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.

 

Being a Republican or Democrat is irrelevant.

page: 1
21
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:
+6 more 
posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 07:01 PM
link   
I was reading posts on the "FOX News caught using NLP Neuro-linguistic programming" thread. It seems that a lot people still believe that this is a battle between the "left" and the "right", which couldn't be farther from the truth. It does not matter whether you consider yourself to be a "Republican" or a "Democrat" because both parties are only here to bring about the New World Order.

Our world leaders here in America can use the two-party battle to make us believe that we actually have a choice in any given election. When in reality you are only supporting a candidate that was previously chosen by Bilderberg or the CFR.

If the American people would STOP splitting themselves up into these two categories, and if we actually started to WORK TOGETHER (stand united?); then we could stop the plans of the world elite.

Remember, it doesn't matter if you vote for Mcain or Obama, they work for the same people. As long as you belive that every problem in America is an issue of the "left" vs. the "right" then we as a people will never be 100% free.

Let us not forget who the enemy is:
www.youtube.com...

"When we are successful, and we will be..."

[edit on 8/19/2008 by dalan.]

[edit on 8/19/2008 by dalan.]




posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 08:24 PM
link   
Well, it looks like you and I are on the same page - or in the same boat. Too bad we can't get anyone else to come on board.

My post on this same subject is in my signature: "Deny Politics."

Isn't it silly how so many people on a conspiracy site can get so angry about something that doesn't matter?

Do you think there's anything we can do about it, or do you think it's too late?



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Heike
 


The only thing that I have been able to think of doing is educating as many people as possible.

Other than that, I wouldn't know how to go about stopping the NWO. There seem to be so many factors that go into our politics...


I would start by trying to un-privatize the Federal Reserve, and bring back the gold standard.

I would abolish the CFR, and pass legislation to make it illegal for Bilderberg to meet here in the States (isn't it illegal already? Or is it only a crime for our leaders to attend secret meetings with foreign leaders?).

But organizing citizens is extremely difficult...

[edit on 8/19/2008 by dalan.]



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 09:28 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by pluckynoonez
 





Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 20-8-2008 by elevatedone]



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by dalan.
The only thing that I have been able to think of doing is educating as many people as possible.


I suppose that is what we are trying to do here on ATS, at least in part. Unfortunately most people don't seem to want to believe it.


I would start by trying to un-privatize the Federal Reserve, and bring back the gold standard.


It's hard to know where to start. Restore the constitution? End the "emergency" martial law? Dismantle the Federal Reserve? They are all things that need to be done, but it's likely we can't do them all at once .. and where to start?

Of course, the first problem is always convincing enough people of the reality of these problems in order to accomplish anything .. so we're back to education! How can we bring these facts to more people in such a way that they'll take them seriously?



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 08:39 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 08:51 AM
link   
As an outsider looking in I would suggest that it is the general perception outside the US that there is very little difference between the Republican and Democratic parties.
They seem to be just slightly different shades of blue.
Very few could be described as Liberal or Left wing by our standards.

The US is by no means alone in this; here in the UK increasingly there is very little difference between the two major parties, Labour and Conservative. There is a marked convergence of policies and marketing etc.

I firmly believe party politics is failing us and there is urgent need for real electoral and parliamentary reform if we are to achieve true democracy.

None of us live in true democratic states.

[edit on 20/8/08 by Freeborn]



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 01:13 PM
link   
I agree that there is not much difference in the two parties any longer. But what would you have us do? To refuse to vote is to role over and play dead, something I refuse to do. I choose, instead, to look at the candidates and decide which one come under the standards I feel would make the better president.
I also agree that we need major economic reforms in this country. Our currency needs to be tagged to gold and silver, and perhaps another precious metal, but what will this do to our economy? Such a change can't just take place over night can it?
I believe we should take back our constitution, that we should expect our legislators to spend a limited amount of time in office, and then return to their chosen profession. (Unfortunately, most of those are going to be practicing law, which will lead to more friviolous lawsuits)
I'm not sure about doing away with the Fed altogether, but I do believe the powers should be severly limited.
Last, but certainly not least, we need to completely redo the tax laws, and get rid of the KGB(I mean the IRS).
What are the chances of this happening? Unfortunately, I think they are extremely slim, though I won't say zero. There is always a chance that people will rise up and force the government to return to what our founding fathers intended it to be.



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by kettlebellysmith
 


I am not saying not to vote, I was simply saying that our administrations are using the mind set of "us" vs. "them" or "left" vs. "right" in their favor.

That way America is not united. If we dropped our petty issues like abortion, gay rights, stem cell research, ect... and instead united ourselves to protect the Constitution and Bill of Rights, then we could forever keep our civil liberties.

But really, what is the point in voting when both McCain and Obama work for the same puppet masters?



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 01:25 PM
link   
I COMPLETELY Agree.. Ive said this for years...

this is no different than the Bloods and the Crips..


they are only a year or 2 aways from throwing up gang signs with pasty
white manicured hands..

and anyway... REGARDLESS of Political affiliation.. they push their own
dammed agenda anyway..



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 01:30 PM
link   
There are some similarities in terms of some corporate financing, however both stand on two entirely differing platforms and would install two completely different cabinets made up of entirely different people with sharply contrasted ideologies, and thus would result in different policies both abroad and domestic. I think with McCain you will see a bunch of recycles held over from Bush II, Bush I, Reagan etc...even further back, and younger Dem's, but probably some holdovers from the Clinton years for the other camp.

To say that both hold a 100% allegiance to some NWO types however is a bit of stretch. Particularly with lack of hard evidence. Now if you were to say from more of a populist standpoint that they don't appear to represent the interests of the poor, lower middle class, and workers of America, I could crawl in bed with you and completely agree, because I see quite a bit of evidence that both of these candidates, and indeed most of our Presidents in American history have represented the interests of the elites rather than "we the people". Despite the popularity of the NWO belief system on ATS, I think it's a bit of a red haring and serves to distract us from reality and that is between the haves and have nots and the widening gap that seperates these two...and if your not at least in the upper 10% and definitely in the 1% these guys at the top, Dem or Rep, just pay the lower classes lip service and send us a few bones to chew on from time to time to keep us passive and content.

In the meantime we need the best manager possible. The economy is in chambles and the present policies are not getting us out of the mess, they are digging the hole deeper. At least both sides are finally talking about energy however. Both continue to avoid possibilities however that would remove huge amounts of people off of the grid...isn't that interesting? Both are pro grid candidates!

Please, may I recomend: "A People's History of the United States, 1492 to Present" by Dr. Howard Zinn.


[edit on 21-8-2008 by skyshow]

[edit on 21-8-2008 by skyshow]



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by kettlebellysmith
I agree that there is not much difference in the two parties any longer. But what would you have us do? To refuse to vote is to role over and play dead, something I refuse to do. I choose, instead, to look at the candidates and decide which one come under the standards I feel would make the better president.


What a lot of people seem to be mislead by is the fact that if you feel you HAVE to vote then you have to vote for one of the two (possibly three) candidates that are on the ballot. It is entirely possible to write a candidate of your choosing in. That is what I plan on doing this year. I absolutely refuse to vote for either of them. I loathe the fact that it seems like people are starting to vote against the other guy instead of for the person they want. Does that make sense?

I don't want to vote for either because I despise McCain but that's not going to make me vote for Obama because, even though I don't dislike him as much as McCain, I don't think he's good for the country, especially in our current state of affairs, either.

In response to the OP's post: I couldn't agree more. We've become so incredibly polarized. It seems to have gotten to a point where if your a Republican you absolutely cannot agree with a single thing a democrat has to say and vice versa. If you do agree with one side or the other people automatically assume your for that side.

Like if I agree with something McCaim says people will assume I'm republican. If I agree with something Obama says, they assume I'm democrat. When in fact I'm neither. I just don't have so much pride that I can't bring myself to admit I agree with someone I don't usually agree with.

I'm so tired of one side or the other completely shooting down anything at all the other has to say. Like it's a prerequisite or a requirement to be able to call yourself a true democrat or a republican.

Another thing that has started to really get to me is that people would rather spend their energy bashing someone they don't like instead of pointing out what they DO like about their candidate. Usually when i see this it makes me think they really don't know why they like their candidate.

Here's where it needs to start. Find things we can ALL agree on:

Health care for all
Retirement savings
Cutting back pollution in all forms
Fiscal responsibility
Fair taxes
National security
Energy comprehension

Now, I'm not naive in the fact that both parties have two completely different ways to solve the issues above, but my point is is that everyone can at least agree that these are things that are issues that need to be fixed. It's a matter of finding common ground. Not being stubborn. Not catering to the special interest lining your pockets.

For example, I'd be willing to say that offshore drilling should be implemented. Just not to the extent that they want. And in return, a comprehensive plan needs to be brought to the table to focus strongly on finding alternative renewable energy.

What's funny is that was part of the Paris Hilton rebuttal ad against John McCain. Sadly, she made a heck of a lot more sense than either of those two. It's okay to give way a little in order to solve a problem. You may not get everything you want but at least it's a step forward and you can also look at it as your not giving the other side everything they want either.



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by skyshow
 


I will be sure to pick up a copy of the book you mentioned.

My biggest issue was the fact that Republicans had brought forth the FISA Bill, which is a direct breach of our Constitution, and Obama voted for it.

Then he stated that the reason behind why he voted for it is because we have to "compromise". Which would point out that Obama believes that their are actually terrorists in the Middle East and that giving up freedom for security is a good thing.

Either that, or Obama knows that terrorism is a lie and he is only playing the game.

I don't feel i even need to mention McCain, because like you said, he would be the next Bush.

But then again so would Obama.



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by dalan.
 


It's hard to disagree with you dalan. I think you will really enjoy that book. I'd have to say it's one of the best reads I have ever had ever. I've loaned it out several times and it has sparked many a good discussions.

One thing he points out is how the electoral college and delegate system weeds out third party movements. In polysci classes back in college we talked about how the parties "co-opt" various movements and so this tends to wipe out third party movements. Finally the way the candidates have to pander to the mean, that is move centrist to pick up votes seems to squelch out any twinkle of an idea of something other than the norm to where they begin to look so much alike you think you're drunk!

Yeah, and then the idea of the "perfect candidate". I don't think there is such a thing...however I am very disappointed and distressed that Obama would have voted for FIFSA. On the other hand I want someone in there with more skills than the average 14 year old, as we saw last week that McCain just learned how to Google, and has used the internet (with some assistance) for the first time ever. Either way though, I doubt seriously anything regarding movement forward in policies that will benefit "we the people" (not the extreme wealthy landowners) the actual ones doing the work, will happen no matter who is POTUS.

Now, if they could do away with legalized bribery, and get rid of the electoral college, we might begin to see some hint of a blue sky, but until then it's the rich guys in it for the rich guys and everyone else be damned


[edit on 21-8-2008 by skyshow]



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by dalan.
 


Double post....sorry.



[edit on 21-8-2008 by skyshow]



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by skyshow
reply to post by dalan.
 

One thing he points out is how the electoral college and delegate system weeds out third party movements. In polysci classes back in college we talked about how the parties "co-opt" various movements and so this tends to wipe out third party movements. Finally the way the candidates have to pander to the mean, that is move centrist to pick up votes seems to squelch out any twinkle of an idea of something other than the norm to where they begin to look so much alike you think you're drunk!
[edit on 21-8-2008 by skyshow]


So that would be why guys like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich hardly ever get mentioned when they are running?

that is funny because I remember actually thinking to myself earlier today about how we need to get rid of the Electoral College.



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by dalan.
 


well said! let's see if we can get these folks to "wake up" finally...

and as for Ron Paul, well, he IS the best candidate, but it's too bad he and his family are Freemasons... the only good government in my book is the complete absence of one! we really don't need them if our focus is brotherly love, and i'm not talking about the NWO's version of "brotherhood"...


[edit on 21-8-2008 by adrenochrome]



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 03:33 PM
link   
I think that in relation to "left" and "right," it is all irrelevant. There are two groups of people, split equally amongst "left" and "right," those of good faith and those of bad faith. That is where the real war is.

[edit on 21-8-2008 by redled]



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 03:35 PM
link   
Couldnt agree more. Starred. A house divided cannot stand. If you choose sides, you're addicted to the fight, not the outcome. Separation is a myth....to gain ratings and ultimately money.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<<   2 >>

log in

join