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.

 

Supreme Court Rolls Back Campaign Spending Limits. Dear God.

page: 5
53
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by johnny2127
 


Yes, direct contributions. PACs then become the campaign manager for the politicians.

I believe the whole creation of corporations had a two part purpose.

One to create the corporations, the second to make citizens corporations.

UCC law and Admiralty Law I have been doing research on to begin my move to Sovereign Individual status. The whole court system has been corrupted by this entire removal of our rights.

If the Constitution states that your rights cannot be infringed, how is it that you have gun registration for example? This was the whole whitewash placed upon us. We are no longer Sovereign citizens but corporate entities in the jurisdiction of corporate law.

600,000+ statutes and counting. 99.99% of which are un Constitutional.

Just another layer to the prison walls being instituted everytime we turn around.




posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by gwydionblack
Wow... just wow.

If this is true, really, this is it. The vote of the people is more worthless now than it ever has been.

I'm speechless.


corporations will now run this country...forget about any of you small people trying to fight a company or corporation if something bad happens to you or your family...no elected official will come forward for your defence



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tgautier13
The lines in the sand have been drawn. Don't think for a second that the MA race had nothing to do with this decision. With sudden rise in popularity of the independent movement the capitalists had to try and find some way to maintain their hegemony.


What?

Scott Brown caries an (R) after his name...not an (I)...He is a Republican that successfully appealed to the same general discontent with Washington politics that Candidate Obama did.

Despite what the GOP claims ..Mass was not an endorsement of their inane "NO" platform, nor a repudiation of the Dems...it was people saying they thought they both sucked....that is what Sen. Browns rhetoric was focused on...now he quickly seems to be puffing his chest out as the GOP Hero....Nothing independant about him...just a lot of folks desperately looking for change and willing to gamble.

Before we the people can effectively luanch legitimate third party candidates...the posers must be called out for what they are..Yes I am talking about the TPM and those riding it's coat tails...that group needs to police it's own and get fierce about it...or just declare themselves GOP Remix..

Confusing a GOP candidate as an Independent is exactly what the GOP wants you to do...then you can vote for the "Change Candidate" in 2012 and get GWB all over again...rinse repeat in 2016....DEM or REP.



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


The problem with that is you know the old say, money talks BS walk meaning a regular tax payer (mostly broke this days) can never comepete with the corporation free speeches pay by million dollars campaigns.

So now in America if you have money then you can buy yourself some air free speech.

Im sure most Americans can not afford to buy million dollar air space to show their freedom of speech this days promoting for their favorite candidate.

That means only those that can get a million dollar sponsor can get a good shot at poltics

look...it doesn't matter who gets elected...they will never side with a person harmed by a corporation or company....because...that company or corporation will tell that candidate that they will flood the airways with negative political adveritizing against him at the next election


[edit on 21-1-2010 by marg6043]


my response is inside the guote...sorry

[edit on 21-1-2010 by jimmyx]



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 


are you kidding me....then these people don't know their donkey from a hole in the ground...they stuck it to obama and the demos and are nothing but 2-bit whiners who don't have a clue to the big picture

[edit on 21-1-2010 by jimmyx]



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 05:01 PM
link   
Actually this makes perfect sense. A good majority of Americans already let Corporations decide what they are going to eat, drink, wear, watch, ad nauseum, ad infinitum. If it wasn't for Corporations and the military industrial complex I wouldn't have this computer in front of me to spew my inane chatter. For all the good Corporations have done for us this is the least we can do. Next up, let's give them the right to vote.



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by concernedcitizan
Actually this makes perfect sense. A good majority of Americans already let Corporations decide what they are going to eat, drink, wear, watch, ad nauseum, ad infinitum. If it wasn't for Corporations and the military industrial complex I wouldn't have this computer in front of me to spew my inane chatter. For all the good Corporations have done for us this is the least we can do. Next up, let's give them the right to vote.


we already did with this decision by the supreme court....what congressmen is going to vote against a corporation now???

you better hope that a product made by GE doesn't harm or kill your child, because you're not going to get any elected official to investigate or hold them responsible. good luck

[edit on 21-1-2010 by jimmyx]



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx
reply to post by maybereal11
 


are you kidding me....then these people don't know their donkey from a hole in the ground...they stuck it to obama and the demos and are nothing but 2-bit whiners who don't have a clue to the big picture

[edit on 21-1-2010 by jimmyx]


You are still confused...Yes they "stuck it to the Dems", but it wasn't an endorsement of the GOP either.

They voted for the candidate that was not status qou...party in power.

The GOP of course thinks that they are suddenly popular again and this will bite them in the ass.

Mass was all about...."We are still looking for change"...not...lets back the GOP agenda.



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 05:11 PM
link   
You may want to check out the solutions that have been offered by downisreallyup on page three of :

“Supreme Court Removes Limits on Corporate, Labor Donations to Campaigns”
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 


A Dem/Rep vote is still a vote for the status quo. I would have been more impressed if they would have voted in a Libertarian or even a commie. THAT would be a vote for change. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. And meanwhile, Rome burns.



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 05:21 PM
link   
So, all that stimulus money the big corps. are holding on to will be spent
buying the next prez. Thats just friggin great! Time for a bowl of Fruit Loops!




posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 05:23 PM
link   
this legislation was unconstitutional. As a judge, even if you do not like the result a your ruling, you have to rule according to the law, not make law. This was the correct legal ruling. Crappy as the result is.

let me make one change here?it should read as an honest judge.But if all judges were honest we would have no federal reserve bank,no war in Iraq.and we would have a common law system instead of the admiralty system we put up with.The fact of the matter is the only time either a democrat or a republican politition uses the constitution is when it's in thier favor the rest of the time it's just a hinderance to be ignored.



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 05:26 PM
link   
Sad thing is - really - if people wern't so easily swayed by propaganda - they could throw away all the money they wanted on their phoney baloney candidates - and they'd still never get elected.

Sadly - the average citizen is a lazy sheep.

So - our mission - is to awaken the sleepers - and educate the under-educated...

Same as it ever was...



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 05:27 PM
link   
FYI Commentary after the ruling...




House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio called the decision "a big win for the First Amendment" as long as donors disclose every dollar they spend on campaigns.

"Let the American people decide how much money is enough," he said

www.npr.org...

I am sure he was thinking about the American people when he did this...



Boehner hands out 'tobacco checks' on floor of House
In late June of 1995 then-GOP Conference Chairman John Boehner handed out "about a half-dozen" checks from the political action committee of tobacco company Brown & Williamson Corp. to fellow Republicans on the floor of the House.

Boehner's chief of staff Barry Jackson stated, "We were trying to help guys who needed to get their June 30th numbers up, their cash-on-hand numbers up. All leadership does this. We have to raise money for people and help them raise money."

Boehner was forced to stop handing out the checks when two freshmen Republicans, "appalled by it," confronted him and voiced their displeasure.

www.sourcewatch.org...

Love him or hate him this is what the President said about the ruling...


President Obama swiftly blasted the court's decision, calling on Congress to devise a "forceful response" as quickly as possible.

"The Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics," Obama said in a statement. "It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans."



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by maybereal11

Originally posted by jimmyx
reply to post by maybereal11
 


are you kidding me....then these people don't know their donkey from a hole in the ground...they stuck it to obama and the demos and are nothing but 2-bit whiners who don't have a clue to the big picture

[edit on 21-1-2010 by jimmyx]


Mass was all about...."We are still looking for change"...not...lets back the GOP agenda.


but that's exactly what they did...because they were thinking about themselves...not the country as a whole.
how can you have change, when your voting the exact same people back in from 2006???? you think that the GOP wants to help liberal mass. people??
this is like a boxing match, where your fighter is not winning, but is holding his own....so you, during the 2 min break between the 7th and 8th rounds, tell him he's not winning the fight and you're going to tie one hand behind his back because you're disappointed in him, for not having knocked the opponant out yet.



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 05:31 PM
link   
I think this is a very good thing! For what ever reason, people think there is a magic bullet that will allow them to vote and have their problems solved. The corruption of the mind is the heart of all these problems we have. People have become so degraded and weak minded not just on the political side but everywhere including the "People". Virtue is quickly dissolving and one of the main reasons is people realize that it's more work to fix the problems than to hope and pretend someone or something else will.

The bottom link is people have to reclaim their world at the local, county and state levels. The States are obeying the feds far too often. The states are facilitating theft, extortion, etc. as agents of the fed / nwo. The system is not massively infiltrated by corruption. The only answer it to replace the mayors and city council and county and state. Imagine a city mayor that threw out traffic tickets and fluoridation and stood up for the people. Local change is far easier then state or national change. In sun city arizona people drive around in their golf carts. Do they get tickets for not having a license or a licensed vehicle? No! The city has it's own protective standards.

Thinking that a massive corrupt system is going to obey some law anyway is foolish. Lobbyists are little more than bribery and extortion but are they brought up on changes? No. Could they be any day? Yes! Paying off a politician is bribery, plain and simple but is is addressed as such? No. The system has been massively corrupted for nearly 100 years if not more. What we're seeing is an increase in honesty.



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 05:37 PM
link   
the republicans are now guaranteed to take over congress in the 2010 election, with the flood of nasty, continuous, anti-democrat ads. billions will be spent and the republicans that say they will play ball with these corporations will get elected. kiss consumer protection good-bye, kiss worker protections good-bye, etc.



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by concernedcitizan
reply to post by maybereal11
 


A Dem/Rep vote is still a vote for the status quo. I would have been more impressed if they would have voted in a Libertarian or even a commie. THAT would be a vote for change. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. And meanwhile, Rome burns.


Yes me too...but in Mass. thier choices were a Democratic Candidate who strangely appeared not to give a crap (which ironically embodied how they thought Washington DC felt about them) and a Rep. who was relatively moderate, posed nude once for a magazine, pro choice etc...and talked a big game about "Change" and the economy....not the typical GOP rhetoric.

So yes Mass. voted for a Republican...but it was a lessor of two evils kind of choice and not so much an endorsement of the GOP strategy of late....but more of a "NEXT" kind of thing to the Democrats.

Believe me, unless Brown strikes out on his own he will be a one term senator.

A strong independant would have left both candidates in the dust there if one had been available.



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 


I have to agree. Although from what I've read here on ATS, word on the street is this Mr. Brown walks on water and pees Jack Danials. But your right. He has to sink or swim on his own.



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 05:43 PM
link   

IMPORTANT!!!


Well, I must say this is quite a bit of sad news! If ever the Supreme Court made a bad ruling, I would say it is this one. Here is what I would suggest as an appropriate response:

1) Somebody with a love for America and a love for media needs to step up and start acquiring radio and news outlets. Start your own public radio stations. Perhaps you thought that isn't very exciting work, but I know of several old retired buggars here in New Zealand that have done that very thing. They got the equipment, went through the application process, and now have a new public access radio station almost up and running. You NEED to get radio that is not owned by the establishment, and have it written in the charter that it can never be owned or controlled by any special interest.

2) You need to start something like an "American Statesman Association" where you recruit, educate, and sponsor excellent candidates for the top 545 elected positions in Washington, and also the top elected positions in each state. It wouldn't be correct to try and change things with any other means other than taking over the system using the system's rules. Find some freedom-loving citizens there who have the heart and qualifications to be "political generals." If the only qualified and willing men in your country are those who have a internationalist, corporatist mentality, then indeed you are doomed, because there is no viable opposition.

By these two methods you can take back your country. Look for some suitable "political generals" and formulate a strategy. You need some people who understand how things work now, and also know how to rally people to a new vision of how things should be instead. You must also get free arms of political expression and communication. You must vigorously educate the masses about what it means to be free and what it means to govern as a people. You must stop thinking that you can just elect somebody that you really don't know, and magically that person is going to act honestly and with integrity on behalf of the people at large. That has rarely happened. Freedom is something that must be constantly fought for, as long as there are those who are constantly looking for ways to rob you of it.

Let me say also that any attempt to use forceful means is destined to fail, and even if you succeeded in thwarting the existing people, what would happen next? Who would run the show then? Think about those militia groups... you know the guys who drill all day long in the woods, planning ways to overthrow things. Would you really want those guys running things? And if a bunch of people just stormed the government institutions, what would happen after that? Imagine for a moment the sheer chaos that would ensue, the fierce violent competition. Factions would form, and disagreement would be rampant. America is way too fragmented ideologically for any kind of consensus to come forth out of any non-political take over. Think of the movie Mad Max and you will get a picture of how things would go. No, the very best chance you have is to work diligently for fighting fire with fire, electing men/women who can truly make a difference. You need to find people who are "unbuyable."

Here are some practical ideas to help:

1) Write a movie script about how this could be successfully done and get it produced as an independent feature.
2) Start a national network of clubs/schools, run from homes, where the members work to educate themselves in all areas they will need, and formulate a plan to win elections all over the country.
3) Start a network of public radio stations in major metropolitan areas that can serve as one form of communication in this regard. These must have clear charters that guarantee they will be impervious to take over or infiltration.

Basically, this is a war whose weapons must be words, ideas, pictures, videos, slogans, campaigns, and local & state ballot issues. The vehicles must be radio, websites, emails, newsletters, editorials, door-to-door, rallies, speeches, movies, talk shows, etc.

The problem is, everyone has their understandable and yet non-effective ranting and moaning, while at the same time having no agreement on approach, no agreement on a plan, no agreement on leadership, etc. In fact, where is your George Washington? Your Thomas Jefferson? Your Benjamin Franklin? Perhaps that person is you or someone you know.

It seems that the vast majority of elected officials comprise only those who wish to destroy the Republic, if they haven't already done so.

Your goal must be to get enough people to stop caring about acquiring more money, bigger houses, longer vacations, and a never-ending mass of stuff... and instead getting them to care about preserving the freedom to have self-determination. This will take, above all, a consistent message and vision, and effective COMMUNICATION.

Perhaps some of you should go and visit Ron Paul, and go with a plan for "cleaning house" with a whole new batch of Americans that are willing to do things more like he does. Surely, if the republic is worthy of saving, there are at least several hundred men who are like Paul. Ask Paul to start a school and to join a movement of reformation. There were many that worked so hard to get him elected as President, and yet, as President he would have been greatly hampered. Get Paul to head up the Ron Paul Academy, whose purpose is to train up a bunch of political operatives that can go out and take the country back.

So many people just want to sit back and let one guy (Ron Paul) do all the work, but that is not how things work in a Republic... in a Monarchy yes, but in a Republic no. He needs a team of men/women who think like he does (or even better), and a team of men/women who will go out, win elections, and work for a common agenda.

If you want a government "of the people," then you need to have "the people" in government.

If you want a government "by the people," then you need for "the people" to actually govern.

If you want a government "for the people," then you need "the people" to make decisions that truly benefit the people at large.



new topics

top topics



 
53
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join