread! America is nothing less that Feudalist Medieval Europe at Heart!

[edit on 2-4-2005 by Seraphim_Serpente]



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 03:19 AM
link   
I don't think you can get lobbyists out. There is no incentive for them to quit. You have to get rid of the incentive first.

On the other side, I think your best bet at getting the politicians to be more responsive about real concerns is to find Americans that actually care about anything and put them on television.


Could you imagine if someone like say Michael Moore turned all his money around on his books into a television station? Offering news, documentaries, interviews with politicians, etc.

Eventually that is bound to occur. Maybe the David Icke channel?



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 09:16 AM
link   
I think both parties have a membership ripe with corruption. Power tends to corrupt, remember?

Bush got lots of votes because folks voted against Kerry. There's lots Bush does I am against, even though I voted "for" him.

I think the bottom line is that the politicians are swayed by corporate interests and lobbyists of various flavors. Probably always been that way.

Try reading Politically Incorrect Guide to American History History they DIDN'T teach us in school. From a conservative slant, but not a republican slant.



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 06:55 PM
link   
The statements made by the one that started this thread sound right on to me



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 06:58 PM
link   
My view is that it doesn't matter whether or not you are Republican, Democrat, or Green Party. If a person is a politician they are almost certainly 100% corrupt.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join