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.

 

Obama says US court ruling a blow to democracy

page: 2
15
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by CoolBlackHole
 


The public is waking up, they are not as ignorant, as the ones who drank Obama kool aid.

www.youtube.com...

The internet is a wonderful thing, no wonder he wants to control it.




posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


Yes yes, we know you hate Obama, we get it, Shesh oh Pete.

Here he is speaking out against something that affects us all and all you can do is continually bash him for it. We get it, you don't like Obama, but this time he is right.



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


I'm sure Hitler himself had some rather impressionable qualities worth nothing. Like adoring puppies, for instance. Can't bash a man for that, but golly gosh he sure does have a lot of other things to atone for.

How about Obama goes by his word and does all the things he said he would, or how about comment on the countless other rulings that have desecrated this nation. He says nothing and hasn't vowed to do anything about them. He's sent drones to attack whole city blocks in Pakistan, and when he was only a few days in office. It's like a land-speed record on how fast a president kills civilians when he takes office.

I don't "agree" with the President on this one, it's simply a bone-headed no-brainer that this is a bad idea. The only thing he cares about is his ratings, so he can do other crazy things without huge lashings from the people.



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


Agreed. The only reason that he opposes this is that he's fearful that it might level the playing field in future elections.

Honestly, I don't have a huge issue with this. At least we'll know where the money is coming from. Maybe I'd have more sympathy if Obama would also insist that ALL campaign donations, including those in small amounts, be subject to full reporting requirements so we know exactly who is funding each candidate. Needless to say, I'm not holding my breath for that to happen anytime soon.



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


He is being a hypocrite or haven't you noticed?

Bottoms up,

I actually think Obama has been a great thing for Americans,

we stood up and took notice,

I have a right to my opinion, yours are plastered all over the forum.











[edit on 093131p://bSaturday2010 by Stormdancer777]



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by SyphonX
 



I don't "agree" with the President on this one, it's simply a bone-headed no-brainer that this is a bad idea. The only thing he cares about is his ratings, so he can do other crazy things without huge lashings from the people.


Ok, so your stance is, I am apposed to this stance of Obama's because it's Obama that said it.

That's rational. Sure, I guess it's fine that corporations now can throw millions of dollars into campaigns, Obama is against it, so therefore it must be a great idea.

That's sound logic!



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


No, I absolutely Do Not agree with this ruling, whatsoever. It's almost evil in it's design.

What I am saying is, that I am not going to somehow "appreciate the President", just because he "says he opposes it". It's very shaky, at best. This administration still has a lot of work to do to make peace with me and others.

Speaking out against an insane court ruling doesn't make them more credible. It just makes them "less insane".

So spare me the, give credit where credit is due bollocks. This administration almost mirrors the previous.

[edit on 23-1-2010 by SyphonX]



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 10:08 AM
link   
Well, we all know what just happened to our nation, our own supreme court working against us, they knew what they did, what we don't know is the motives behind pushing this ruling at this time, specially before mid term elections.

What we know also is that congress is nothing but a prostitute for those that this ruling will benefit, so do not expect much done to amend anything.

We have a president that is powerless without the help of the prostitutes in congress regardless of how much he barks.

We know that lobbyist pimps will be lobbying against anything that will be for the favor of the people and in theirs.

We know this is been going on for many years.

Now what are we the people going to do about it, beside complaining here.



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 10:08 AM
link   
Obama is a big time liar, who cares what he has to say? It's not like he'll do anything he says anyways.

Also, who cares about Democracy? This country is a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC not a Democracy.

Obama needs to read American history and so do the majority of people as well.



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Emerald The Paradigm
 


The republic is been dead when the federal government turn the states into whores, is just that you have not learned the truth yet.



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 10:11 AM
link   
Yeah, obama is sold. This ruling is evil, however. We were already a corporatocracy, and we need to be moving away from it, but instead we are allowing it to be entrenched. Corporate money involved in elections is the destruction of democracy. ANY money involved in elections is the destruction of democracy. Until all elections are given free and equal airtime, with real debates where reporters ask serious and pertinent questions, all will we have is whichever candidate gets the most contributions will be the president, ergo, whichever president promises the corporations the most support gets to be president.

Hate to bring it up, but hence ron paul. Not allowed any airtime during elections, only invited to 3 debates which he completely dominated. Massive funding for a candidate that most people had never even heard of at the time. All due to corporations deciding upon our 3 main runners.



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 



Bottoms up,


Yes, yes, I know, Obama kool aid, Obama Kool Aid. Blah blah blah. (yawn)
We understand that you feel that Obama is Jim Jones, pull the other leg.


I have a right to my opinion, yours are plastered all over the forum.


You sure do, doesn't mean that I won't speak out against your opinion. While it's true that you do have a right to your opinion, and I have a right to my opinion, neither are protected against the other attacking those opinions.

I am simply saying on this subject, individually, Obama's opinion is one that I share as well. So do a lot of people. But I guess that you have to justify a way to bash him for his opinion, even though it's an opinion that you might actually share yourself.

(Well uh, um, he's um, a, uh, a hypocrite! Ya! BOO Obama! BOO!)

I'll take this, like I take all things politicians say or do, on a issue by issue basis. This time I agree with Obama.



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 

Yes yes, we know you hate Obama, we get it, Shesh oh Pete.... you don't like Obama, but this time he is right.


You "get" nothing, except your nice try to derail. Which also explains your dynamite birdie avatar. And that pyramid in its background.

Stormdancer777 is RIGHT, goes without saying she doesn’t "hate" Obama, but the crimes against the population, of which B.H.O. is part of.



[edit on 23-1-2010 by CoolBlackHole]



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 12:21 PM
link   
No it's NOT. Now you will know exactly who their backing, reject them.



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by D1Useek
Nothing will save the Obamanation now that people and businesses can back politicians just like the unions have been doing for years with the blessing of the liberal demoncrats. The messiah being worried about 'foreign entities' getting involved brings back memories of the Cliton era, and poor monks with millions in communist China donations for Willie and the demoncrats. What the messiah is really worried about is a level field.

"Nothing can stop the winds of change!"

Maybe this is the change the messiah was talking about.


It's amazing how no matter what Obama does it's wrong.
The Unions and the foreign interests are not going to buy elections the way you want or the way any American wants, the will elect whomever serves their financial interests.

But I'm sure many here could care less what happens as long as they can blame it on the Obama administration.

Makes a lot of sense


Thanks for contributing

Ziggy



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dean Goldberry
I'm not an Obama fan, nor a supporter of secrecy-based (by definition) government (as we know it) in general, but I agree with the President on this one. Only in a twisted (by definition) vampirocracy (corporatocracy) would money-spending be equated with free speech. I predict future critics will be particularly merciless on that insane notion. "And may I introduce the esteemed candidate from Exxon..." And yes, I'm equally against candidate ownership by unions and whatever special interests.


Hi Dean,

Yes this is not a partisan problem, it's an American problem.
Nobody should be able to buy elections period. But to open the doors to any foreign agent to donate unlimited amounts of money is insane. It's no wonder we are in the straits we find ourselves when the division is so immense that Americans prefer to let other Nations elect our representatives.

It's a sad commentary on 2010 America.

Ziggy



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stormdancer777



* Obama worries about 'foreign entities' getting involved


does he now?
newsmax.com...
Secret, Foreign Money Floods Into Obama Campaign


More than half of the whopping $426.9 million Barack Obama has raised has come from small donors whose names the Obama campaign won't disclose.

And questions have arisen about millions more in foreign donations the Obama campaign has received that apparently have not been vetted as legitimate.


[edit on 093131p://bSaturday2010 by Stormdancer777]


If it's secret how do you know it's foreign?

What is the law on disclosure of small donor names?

What does that have to do with the SCOTUS making "any" Corporate donations legal?

If Obama took illegal contributions, then prosecute him.

Spurious accusations won't help your cause.


Ziggy Strange



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by MattMulder
reply to post by ziggystrange
 


quote from OP :
"Obama's broadside was triggered by a 5-4 ruling by the court's justices on Thursday that removed long-standing campaign finance limits and allowed corporations to spend freely in campaigns for president and Congress. In the ruling, the court's conservative majority said the limits had violated corporations' constitutional right to free speech. "

Remember that not-so-funny CO2 ad on Fox News and local Texas channels saying that CO2 is good for the planet ?

I have a feeling that Halliburton and friends are gonna spend a loooot of money in the next campaign to brainwash voters, one ad every 15minutes for 6 months and the deal is done.



I'm sure the entire election is being decided in boardrooms right now.
You can expect to see the ads pouring in immediately.

I'm sure half of them will be the Chinese lauding our great strides in Freedom of Speech while they laugh all the way to the bank with yet more of our Walmart bucks.

Next will be "free trade" meaning on us forever.

The worst part is Republicans say this is wonderful, great for America.

I guess there is no way to lift the veil if it's cemented with Krazy Glue.


Ziggy Strange



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 02:50 PM
link   
So Obama is for Federal election funding control.

Can somebody remind me of whether Obama opted in for Federal campaign financing funds, as laid out in McCain/Feingold that he's so much in support of now, for his last Presidential campaign; or did he take money from special interests, such as labor unions?

Seems a little hypocritical of him to accept special interest money himself, then condemn the decision of the Supreme Court to legalize it across the board, doesn't it?



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by vor78
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


Agreed. The only reason that he opposes this is that he's fearful that it might level the playing field in future elections.

Honestly, I don't have a huge issue with this. At least we'll know where the money is coming from. Maybe I'd have more sympathy if Obama would also insist that ALL campaign donations, including those in small amounts, be subject to full reporting requirements so we know exactly who is funding each candidate. Needless to say, I'm not holding my breath for that to happen anytime soon.


Since you have declared Obama only cares because this levels the field, tell me this, how does this fit with the idea that Obama is a Socialist? If this levels the field, he should be happy.

Now his commie friends can back all the Dems right? Venezuela will be collecting money so Chavez can send his buddy some help.

Somehow I don't think this is what you will see.

We all better get familiar with Rollerball.

Happy Saturday

Ziggy Strange



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join