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.

 

OP/ED: Bushkrieg: Shock and Awe in America

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 10:46 PM
link   
Oh btw soficrow.... i am not telling you to stop posting...you can do whatever you want....but if you really want a better life, there are better ways to do it within the law, that's what's great about this country, and why so many people from all over the world come here.




posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 10:58 PM
link   
Soficrow writes:
“The USA is still a democracy. The president and representatives of Congress and the Senate are still accountable to the American people. It's time to speak up and hold them all responsible.”

Are we still a democracy?
How can we hold elected officials accountable if we do not posses auditable methods of tabulating of our votes? New legal barriers to getting a third party on the ballot are an ongoing obstruction project of the states.

Surely this is a bipartisan issue but our representatives could muster only two to defend our right to vote. Having a healthy opposition makes it possible to point and say, “Look here we have a dissenter which is proof of freedom.” If control of a small margin of the vote via fraudulent means is all that is required to win election it doesn’t matter how dissenters vote. For a while dissent actually helps fascists look legitimate. The photos of the “free speech zones” convinced me that something is terribly wrong here. Isn’t the whole country a free speech zone? The right of the people to peaceably assemble is not a partisan issue. Or at least it shouldn’t be. I don’t oppose corporations and capitalism. I just don’t think a corporation is an individual and therefore it does not have a right to make contributions to a candidate’s campaign. “In the United States, large corporations drown out citizen voices with their massive political contributions, and leverage their donations into effective control over BOTH major political parties.” --Ralph Nader

But here is hope however dreary:
“When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall -- think of it, ALWAYS.” - Mohandas K. Gandhi



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 11:26 PM
link   
Those that wish there to be no public programs and a complete sellout of the United States will absolutely get their wish. This has been the case with the country for quite some time now. Just that now its going at an even faster clip. I just wonder what these people who wish for total economic freedom will think when everything concerning this land is owned by foreign parties or governments? Warren Buffet recently decried this state of affairs which can be read about here.

How can you survive in an ownership society if you don't own anything and those that allegedly represent you have allowed everything that could be owned to be sold out from underneath your feet?

[edit on 6-3-2005 by Frith]



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 12:55 AM
link   
Knowing the limits of any conceived republic, I think founding father John Adams summed it up nicely:
"In every society where property exists there will ever be a struggle between rich and poor.Mixed in one assembly, equal laws can never be expected; they will either be made by the members to plunder the few who are rich, or by the influential to fleece the many who are poor."

Currently in the US, IMHO the pendulum has certainly swung (& frozen) on the latter. I think any well-intentioned idealistic upcoming solon of today with dreams of making improvements within the system quickly falls victim and is compromised by the lures of special interest,sadly becoming part of the systemic problem instead of fighting it due to the constant meeting of financial demands of a re-election campaign.Since it usually takes more than one term
to make a real lasting difference.

For the sake of simplicity I submit the following political equations to see what direction we currently might be heading toward:

Democracy + Private Ownership = Capitalism
Democracy + Public Ownership = Socialism
Dictatorship + Private Ownership = Fascism
Dictatorship + Public Ownership = Communism

along with spectrum extremes like Laissez-Faire & Anarchism considered as well.

I think the sublime concept of liberty & justice for all has denigrated into bribery & tough luck for all (of us) by our current leaders,where personal greed & lust for power have surmounted integrity and the championing of the peoples interests they supposedly represent.

A simple examination can determine a lot of the consequential bills that are currently racing through Congress and what positive/negative impact they have on us individually as well as if they truly are in our best interest as a fair nation:

What benefits the many
What benefits the few
What benefits me
What benefits you

I for one,refuse to wear a blindfold like some conformist stooge praising the status quo with so many alarming issues currently being decided affecting our cherished freedoms.How far are corporate laws claiming intellectual property or trade secrets going to monopolize the future of American ingenuity: impeding progress & stifling fruitful competition?One things for certain:more laws = less freedom.

To those satisfied with the current quality of leadership I'll finish with a quote from Nobel Laureate Saul Bellow:

"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep"



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 01:26 AM
link   
hmm what some people don't get is that corporations aren't democracies..... and the megacorporations keep owning and buying more and more and also they can buy more influence with the politicians in washington than any of you ever could... that's not a democracy to me.

A lot of problems could be solved with really tough conflict of interest laws and the banning of corporations to contribute campaign funds and also a small limit on how much one person can contribute to a campaign also.

I think this could make things a little better in washington

thanks,
drfunk



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phoenix

OIMD, Muaddib and Grady probly smelled the same thing I did.


Occurs you do you all cut by the same material, keep the poor poorer, give the government to the corporations and profiteers, keep the people oppress, and lets praise the lord and Saviour.

Yes you are all the same.



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by drfunk
hmm what some people don't get is that corporations aren't democracies..... and the megacorporations keep owning and buying more and more and also they can buy more influence with the politicians in washington than any of you ever could... that's not a democracy to me.





They also don't get that these corporations aren't "American." Corporations have no loyalties - national or otherwise. They follow the money. Period.






A lot of problems could be solved with really tough conflict of interest laws and the banning of corporations to contribute campaign funds and also a small limit on how much one person can contribute to a campaign also.





Excellent suggestions.


Thank you.


.



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 08:32 AM
link   
I wish all Americans could attack Canada and Canadian politicians the way soficrow attacks America and our President.



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 08:33 AM
link   
Let’s see how the administration is helping the struggling Americans, Bush in one of his speeches called American “the land of the second chance” for millions of families.

Reality said that so far the laws protecting the corporate work combine with budget cuts, social security reform and the new bankruptcy legislation is going to made some happy but not the struggling american..

The truth is that our economy the job market is making the hard working american to look at the future as a very unstable situation that they have not control over.

Statistics shows that most of the bankruptcy in the US is do to lost of jobs, sickness or major expenditures, after all not every American can afford to pay for medical insurance.



In 2001, 1.458 million American families filed for bankruptcy. To investigate medical contributors to bankruptcy, we surveyed 1,771 personal bankruptcy filers in five federal courts and subsequently completed in-depth interviews with 931 of them. About half cited medical causes, which indicates that 1.9–2.2 million Americans (filers plus dependents) experienced medical bankruptcy.


content.healthaffairs.org...

Occurs, we have gambling, addiction and other problems involve on cause for bankruptcy.

Bankruptcy can affect anybody from any parts of life, but now we have a problem our senior citizens are becoming a fastest group filling for bankruptcy.



NUMBER OF SENIOR CITIZENS FILING BANKRUPTCY TRIPLES

According to the American Bankruptcy Institute, the seniors who filed for bankruptcy protection last year had nearly $36,000 in credit card debt, compared to $18,000 for those filers between ages 40 and 49. And it is truly frightening to learn that not only has the number of Americans over age 55 who seek credit counseling grown substantially, but the number of those over age 75 seeking such help is growing even faster.



www.bankruptcyfinder.com...

Funny that Sofi brings very good informative threads to help members in this forums understand what is going on in our country, and to see reality, but all she gets is a few that so far I has seen nothing good coming from them but target her threads, perhaps if some denied ignorance and post good information on how she is wrong we may have some good debates.



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
I wish all Americans could attack Canada and Canadian politicians the way soficrow attacks America and our President.


She can't help it, cut her some slack. She's really "Mrs. John Kerry".

I'd be pissed off too................



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043

Funny that Sofi brings very good informative threads to help members in this forums understand what is going on in our country, and to see reality, but all she gets is a few that so far I has seen nothing good coming from them but target her threads, perhaps if some denied ignorance and post good information on how she is wrong we may have some good debates.


Well put Marg.

Muadibb is the only person even attempting to show anything even remotly close to a debatable case, and for that he should be comended. However, the rest of the attacks are kind of childish..........Doc



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 08:41 AM
link   
Actually I have to give credit to muaddib he is after all a great poster even if I disagree with some of his post, he does contribute to threads always.



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 08:44 AM
link   
Has anyone ever considered that, by forcing the poor to think more about what they spend thier money on this might actually be good for them?
Or that the current tax, or progressive tax, is unfair?
Should we really be taxing people more simply becuase they are more successful? Isn't that economic discrimination?



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331

Should we really be taxing people more simply becuase they are more successful? Isn't that economic discrimination?


No, we should be taxing those who cant afford it less, so they can still live a decent life. Not everyone brings home 50K+ a year.



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kidfinger
However, the rest of the attacks are kind of childish..........Doc


Sofi does a fabulous job and she knows I love her. Just her politics are a bit 'whacked", or did she tell me that..................


[edit on 7-3-2005 by DrHoracid]



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kidfinger

Originally posted by mwm1331

Should we really be taxing people more simply becuase they are more successful? Isn't that economic discrimination?


No, we should be taxing those who cant afford it less, so they can still live a decent life. Not everyone brings home 50K+ a year.


S then why not a single tax rate based on what the poor can afford?
The simple fact is we have one standard for one group and a different standard for another group, isn't that the definition of discrimination?



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331
Has anyone ever considered that, by forcing the poor to think more about what they spend thier money on this might actually be good for them?


That is exactly what the corporations don't want. They want the people to spend, spend, spend and will do anything to get them to do that. Just check out the links from the beginning of this thread.


Originally posted by soficrow
Also see:

1. Beyond Religion: Controlling the Masses
ATS: Neuro-Marketing: Straight to the Brain
Neuromarketing: Straight to the Brain
Playing with Your Mind
The Economist: Inside the Mind of the Consumer
Request for Senate Commerce Committee to Investigate Neuromarketing
Neuromarketing and Political Campaigns


People are easily influenced by marketing campaings and this has been going on since the early 20th century when the tobacco companies got hundreds of millions of people to take up smoking as a habit.



Or that the current tax, or progressive tax, is unfair?
Should we really be taxing people more simply becuase they are more successful? Isn't that economic discrimination?


No it's not. It's making sure that poorer people can live on acceptable standards, and that their children can actually get an education.



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331

S then why not a single tax rate based on what the poor can afford?
The simple fact is we have one standard for one group and a different standard for another group, isn't that the definition of discrimination?


Look, I am all for fairness and equality, but if we did that, then Our government wont have enough cash to function properly. You are basically asking why the rich should be punished for being rich. Well, my argument to that is why should the poor be punished for being poor?



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 09:01 AM
link   
one problem......
the "poor" can be working 40-50 hours a week, and still not be able to afford to live without the government handouts..so any taxes they are paying is obviously given to them by way of our taxes to begin with......can we also have a special tax set up for the corporate world that will fund these programs fir the working poor? or hey better yet, admit that $6-$7 dollars an hours isn't a fair wage, and rise the minimum to something that will at least keep them alive?



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 09:03 AM
link   
But the problem kidfinger is that the goverment couldn't afford to both enact a fair tax and keep its social services.
However get rid of medicare, medicad, welfare, and Social security and the gov could.
In that light it is plain that the government is penalising the rich in order to support the poor.

Persoannly I feel a consumption tax, if we also get rid of income tax, is the smartest option.
One of the bggest reasons the poor are poor is becuase they waste what little money they do have on junk. DVD's CD's TV stereo's, Computer games, the local bar, the hot nght spot etc. A consumption tax would force them to save thier money, while at the same time ensuring that we dont unfarly penalise those who create the jobs.




top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join