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.

 

Fed-up Americans mobilize: More than 150 tea parties

page: 6
53
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
The media is owned by American corporations who are by no means liberal. If you can point me to even a few major corporations who have owners that seems 'liberal' in their financial thinking ( who cares if their for gay rights??? ) i would be most surprised to hear about it.


Here's one:

AIG 2008 Donations
No.1 Chris Dodd $130k+
No.2 Barack Obama $100k+


As far as media, are you going to say that TIME, WaPo, NYT, LAT, CNN, NBC, ABC, MSNBC and CBS are NOT liberal?




posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by intelinside451
The liberals and Obama are loving these "stimulus" bills.


Not as much as the 'conservatives' but perhaps that is arguing about which red apple is the darkest red. Both parties representative structures are filled with mostly greedy swine who will steal as much as they think they can get away with.


It's just another way to make the government bigger in their eyes.


If you go look at the spending of various governments in the last century you will find that both are prodigious spenders with the democratic party not spending all that much less.


At least Bush publicly said many times he was very disappointed that he had to sign them but he felt he had to at the time.


Where on Earth did he say that? How did you get the impression that Bush did not want to make his Wall street buddies richer? Have you ever heard of a liberal corporate owner? Bah.


Probably from all the liberal vultures in congress and in the media putting pressure on him.


The media is owned by American corporations who are by no means liberal. If you can point me to even a few major corporations who have owners that seems 'liberal' in their financial thinking ( who cares if their for gay rights??? ) i would be most surprised to hear about it.


Funny how nothings changed since Obama took office but no one is saying anything about the same exact issues to obama.


It is funny how American such as yourself can be fooled into this partisan bickering while you are getting ripped off to the tune of litterally trillions. Is it so easy to fool you into hating Obama and 'liberals' for doing almost exactly ( well actually doing so so slowly that the conservatives are calling them incompetant and worse) what the conservatives were doing?

So much for being for seeing trough the facade that is the conspiracy by both major American parties to cooperate as best they can in the financial looting of the USA.

Stellar


man you never heard of ted turner?



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by moonwilson
 


LOL I see your point about french troops coming here. Oohh scary!
Anway, if something doesn't happen soon, we won't be able to mount much of an armed force. With all the anti-gun legislation trying to be passed.

Jist a thought that occured while writting this: can we bring lawsuits and evict our "leaders" for lying under oath when they took office? Didn't they have to say that they would defend the constitution not ignore and/or dismantle it? If so, forget the tea party, let's go evict them!



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by One4truth
 

or you can organize and demonstrate.

See: reteaparty.com



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297
Here's one:
AIG 2008 Donations
No.1 Chris Dodd $130k+
No.2 Barack Obama $100k+


Since i am too lazy too check ATM i will take that at face value. So what if ONE financial institution decides that they control two of these 'liberals' ( they aren't by any stretch of the imagination) liberals better than they control some of 'conservatives'? Perhaps they 'conservatives' just wanted larger bribes and they thought they would be backing the winners? Here's a interesting tidbit on Mister Dodd:


The Center for Public Integrity has criticized Dodd for "being the leading advocate in the Senate on behalf of the accounting industry."[11][12] Political consultant and commentator Dick Morris wrote that Dodd had received more from accounting firm Arthur Andersen than any other Democrat and bore responsibility for trying to shield accounting firms from investor fraud liability in cases such as the Enron scandal.[13]

en.wikipedia.org...


You see where i am going with this? They don't care if your for or against gay rights ( which i suppose makes you a liberal/conservative in the stupid American political lexicon) but who will best line their pockets and in my opinion AIG certainly backed two candidates who would hand them bushels of money when they asked for it.


As far as media, are you going to say that TIME, WaPo, NYT, LAT, CNN, NBC, ABC, MSNBC and CBS are NOT liberal?


All conservative with many being reactionary at that. I don't mean liberal in the social sense but in the economic/financial/political sense; you know, the stuff THAT ACTUALLY MATTERS.

I don't mind people querying my opinions but i do expect some modicum of preparation and reconsideration ( as i always try to do) before you just jump right in with the same old baseless accusations and misrepresentations/misunderstandings about the people who are robbing you blind.

As for the question about Ted Turner, what about him? What did he sponsor, create or do that makes him a liberal in any classical definition of the word?

Sometimes it really sucks to consider why i have saddled ( or should i blame my parents/community? with this conscious; taking money from you guys is, and will apparently continue to be, like taking candy from babies.

Stellar

[edit on 17-3-2009 by StellarX]



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by StellarX
 
You asked for ONE example; I gave you the one off the top of my head.

As for the MEDIA, they are undeniably liberal in every respect. If you want to discuss ownership, these are publicly traded and "owned" by millions of shareholders.

You keep referring to corporate support of homosexuals as an indication of "liberal."

As with Obama, corporate actions speak louder than who they support with their words.

The biggest thieves in Congress and the administration have been supported by some of the largest corporations, regardless of who they say they support.

I'm glad you've got a conscience. Now let's work on consciousness. The truth and answers are everywhere.

Are there any "Tea Parties" in South Africa this year?

Deny Ignorance.

jw


[edit on 17-3-2009 by jdub297]



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 08:58 PM
link   
Please people go to your protests, write your letters, post your stickers, but please pay your taxes, the market will stabilize, and the government will come and get their money. The roads we drive on, the chemicals we ingest, the smog we breathe and the schools we send our children to are funded by our taxes and despite all the hey said she said, we are all Americans, even after the Bush years. still Americans=pay ur d%$n taxes or they will sue your A&% off! good luck patriots and expats!



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297

Originally posted by StellarX
The media is owned by American corporations who are by no means liberal. If you can point me to even a few major corporations who have owners that seems 'liberal' in their financial thinking ( who cares if their for gay rights??? ) i would be most surprised to hear about it.


Here's one:

AIG 2008 Donations
No.1 Chris Dodd $130k+
No.2 Barack Obama $100k+


As far as media, are you going to say that TIME, WaPo, NYT, LAT, CNN, NBC, ABC, MSNBC and CBS are NOT liberal?



Why are they still refered to as Donations, no matter which way you
look at it they are bribes. The reasoning, the outcome, it's not like giving
money to a charity but even then they expect a wing or something to
be named after them. There's always a catch and expect to get something
in return.

And bribes (I mean donations) are actually encouraged and accepted by all Parties.
However the value of the Bribes (I mean donations) is considerably
less than in previous years. So, it must getting tough when they can't
afford bigger donations.



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by nydsdan


Why is it that there is such a buzz about these supposed "Tea Parties" when it is impossible to find any info on them? The MSM is for the most part ignoring them, and doing a google search only yields results about the worldnetdaily news story or stories about the stories. There are pics of some small-ish demonstrations, but I have yet to find one iota of evidence that any are actually being organized. Where are these? I can find the latest NAMBLA meeting info for any state in the country, but I cannot find one Tea Party?


They are everywhere. Google.
Many are being organized and yes I found mine off the Worldnetdaily list. I have already contacted the organisers to offer my services, and I am confident in a big turnout. They are chartering busses from all over the state so people who want can join us here at the capitol. I will bring my camera and report here after.



History records that the money changers have used every intrigue deceit and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and it's issuance -- James Madison


I will be protesting the FED on the ground that was named for this man.



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 11:31 PM
link   
Me and a couple people I work with will be protesting as well. I look forward to it. Also there is someone selling tee shirts on Ebay that are awesome. We plan on wearing them to the protest! Lets be heard and show will will not stand for our Constitution to be trampled on anymore!



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 01:41 AM
link   
Hell with a Tea Party, lets have a gun cleaning in fronts these S.O.B.'s . Let'em seem what is is store for them.

Remember The Battle of Saratoga.

Long Live The Rebels, and Up the Irons



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 03:05 AM
link   
To help clear the partisan issue..A long time ago I was told by a wise man in the service,trying to explain to me partisanship..
This is how he explained it.

Imagine a crap game in the Bronx during the 50's..Instead of two "family's" playing against each other..Often they get pissed off at each other,shoot at each other but the game keeps getting played..If someone threatens "the "game" the both join together to protect it so they can play again tommorow..

replace the "familys" with rep. and Dems. and thats congress



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 05:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297
You asked for ONE example; I gave you the one off the top of my head.


I asked for a example that could be supported by , you know, reality? What does the bribes AIG pays both sides candidates have to do with 'liberals'?


As for the MEDIA, they are undeniably liberal in every respect.


Well then you can just repeat that to yourself where i can't here it as i am not going to sit here and not respond to such utter nonsense.


If you want to discuss ownership, these are publicly traded and "owned" by millions of shareholders.


The same 'millions' of shareholders who aren't getting bailed out by the large cash infusions? The fact that they are publicly traded must have convinced you that they are in fact liberals; after all only 'liberals' owns stocks! Bah!


You keep referring to corporate support of homosexuals as an indication of "liberal."As with Obama, corporate actions speak louder than who they support with their words.


Obama is not a liberal. Havn't you managed to figure out even that aspect of my response? Don't you understand that it makes perfect sense for the conservative owned media to call the slightly less reactionary crazy financial plunders ( the democratic party) 'liberals' so as to support a movement for votes for Bush style theft of the economy? Actions DO speak louder than worse and if Bush and the gang were still in charge the banks would not only have gotten more money but the bonus payments would just have been ignored. Call the 'democrats'/'liberals' the conservative light party if you wish but please stop talking as if it's a classical liberal movement.


The biggest thieves in Congress and the administration have been supported by some of the largest corporations, regardless of who they say they support.


Absolutely. The thieves are by no means partisan and will in fact consistently vote in the best interest of their backers ( not the voters but the bribers) whatever their party might pretend to stand for.


I'm glad you've got a conscience. Now let's work on consciousness. The truth and answers are everywhere.


Yes they sure are and yet here you are blaming the state of the American economy on 'liberals' instead of understanding that this goes way beyond political 'affiliation' and to core of the problem of corporate ownership of the American political sphere.


Are there any "Tea Parties" in South Africa this year?

Deny Ignorance.

jw


In fact it seems that our ( very likely ) next president ( currently president of the ANC ) and his lawyers are today holding a meeting with the state investigators to try to convince them not to bring new fraud charges against him. As you may not be aware this problem is not just a American one but one related to globalization ( as sponsored and defended, violently, by the USA) and corporate capitalism in general. At least a fraudster as president would be the least of our problems considering all the social, health and problems in general.

But basically we wont be holding tea parties, certainly not about our banks being so utterly corrupt, as our banks are not getting bailed out becuase they were and are still well regulated and rated more secure than the Swiss, ( top ten with US being in the forties) one's by the World Economic Forum; that is if you believe them.

www.financialpost.com...

Stellar



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by irishchic
IMO,many should NOT have had those houses to start with,sorry.


How could they have known? Why wouldn't you take the deal if the bank somehow thought you were eligible? Doesn't this presume that many Americans think bankers are idiots who don't know how to watch their bottom line?


It's not your "God given right" to own a home,especially is you put no money down when you buy it


Why should i put down money to own a home if the bank is happy to take no money up front? Why would i be suspicious that these banks can't afford to lend me the money? Aren't the greedy self serving bankers who will watch their own bottom lines? If you can't trust in that what can you bank on in this world? Why blame people from thinking that people who were smart enough to get rich are smart enough to stay rich?


and they knew that you couldn't afford the payments when you filled out the paperwork(low doc of course) they so graciously steered you through for a house that was probably MUCH more than you really needed?


But the absolutely vast majority of those home owners did in fact manage to pay the banks ( but some relied on credit cards and other credit facilities for that final few hundred bucks a month) by working longer hours or getting second jobs. Why blame hard working Americans for not seeing how gas prices would increase by more than half in just a few years and how general commodity prices would skyrocket? How where they supposed to know when the bankers were supposedly surprised by this financial crisis?

How can you say what people 'need' when the American dream is to get as much as you can, not how much you need?


I own my home: I worked hard and put a percentage down when I bought it,it was something I could afford,and I paid it off in my lifetime.
I'm a dinosaur,I know.


Your not a dinosaur but your definitely not the 'good American' consumer the news propaganda media has been trying to create for a century. In fact you should probably move to Japan where the government finds it so very hard to get Japanese to actually spend their earnings.


I think what they should have "done" was to not instill even more of an entitlement attitude to a segment of society that was ill-equipted to cope in order to further their own greed-soaked agenda.


What entitlement attitude? Where did the insensible idea originate that the American establishment ( corporations/government) are trying to create a system where people believe they are entitled to anything without paying for it? In fact how would that enrich the corporate capitalist, who own the government, if it were true? Why do Americans with this supposed sense of 'entitlement' work the longest hours in the industrialized world?


I am all for these peaceful demonstrations that at least let the people in power know we're not all drinking the Kool Aid.


Which the corporate media will either do their best to completely ignore or cover in excruciating detail the moment they can portray the protesters as violent radicals bent on destroying Christianty, the planet, and basically life as we know it. The streets are not the prostester's friend ( in terms of political change, other issues may benefit) while the media is so firmly in the corner of that which is being protested.


Hoping they will in fact be peaceful and make a statement that can't continue to be ignored...isn't that what "Democracy" is all about,the people's voices being heard?


Democracy is fundamentally about having little trust in government , no matter the party, and focusing exclusively on whether they are getting done what they said they would and if they are getting done by adhering to a constitution, that hopefully, is protecting the people from bureaucratic abuse. By this measure Americans are not democrats, as compared to Europeans you can see why not, and they are experiencing the economic hardship that results from it.

Stellar

[edit on 18-3-2009 by StellarX]

[edit on 18-3-2009 by StellarX]



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 07:11 AM
link   


What are you fighting about and what should you be fighting for?



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 07:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Techsnow
 





Seriously, do you know what would of happened if they hadn't done something? Do you realize how many more people would of lost their houses?


Not to mention all of those poor execs who wouldn't have gotten billions in bonuses. *derisive snort*



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by wylekat
Not to mention all of those poor execs who wouldn't have gotten billions in bonuses. *derisive snort*


Not just the execs.

In 2008, AIG paid "bonuses" to Sen. Chris Dodd ($103k) and Barack Obama ($100k), among others.

Even worse, turns out that 11 of the 70+ AIG execs. that got $1million+ "retention bonuses" had already left the company!

jw



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by StellarX
 


Allow me to enlighten you. The top ten richest people in the US are all liberals.

Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Paul Allen, Larry Ellison, the Walton kids, all big time Libs. Surely you have heard of these people? If not, here is a link.

www.inprofession.com/2008/10/03/americas-top-10-richest-people-in-2008

The issue is not Conservative vs Liberal, it's not even the "Haves vs the Have Nots". It's the elite vs the common folks. It's time that we common folks put aside the labels and banded together and take our Country back.



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by StellarX
 
S. Africa is so far out of touch with reality and the rest of the world that I can understand your reluctance or inablility to see the American forest for the trees.

The United States Constitution is the delegation by "We The People of the United States of America" of limited authority to a federal government to "protect, defend and preserve" the union of the states and their common good.

Nothing more. Nothing less.

The U.S. was founded as a republic: A representative democracy that allowed its federal government limited powers to preserve, defend and enrich the republic; reserving to the people and their respective states those powers not specifically delegated to the federal gov't.

States were free to craft their own, sometimes peculiar or unique, internal laws and regulations.

Over the years, and especially in the 20th and 21st centuries, the power of the federal gov't has expanded exponentially, that of the individual states' diminished, and, the cost passed to the people individually (through an income tax, among other things) and their states.

The election of Barack Hussein Obama marked the culmination of this diminution of state autonomy and sovereignty.

A majority of the people of the states are opposed to the current state of affairs.

The "mainstream media" have abetted this usurpation of the Constitution, the federal "system," and the powers reserved to the states.

Although not written into the Constitution, the "right to be left alone" from federal intrusions has been found by our Supreme Court to be implied from the Constitution and its amendments.

Americans tired of the continual federal intrusion into their lives, privacy, and pocket books, and "fed-up" with it all, are organizing symbolic gatherings ("Tea Parties"), reminiscent of such demonstrations as led to the overthrow of British sovereignty in the 1700s.

This has nothing to do with political parties.

Or South Africa.


Deny Ignorance!


jw

[edit on 19-3-2009 by jdub297]



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo67
"one party fights for the people"

" one party fights for the rich"


thats the biggest bunch of bs i have ever read.



they both fight for control of you and thats its it.


The original quote was nothing more than spouting back the indoctrination that passes for "higher education" these days. The poster is probably still a student with no real living out in the world experience yet.

I've posted about that many times on many threads. Here, you simply are seeing the results.



new topics

top topics



 
53
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join