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.

 

Liberal Groups Are Undermining Voter ID Laws, Say Conservative Election Experts

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 07:40 AM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 


Under that definition I am conservative

As for the comment on appearance leading Obama to the office regardless of experience:

Look at Bush, ran a couple companies into the ground out of sheer incompetence and there were a whole lot of quotes from people saying they voted for him because 'he's the kind of guy Id like to have a drink with'.




posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 07:46 AM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 



One thing I like about you, Semper, is the amusing way you have of agreeing with me while making it sound for all the world like arguing.


In this nation, at this time, appearance is everything.

Yes. You're talking about the public's perception. I'm talking about what is relevant to the Health of the Republic. Consider this analogy: almost 0% of the public knows what an "option arm tranche downgrade" is. It's not relevant to their perception of the economy. But, it is quite relevant to the well-being and health of the Nation economy, and subsequently relevant to our individual economic situations, each of us.


Let the public know that a certain political ideology has access to the coding of voting machines and you will see a storm the likes of which will eclipse Watergate

Not even close to true. In addition to previously-mentioned benefits of an openly-reviewable process (which the 'coding' you mention implements and documents), look at recent historical evidence, where 'a certain political ideology' had access to potentially modify actual election results:

Documents reveal how Ohio routed 2004 voting data through company that hosted external Bush Administration email accounts



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 07:46 AM
link   
reply to post by lordtyp0
 


Now I will use Wiki as a source.. Take it for what it's worth..


After an unsuccessful run for Congress in 1978, Bush devoted himself to building his business. With help from his uncle, who was then raising funds for Bush's father's campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, Bush was able to attract numerous prominent investors. The company struggled through the early 1980s until the eventual collapse of oil prices in 1986, when it was purchased by the Harken Energy Corporation. Bush received Harken stock, a job as a consultant to the company, and a seat on the company's board of directors.

Bush Bio

Not exactly unsuccessful.. I only wish I was that "Unsuccessful"


Bush used a budget surplus to push through Texas's largest tax-cut ($2 billion).[46] He extended government funding for organizations providing education of the dangers of alcohol and drug use and abuse, and helping to reduce domestic violence.[citation needed]

In 1998, Bush won re-election with a record[35] 69 percent of the vote.[53] He became the first governor in Texas history to be elected to two consecutive four-year terms.[35] For most of Texas history, governors served two-year terms; a constitutional amendment extended those terms to four years starting in 1975.[54] In his second term, Bush promoted faith-based organizations and enjoyed high approval ratings.[35] He proclaimed June 10, 2000 to be Jesus Day in Texas, a day on which he "urge[d] all Texans to answer the call to serve those in need."[55]

Wiki

Semper



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 07:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Ian McLean
 


It is my talent after all!!!


I'll Flame Reply to you when I get back

Gotta run

Semper



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 08:09 AM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 


I wish I were independently wealthy like he was before he was handed his company


Dont forget his performance with owner/managing the.. I think it was Houston Astro's.

Though I am loathe to I need to halt posting for a bit, have some paperwork I need to finish before my double shift is up :/



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 



Yep communism, indeed, is socialism. It's just that not all socialism is communism.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 12:48 PM
link   
The left won't be happy until the voting age is birth and it is legal to use any incentive, up to and including death by blunt-force trauma, to persuade voters to vote their way.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
Yep communism, indeed, is socialism. It's just that not all socialism is communism.


Actually, they're quite different; one is not a sub-set of the other. I think the general definition is that socialism is an attempted intermediate stage to development of communism, in which the State owns and controls the means of production.

The idealogical definitions are meaningless, almost. Especially when considering the huge contrasts, in practice, between all attempts to implement either system (communism or socialism).


I understand the argument that Obama is socialist, and there's a lot of supporting evidence that can back up that point-of-view. But one interesting distinction: a socialist is led by ideology that desires the ultimate elimination of privately-controlled enterprise, in favor of complete government ownership and control. I don't see that as Obama's goal; rather I see the same goal I see in many other contemporary politicians: an almost fascist desire for government domination of the public expression of corporate and free-market activity.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Ian McLean
 


A vary interesting and unique take...

I'm not sure that your distinction as to "Socialism" and Obama's policies is really disparate in any real life scenario.

Semper



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 07:37 PM
link   
One sec while I re-attach my Internet-Arguing-Helmet(tm).

I was thinking on your definition of Liberal and Conservative. It occured to me, that more or less you are saying: Bush, Cheney, Rover and company are the evil Liberals. I know it's a stretch but stay with me




Conservative: Hand Up
Liberal: Hand out


TARP: welfare for the corporate rich. The no-bid contracts to buddies in the form of military and civilian projects-the one that leaps to mind is the obvious and too easy: Haliburton. This all sounds like a Hand Out to me. I am not really certain what "Hand Up" means, as it sounds like a parasitic infestation on the bank accounts of the blue collar people. IE: Money flows from the bottom upwards. Course, using the term 'parasitic infestation' always makes me grin, I'm weird like that.



Conservative: Small Government stays the HECK out of our lives
Liberal: Public dependent on the Government completely


"stay out of lives" like: Trying to define life as starting at conception when the embryo is only a few cells. Like: warrentless wiretaps on Citizens. Like the 'quantico circuit' (A back door into the ATT Internet network that allows the FBI to come into the network and access any server without notice pre- or post activity. Like the entirity of the Patriot Act. Like the privitization of certain intrinsic services (like corrections) that lobby for harsher laws on offenses so they get more money for the longer incarceration. Like removing checks and balances regarding illegal searchs-evidence is now permissible in court that was obtained illegally if the Officer arbitrarily decides there is cause(important constitution note there). It is now so bad that the only recourse people have is the government who is so stacked against them in the form of private industry that the idea of being defendant on the government is impossible to implement. Kind of a moot statement.

The Religious Right is always trying to mandate morality on everyone as well.

In this case for staying out of lives.. Look at CA's prop 8: government endorsement of a religious institution-regardless of views on the topic. This IS a violation of church and state. It is government benefits for something recognized by the vast majority as a religious ceremony. The left is trying to get many things out of the public venue because faith is ALWAYS used as a weapon and control point by politicians.

The quote by Aristotle comes to mind:


A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side.




Conservative: Social Programs at the Grass Roots Community Level
Liberal: All Social Programs funded by Government


Hrm, the vast majority of Obama's campaign fund came from small doners, and grassroots efforts. Not all, but a gigantic amount. Otherwise, many social programs MUST be done without profit motive. Otherwise you run into cases where someone dies while fighting insurance to undergo a proceedure. You run into the aforementioned sleaze in the Corrections industry where they strip away peoples lives to make a buck. Considering most support for the Republican party is big business, I am curious to know some examples of Grass Roots movements-done by the community, not shell companies. I am all for business so long as a clerk whos sees my existence as a number; doesn't get to decide if I am in profit margins in order to live.



Conservative: Just enough tax to run small government
Liberal: Increase tax to increase government and give more power to feds


This is just silly. The big difference in taxing is: the Left likes a big bank account and hates bouncing checks. The right likes to borrow and spend while claiming to champion the underdog. They pull loan after loan so as to put us in debt for generations. The analogy is similar to this: If I make say 2,000/month. But I need to pay for 2,500 worth of bills. Instead of increasing my income to pay for it, I instead open countless credit cards and use those, then re-finance my house... get a title loan on my car, etc. etc. But, god forbid I should put in more overtime-that would be giving up personal time. Well eventually those bills are going to come back, I already spent my savings on the HDTV's, blu-rays, leather plush furniture, house addition, a whole lot of booze for partying etc. etc.. Essentially this level of 'conservatism' has just earned us a repo (or two or three), a foreclosure, destroyed reputation and a nasty hangover that could last a century. Don't you think we maybe need to suck it up and raise some taxes to cover the tab?

Tax cuts should occur when one has a surplus not when the debt amount almost exceeds (if it doesn't by now) the GDP of the nation. Many new offices were started under Bush, from Czar offices to handle random things, to Homeland Security (not knocking either, simply saying the Republicans have been growing the government in size). The Republicans also fought to keep staff at the same levels they were when they had more representatives. IE: They are paying lackys for vanity-more or less. I think this version of lib and con is a myth on both sides of it. I have never seen nor heard of this 'small government' ever having existed. As for more power to the Feds-Bush did that, basically he gave ALL the power possible to the feds from detention without Habeas Corpus to the aforementioned wiretaps to countless signing statements on laws.




Basically....

Conservatives: Independence
Liberals: Control



This last one proves my snarky hypothesis. Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rice and the Religious Right and all the others are the dirty Liberals. To contrast, the ACLU is always fighting to assist in recovery of rights, and yes they also assist Christians and other religion/religious people who have had their rights trampled too. They are always fighting to more freedoms. The 'conservatives' on the other hand likes to fix everything with a hammer, or the threat therein.

As for Reagon being a conservative. The man pioneered deficit spending. Thanks Ron!

Sorry for the wall of text, didn't realise it was so huge



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by lordtyp0
reply to
There has been a flood of talking points released by the RNC, all seem to be aimed at claiming the Dems are the culprits of everything the Republicans have been getting away with for years. That and smearing Obama with the guilt that belongs to the RNC.



This is Carl Roves type genius... I have read many a time, ROVE understood that
the best line of attack was to peg a political opponent with a short fall of his "clientele's"
short comings. Pure genius, because the entire line of attack is based upon conjecture and inference.

Attack first at YOUR own weak point ROVE 101

For example calling OBAMA Elite, when his entire biography hardly reads like an "ELITE".
Student loans, 1 economy car, 1 home...

I recall an Obama campaign worker tell me that they "learned" the Mccain camp would use that line of attack before HILLARY even bowed out, to buffer Mccain from the ELITE attacks -

FLITHY RICH WIFE, PRIVATE JET, HOWEVER MANY CARS AND HOMES...

As it worked out Mccain came off sounding like a Herbert Hoover (ELITE) after the SEPT 15 crash.
ELITE or wealthy enough to not understand the financial struggles of folks.

Anyhow the RNC was very busy in the past three cycles purging name that "sounded"
like convict names in over half of all the states...

OR the BARACK OSAMA ballot in UPSTATE new york.

Heavy police presence in rural Black areas, ID checks and felony cross checks.

I would care, but to be frank the Republicans have gotten it right,,, cheating works and I'm jaded.



[edit on 2-3-2009 by mental modulator]



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by lordtyp0

Conservatives: Independence
Liberals: Control



Well - You just need to look up definitions

lib·er·al (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.
1.
a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

ttp://www.thefreedictionary.com/liberal

con·ser·va·tive (kn-sûrv-tv)
adj.
1. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 01:47 AM
link   
Interesting that the ideology that is called 'neo-conservatism' in the United States is known as 'neo-liberalism' in other parts of the world.

There might be cause for calling Bush, Cheney, et al. liberals -- neo-liberals.

It's one of those things where the terminology really doesn't capture the essence of the philosophy, and the philosophy really doesn't capture the essence of the actions.


Edit to add: Much of what Semper is describing as 'Conservatism' is now known as 'Paleoconservatism', in contrast to Neoconservatism.


[edit on Mar 2nd 2009 by Ian McLean]



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 02:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ian McLean
Interesting that the ideology that is called 'neo-conservatism' in the United States is known as 'neo-liberalism' in other parts of the world.

There might be cause for calling Bush, Cheney, et al. liberals -- neo-liberals.

It's one of those things where the terminology really doesn't capture the essence of the philosophy, and the philosophy really doesn't capture the essence of the actions.


Edit to add: Much of what Semper is describing as 'Conservatism' is now known as 'Paleoconservatism', in contrast to Neoconservatism.


[edit on Mar 2nd 2009 by Ian McLean]


I have heard this many times, although it doesn't pass the duck test.

Neither man seems to have a liberal bone in their bodies - except liberally piling on the debt...

PLUS neo conservatism is based upon OBJECTIVISM - which is like sociopathic libertarianism



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 02:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by mental modulator
Neither man seems to have a liberal bone in their bodies


It depends on the political lexicon you use:


  • Trade liberalization – liberalization of imports, with particular emphasis on elimination of quantitative restrictions (licensing, etc.); any trade protection to be provided by low and relatively uniform tariffs;
  • Liberalization of inward foreign direct investment

  • en.wikipedia.org...

    In some ways, the Republicans have been quite 'liberal'. Of course, in American politics, the term has become solely used as pejorative. Bush certainly wasn't a 'classic liberal'.



    posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 02:58 AM
    link   
    Aw, you stole my thunder with the neo-lib
    that was to me my coup-de-gras depending on the reply. Ah well, I have to giggle about how 'rovian' is going to become synonymous with sleaze slander and libel. It is already pretty much in the lexicon as meaning that anyway.


    Originally posted by Ian McLean
    Interesting that the ideology that is called 'neo-conservatism' in the United States is known as 'neo-liberalism' in other parts of the world.

    There might be cause for calling Bush, Cheney, et al. liberals -- neo-liberals.

    It's one of those things where the terminology really doesn't capture the essence of the philosophy, and the philosophy really doesn't capture the essence of the actions.


    Edit to add: Much of what Semper is describing as 'Conservatism' is now known as 'Paleoconservatism', in contrast to Neoconservatism.


    [edit on Mar 2nd 2009 by Ian McLean]



    posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 04:27 AM
    link   
    Your head will start to spin trying to keep up with the latest spin coming from the LOSERS of the last election.

    Better to ignore them, and hope they fade away quietly.


    I mean, Obama has almost entirely stuck to Bush's script, even keeping many of the same people in charge, yet the losers whine and gnash their teeth.

    It should be all of those that voted FOR Obama and his "change that doesn't really mean change" crying foul now.



    new topics

    top topics



     
    1
    << 1   >>

    log in

    join