Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

"Damn The Country, Obama Must Fail"

page: 38
365
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


What is wrong with corporate lobbying?
That comes with capitalism.
Now if we bring in the Iron Fist of socialism and scare away all of the
capitalists that's a step in the right direction?


You see you are asking a lot of rudimentary questions that were discussed in great detail in the thread.

You would actually have your answers already if you read the thread.

Then you could ask intelligent questions, we could have an intelligent discussion about the actual thread.

If you aren't interested in the thread you could start your own thread about what it is you like to talk about!

The thread has dozens and dozens of pages and is one of the most important and landmark threads authored on ATS in the past year.

A number of the staff, the owners, and some of ATS's brightest members put a lot of work and effort into the posts in this thread.

You should read the thread!




posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
What is wrong with corporate lobbying?

In my direct experience, including frank conversations with lobbyists, the very activity entices politicians to make decisions that may be (and often are) contrary to the wishes of the people they represent.

Their sworn duty is to represent their constituents, not search out funding and offer favors to corporate bag men.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
The KSM trial in NYC was the stupidest idea ever.

Actually, it reflects the strategy of the Reagan Administration's stance toward terrorism and captured terrorists, treat them as criminals and try them in civil court in the proper jurisdictions. A brief walk into the history books will reveal that terrorism in Reagan admin era was much more of a problem that it is now -- even when reviewing the generally inaccurate and one-sided history books available now.


Be honest.
Obama has already declared KSM guilty.
What we have here is a "personal vendetta" to go after George W. Bush
and Dick Cheney through KSM on torture.
Moving the KSM trial to NYC was such a great idea that now ALL
democrats are running away from it.
Did you see them on the Sunday political shows?
I have never seen the democrats run so fast.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
Obama has already declared KSM guilty.

Perhaps your feelings on the matter would be better served by a new thread on that particular subject? Your thoughts on that subject would only be lost and little-seen in this particular unrelated thread.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 12:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
What is wrong with corporate lobbying?

In my direct experience, including frank conversations with lobbyists, the very activity entices politicians to make decisions that may be (and often are) contrary to the wishes of the people they represent.

Their sworn duty is to represent their constituents, not search out funding and offer favors to corporate bag men.


No system is perfect. Capitalism - Socialism
The members of the House never stop running.
They need the cash for the ads etc.
-----------------------------------------------------
Speaking of decisions politicians make.
What do you think of the decisions made with the Louisiana bribe,
the Nebraska exemption and the union buddy exemption deal?
It stinks to high heaven.
How about Pelosi, Reid and Obama ignoring the 61% that say
"Start Over" on health care reform?
Only 61%??? Lets bulldoze ObamaCare through anyway!


[edit on 16-2-2010 by Eurisko2012]



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 12:16 AM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


I was just responding to your post.
KSM trial - terrorists - Ronald Reagan ??? Your post.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 12:39 AM
link   
I remember a long while back when Rush Limbaugh first said he hoped Obama failed,
But what he was saying was taken out of context and is still being bandied about.
What he was saying was that he hoped Obama failed in his Maoist, Marxist, Communist policies so that America would not be "damned" as the OP title says.
Although it is true that neither party seems to represent any of their constituents, or they consider their only constituents to be of the corporate variety. I would say that with what both major parties have done in conjunction with the congress and senate and people in most other branches in top positions have been America's worst enemies, and adding Obama in to the fray adds an even larger clear and present danger to the nations national security.
The corruption at all levels including state and local levels is at an all time high and can be measured by the witnessing of our rights and the constitution being ignored, plus much much more...
but since that was said about hoping Obama fails, was never that he would fail, but his nutty anti American policies would fail. This was first said when it started leaking in to the media about his hiring known communists like Van Jones for example, and other Marx loving rejects.
I hope to see every single encumbant get the big boot come election time.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 12:46 AM
link   
reply to post by antideceit
 


Well said. I think the OP wants us all to rally around Obama
and just do whatever he wants. That way Obama succeeds
and it looks glorious in the history books.

------------------------------------------------------------
OOPS! Look what has happened to the country!
Obama succeeded? Look at the ripple effects of his actions?
We all need to think 10 years ahead not 10 minutes ahead.
Obama must and will fail for the good of the nation.
-----------------------------------------
BTW, that Van Jones guy was a red flag. Who hired that
guy? Glen Beck taught the public who he "truly" was.
Then he had to leave.


[edit on 16-2-2010 by Eurisko2012]



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 01:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Eurisko2012
 


Yep, unfortunately , as we have witnessed, many of his policies have succeeded and America has definitely been hurt by them.
The constitution keeps getting in Obama's way though, but his crew is sure working overtime to find ways around that pesky thing.

It was Obama that personally hired Van Jones, they have been pals for a long time from what I have read in the past about it.
What hurt Van Jones besides talk radio and TV was his own past speeches and his clear anti American rantings..





posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
I think the OP wants us all to rally around Obama
and just do whatever he wants. That way Obama succeeds
and it looks glorious in the history books.

Not in the least.

The opening post was, in no way, an endorsement of Obama, but a criticism of the system... and what appears to be the roots of the apparent high intensity Republican tactics to see to the failure of the Obama administration at all costs.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by antideceitWhat he was saying was that he hoped Obama failed in his Maoist, Marxist, Communist policies so that America would not be "damned" as the OP title says.



Originally posted by Eurisko2012Well said. I think the OP wants us all to rally around Obama
and just do whatever he wants. That way Obama succeeds
and it looks glorious in the history books.


Seriously you guys, do you not see that you have fallen under the spell of those political hacks (who happen to pretend to be Republican) to whom the OP refers?

If you can defend your political ideologies by evidence and reason, then great, please do so. But if you are trolls who perpetuate mindless propaganda, please go away.

Excellent thread, OP.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 01:25 AM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


I think it is important to note though, that the MSM has been using that and spinning it to mean that his opponents just want him to fail as president, but not what it was originally meant that they just hoped his anti-American policies failed. I was a witness to all of that because I listened to all the talk radio shows before the MSM picked it up and started trying to use it against the conservatives by changing what was actually meant originally.
If Obama did anything at all that actually supported freedom and liberty, then I would even support him. But all he is doing is power grab after power grab and more attempts at huge power grabs like what was actually in the health care legislation.. if that thing passed, it would be good bye America already. Thank God he failed at that (so far).



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by antideceit
the MSM has been using that and spinning it to mean that his opponents just want him to fail as president

No spin is needed.

Back when I authored this thread, very-conservative lobbyists were expressing concern over the coming tactics of a high-intensity political gamble that could cause significant damage to the nation.



If Obama did anything at all that actually supported freedom and liberty, then I would even support him.

It's been a long time since any national politician of either party accomplished anything that could be interpreted as supporting freedom and liberty.




like what was actually in the health care legislation.. if that thing passed, it would be good bye America already.

Can you succinctly express in your own words why you feel that way?

I have my own problems with the proposed health care legislation, but suspect they are very different from yours.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 01:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Grumble
 


I don't support republicans anymore, since quite awhile, because I was seeing both sides doing corrupt things and revoking liberties and freedoms on a daily basis.
I do support traditional conservative practices, but the republican party has lost a lot of those traits a long time back, but there are a few good people still left. Even the democrats of today have totally no resemblence to the democrats of say, 40 years ago.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 01:48 AM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


The health care bill was a total power grab and would not have saved money. It would have eventually killed private insurance companies.
It was worded and constructed to help the federal gov. get massive power over people, most people know this already, at least anyone that has read the bill's contents, but then a lot of the bills supporters will just say that was misinterpreted.
People that didn't wish to participate in the federal health care could be fined or even jailed for contempt, after refusing to pay a fine).
Right after health care failed recently we witnessed some states crafting immediate legislation that made it illegal to be forced to get the federally mandated coverage, or rather, made laws to protect people that refused to get it..Virginia was the first I believe.
These are just a couple reasons why I think the health care bill was bad. Actually "bad" isn't the real adjective I would use.
Even states with plenty of liberals in power were seen running away from the health care monstrosity



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by antideceit
The health care bill was a total power grab and would not have saved money. It would have eventually killed private insurance companies.

I didn't see it that way... especially since there are lots of good reasons to revise the way private insurance delivers money for care.


The state of the health care reform bill is somewhat related to this thread, and directly related to the prefabricated political divide that has the nation in a death-grip.


ATS is a conspiracy theory focused venue, and one of the longest-running conspiracies discussed here is the nature of two-party politics in the US and the way it distracts the public from either real issues or what the government is really doing in other areas. Keep the populace evenly divided along passion-inducing lines, and they become easier to influence, control, or fool.

There are plenty of examples of "progressive" government-sponsored healthcare systems in the world that provide excellent examples of what works, and what doesn't. A relatively simple government-backed system that merges with the existing private insurance industry infrastructure isn't difficult to imagine or implement.

Instead of using their new-found "political capital" from a historic majority, the democrats fashioned a lame compromise of a healthcare reform bill that was designed to fail... but to fail in a massively distracting and drawn-out national debate that further enhanced the political divide and fueled intensely partisan rhetoric.

In my opinion, this proposed healthcare form bill is hugely successful. But not as healthcare reform, which is was never intended to do, but as the latest strategic initiative to keep the nation divided and distracted.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 09:42 AM
link   
I appreciate hearing your response, and it makes a lot of sense.
I never thought about it being used in that way to keep people divided, but it rings true to me. The part about it that I disliked the most was the forced use of it through fines and penalties for not getting the insurance. Every thing about the health care bill felt like more and more freedom being taken away, which is why I am against it. True reform is one thing, but what they almost got through would have started a civil war in my opinion, or at the least, some big riots with people dying as it was progressed.

Cheers



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by antideceit
 


The lobbyists for the Insurance Industry and Pharmaceutical Industry have already taken advantage of the pending legislation to increase fees and prices and raise their revenues by an estimated 14% to date through pricing structures being pre-negotiated with Congress and already being implemented on the supply side.

Perhaps the easiest thing in the world for Obama to have done was to craft a comprehensive health bill of his own, well except for the fact that he lacks the legislative and logistical skills to do it. Yet had he produced a single solitary bill that actually delivered something along the lines that the people had been led to believe they could expect, it would have been relatively easy, early on in his Administration to present it and get the Democratic Party Controlled house and senate to vote on it and pass it.

Instead all he did was give congress an open invitation to send out an open call to the Insurance Companies and Pharmaceutical Companies to come into the process and promote the ideas that would pad their bottom lines and profits and enjoin the Congress in a massive lobbying effort where presumably a competition between different bills would yield not the best legislation for the people but for the Insurance and Pharmaceutical Industries.

It has in fact been a classic example of how corporations and lobbyists bog down and control the political process and how they bring their wants to the forefront essentially edging out and cutting off the people from representation in the process.

That whole process of lobbying by corporations for sweetheart deals, fixed prices and contracts has nothing to do with partisanship, most big corporations donate heavily to both sides of the political aisle, and they purchase favor and a voice regardless of party.

The Health Care Bill(s) were all in fact written in a way and a manner to frighten people and have the people ultimately not only fight to keep the existing system but to create an opportunity for the existing system to become even more profitable and favorable for the Insurance and Drug Companies in the process.

On a side note as a member who read and started posting to this thread at its inception I can say unequivocally that it wasn’t authored to promote one side or the other of the political divide and wasn’t really about partisan politics. It was much more rather about the effect lobbying and lobbyists have on the functionality of government for the people and the lobbyist’s own concerns confided in Skeptic Overlord that partisanship in Washington had risen to a new level that the lobbyists themselves had to adjust to and work around in their own efforts to get Congress to pass favorable legislation for them.

Healthcare reform when attempted by Hilary Clinton in the first Clinton Administration turned out to be an embarrassing disaster, yielded no results, and ended the notion that a First Lady could and should take on a legislative role in government.

Obama certainly had to be aware through that relatively recent example that seizing on a healthcare imitative early on in his administration would not only bog it down in similar controversy and sully its prestige and produce no tangible results other than bogging down his administration and diminishing his prestige.

So if he knew those would be the likely results going into it, and he had to know they would be the likely results going in to it, you then have to ask the question why would he attempt it. The answer is as Skeptic Overlord wisely suggests, to distract the people from other more important issues like the economy, corporate bailouts and the wars.

In the end there will be no comprehensive health care bill and the Insurance Companies and the Drug Companies will be that much more entrenched and profitable in the current system that the majority of people have been more or less tricked into embracing the increasing higher costs and decreased services of out of fear of a worse system imposed by the government.

Its all just manipulation by the corporations on a grand scale.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by antideceit
The part about it that I disliked the most was the forced use of it through fines and penalties for not getting the insurance.

The highly charged rhetoric of exaggeration and misrepresentation, so as to confuse the issues, has resulted in an overwhelming amount of confusion among the populace... which is the obvious intended result.

If there's going to be a national health care system that covers all, it needs funding. It's logical to surmise that those who do not have employer-funded insurance will be taxed, and if they don't pay the tax, there will be repercussions. Relatively easy to understand. However, the methodology and wording of this aspect of funding the national system was devised in such a way as to fuel the partisan rancor, not the coffers of the proposed system.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


Team Obama needs to listen to 61% of the American people and
just throw out the 2,000+ page monster and start over.
This time don't change the locks to the conference room.
Invite the Republicans in and do this right.
Step 1] Tort Reform





new topics

top topics



 
365
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join