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.

 

Monster that is killing america

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2005 @ 09:56 AM
link   
www.freedomradio.us...

This is kind of old but i think it is as valid today as ever,
enjoy.




posted on May, 26 2005 @ 10:13 AM
link   
Oh boy, what a pile of senseless turd this "article" is.



A democratic nation cannot stand; it will always fall, because the minute the population sees that it can receive aid, money, social programs – government handouts – it will elect new officials to meet their greed, and government will always hand it out.


This is both stupid and absurd. First, we know of many democratic nations (most of Europe, really) with a really long history and in no danger of "falling". Second, the inclination of the statement is anti-democratic in nature - "look out for democracy, it's going to be our doom". Sounds a bit fascist, actually.

Now on to this pearl:


One example is the greed of government subsidies in the private industry. Many take advantage of the government's willingness to get involved in the private sector, but in doing so, they compromise the future of capitalism.


Capitalism is not the end in itself, as the nutty author of this "article" seems to imply. I thought that our founding fathers procalimed we should be allowed the pursuit of happiness. Is it in the Preamble of the Constitution? Somebody correct me. Anyhow, here's what our direct competition does when it comes to subsidies, from one of the sources I found:



Government expenditures to assist cotton growers in China (Mainland) are estimated at $1.2 billion in 2001/02 and $750 million in 2002/03.

Cotton growers in Spain and Greece are offered assistance through the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Payments under the CAP amounted to $979 million in 2001/02 and are expected to decline to $957 million in 2002/03.

The government of Egypt provided $23 million a year to cotton growers during the last two seasons. In 2002/03, the government budgeted $33 million to help finance the difference between market prices and prices paid to producers.

The Government of Turkey provides direct support payments totaling $59 million in 2001/02 and $57 million 2002/03.

Support by the Government of Mexico to cotton growers is estimated at $18 million in 2001/02 and $7 million in 2002/03.


It's a fierce competetive war out there. If we would (God forbid) follow the "logic" in the "article", we should let our farmers starve to death (because the "article" also prohibits food stamps and welfrare) and watch China and Mexico taking over. Typical destructive thinking of a right-wing nut.

All the garlic in local stores here in my NY locality is from China. The local garlic industry has been destroyed. Cool, huh? Well, looks like the NY garlic growers didn't get a subsidy and went under. I don't even have a choice of buying American garlic. And I like garlic, so screw it, I'm gonna buy that clove.


The originator of this thread utterly enjoys any material, regardless of how crappy it is, which purports to be anti-liberal. In it, the liberals are simply defined as anything anti-American.

Looks like it's 1933 and we are in Germany.



[edit on 26-5-2005 by Aelita]

[edit on 26-5-2005 by Aelita]



posted on May, 26 2005 @ 10:37 AM
link   
*shudder* What a grisly article.

"When socialism and liberalism infect government, no question is brought up about whether the government has the right or resources to carry out a socialist program"

Sounds a bit like the General in Dr. Strangelove. All in all it looks like the usual self-destructive nonsense. Yeah, the theme of don't help those who can't help themselves, noble sentiment indeed. Although he mentioned "charity" at the end of the article, it seems pretty clear that the author has a very strange interpretation of it.



posted on May, 26 2005 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aelita
Oh boy, what a pile of senseless turd this "article" is.



A democratic nation cannot stand; it will always fall, because the minute the population sees that it can receive aid, money, social programs – government handouts – it will elect new officials to meet their greed, and government will always hand it out.


This is both stupid and absurd. First, we know of many democratic nations (most of Europe, really) with a really long history and in no danger of "falling". Second, the inclination of the statement is anti-democratic in nature - "look out for democracy, it's going to be our doom". Sounds a bit fascist, actually.

Now on to this pearl:


One example is the greed of government subsidies in the private industry. Many take advantage of the government's willingness to get involved in the private sector, but in doing so, they compromise the future of capitalism.


Capitalism is not the end in itself, as the nutty author of this "article" seems to imply. I thought that our founding fathers procalimed we should be allowed the pursuit of happiness. Is it in the Preamble of the Constitution? Somebody correct me. Anyhow, here's what our direct competition does when it comes to subsidies, from one of the sources I found:



Government expenditures to assist cotton growers in China (Mainland) are estimated at $1.2 billion in 2001/02 and $750 million in 2002/03.

Cotton growers in Spain and Greece are offered assistance through the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Payments under the CAP amounted to $979 million in 2001/02 and are expected to decline to $957 million in 2002/03.

The government of Egypt provided $23 million a year to cotton growers during the last two seasons. In 2002/03, the government budgeted $33 million to help finance the difference between market prices and prices paid to producers.

The Government of Turkey provides direct support payments totaling $59 million in 2001/02 and $57 million 2002/03.

Support by the Government of Mexico to cotton growers is estimated at $18 million in 2001/02 and $7 million in 2002/03.


It's a fierce competetive war out there. If we would (God forbid) follow the "logic" in the "article", we should let our farmers starve to death (because the "article" also prohibits food stamps and welfrare) and watch China and Mexico taking over. Typical destructive thinking of a right-wing nut.

All the garlic in local stores here in my NY locality is from China. The local garlic industry has been destroyed. Cool, huh? Well, looks like the NY garlic growers didn't get a subsidy and went under. I don't even have a choice of buying American garlic. And I like garlic, so screw it, I'm gonna buy that clove.


The originator of this thread utterly enjoys any material, regardless of how crappy it is, which purports to be anti-liberal. In it, the liberals are simply defined as anything anti-American.

Looks like it's 1933 and we are in Germany.



[edit on 26-5-2005 by Aelita]


[edit on 26-5-2005 by Aelita]


The article is implying that socialism causes the decay of capitalism by satisfying the needs of the citizen without that citizen being productive.
by this end, the society will eventually fall as less and less are willing to support the country.

In the USA we pay farmers NOT TO PRODUCE. they are payed by the government not to use the land. tax money subsidises thier land and the do not feel a need to be productive.

Aelita do yourself a favor and read bastiat.



posted on May, 26 2005 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aelita
. . . First, we know of many democratic nations (most of Europe, really) with a really long history and in no danger of "falling". . . .


Ha! Those nations with "really long history" have a history of revolutions and coup detats.

Name a Democratic nation in Europe whose government is older than that of the USA.

The political map of Europe was redrawn in 1815, once Napoleon was finally disposed of.

It was redrawn again in 1848, when revolutions swept across Europe, as workers demanded more and more from their governments, and demanded more "democracy" than the leaders were willing to grant.

Basically, USA is quite old as democracies go.

Switzerland? They have been independent of France since . . . 1815, and reorganized again in 1848. The same with Holland and the rest of continental Europe.

What about Scandinavia, maybe? Norway's government was reorganized after WWII. Sweden was basically a fascist state until 1809; it's had 3 constitutions since that time, but I guess you could claim that Sweden is older than Switzerland by a couple of years. Finland was a Duchy of Russia until basically 1917, so it's not exactly a role model of democracy, especially when you remember that they allied themselves with Nazi Germany during WWII.

That pretty much leaves England, if you want to start from the "Glorious Revolution of 1688. Of course if you want to talk about a democracy where most adult males had the right to vote, that didn't really happen in England until the destruction of the manoral system and the repeal of most of the corn laws in the 1880's - 1910 or so. By then, even ex-slaves had been voting in America for a generation or two.

And I don't think Great Britain is "many nations," unless you are alluding to the fact that Scotland and northern Ireland are subject territories, and still don't enjoy fully equal status in GB with England and Wales. . .

But then, the fun of the internet is you get to make bland statements about the glories and fruits of democracy and not expect to be challenged about them.

The internet is kind of like the Rio Grande in flood stage: A mile wide and an inch deep.



posted on May, 26 2005 @ 12:33 PM
link   
removed by author

[edit on 5/26/2005 by centurion1211]



posted on May, 26 2005 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aelita
Oh boy, what a pile of senseless turd this "article" is.




One example is the greed of government subsidies in the private industry. Many take advantage of the government's willingness to get involved in the private sector, but in doing so, they compromise the future of capitalism.


Capitalism is not the end in itself, as the nutty author of this "article" seems to imply.

[edit on 26-5-2005 by Aelita]


Capitalism is simply the belief in "capital," the idea that people can own property.

And Jefferson saw capitalism as an end in itself. His original Declaration of Independence said "life, liberty and property." The other signatories thought that sounded like a guarantee of land, and so they changed it to "the pursuit of happiness."

Without the right to own things, the other rights become useless.



posted on May, 26 2005 @ 01:35 PM
link   
Since women and blacks didn't always have the right to vote, does that mean our own democracy didn't start until the 1900's?...?...?



posted on May, 26 2005 @ 03:44 PM
link   
Ok, so, since women and blacks weren't able to vote all the time all over the country until the 1970s, so America is only 30 years old. So, how many democratic countries in Europe are older then 30 years?



posted on May, 28 2005 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by James the Lesser
Ok, so, since women and blacks weren't able to vote all the time all over the country until the 1970s, so America is only 30 years old. So, how many democratic countries in Europe are older then 30 years?


lol um... Poland? You made a great point.

Ya'll know what? We would not be a free country today without liberalism! Who do you think thought of the Magna-Carta, the separation of church and state, the constitution, the fact that every person needs to be created equal, the grant of women to vote, the rights for people of different races and religons, new ideas, changing things when the old way is not working, and so on and so on. I think it's unbeliveable when people say that liberals destroy the world. Well without our libs, we would be living in a world of absolute monarchy!!




top topics



 
0

log in

join