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.

 

Question Insanity: What to Ask Progressives

page: 7
20
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 



Corporations are NOT humans, their charters are granted by the people and their rights and existence are subject to governance in ACCORDANCE with the constitution.



Indeed, this sentence is why Citizens United won the case.




posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 08:10 PM
link   
democratic progressive party pdamerica.org...

is america joking me?. there o lol anyways i was running across the websites main descriptions of what they stand for and their grass roots. if they were trying to push a vote their way i wouldnt be able to tell, their overall views are wrong they seem to have, some flaws based on their views, they seem to point out every problem in the society known as america. they seem to lack a plan that would actually accomplish something that they say would help, regardless if they keep on promoting ideas with no over all plan they can end up decieving alot of people over the next political run.

i do believe that if they are calling for an overall union takeover in the country that if the system were to fail that the overall system itself would collapse, would i be wrong it appears that they think that putting them in unions would save the system overall the problem isnt just neccessarily the teachers but the overall flow of money into the system and an overall lapse in how the schools are

teachings the criteria and the push into science in an elementary and middleschool and highschool level


at a college level over 100 billion givin each year means that we as a country cant actaully afford our that a different means of overcoming our national debt. if we were to pull out of exporting jobs that a means of making a self sustained economy without the exporting of jobs that a circulation of different exports from inside the country and a circulation of national production in side america to different countries and also america would be what i percieved as best the democratic progressive party really actually do anything regarding this issue, and what would we do about there take on health care and outr country supposedly being wealthy.
our country is poor over 13,000 billion in debt is a lot and a another potential 10,000 billion in the next 10 years is alot we as a country are spending over 200 billion on gdp every year plus another so much billions yearly is not healthy that with another like 20-40 billion every year just in a loan forom china makes a giant deficet in america not just ecopnomically but also from a constituition defense standpoint if america doesnt work out its problems that if a country were to give out another loan there would be no guarantee that america would still be functionable to anybody and pay back a loan. there is no plausible plan to help this economy through any political means and everybody #in knows this already why the # do we even bother!!!



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 09:34 AM
link   
I am not sure why I spent so much time on this. However, having done this work I thought I would post it for review. I copied the list of questions to my desktop a few days ago, and went through the list slowly, as time permitted.

The full list of questions referenced by the OP is here.

pajamasmedia.com...


There is obviously a lot of anger in this forum. I set it as a goal to answer the questions as dispassionately and neutrally as possible.


#

If all cultures are equal, why doesn’t UNESCO organize International Cannibalism Week festivals?

ANSWER: Because cannibalism is universally regarded as repugnant, that would contradict UNESCO's mission of encouraging universal respect for different cultures.

Why do those demanding “equal pay for equal work” never protest against “equal pay for little or no work”?

ANSWER: Because people generally don't get equal pay for little or no work. (However, it is quite common for people to be substantially underpaid for their work, and that can be worthy of protest.)

Why has no politician ever run on men’s issues or promised to improve the lives of males?

ANSWER: It is so very common for politicians to run on men's issues that it is unexceptional and not noticed or often discussed.

If all beliefs are equally valid, how come my belief in the absurdity of this maxim gets rejected by its proponents?

ANSWER: A true proponent that all beliefs are equally valid would accept your belief, without a doubt.

Ever noticed that for the past thirty years, we’ve been hearing we have less than ten years to save the planet?

ANSWER: The good news is that we have been able to save and preserve important parts of the planet for the last thirty years, a fact that disappoints nobody.

Once a politician labels the truth as hate speech, can anyone trust him to speak the truth afterward?

ANSWER: Any truth can be used in a hateful and non-constructive way. It is good to avoid that, and for politicians to call-out hate speech for what it is (regardless if there is an underlying truth.)

If a politician gets elected by the poor on a promise to eliminate poverty, wouldn’t fulfilling his promise destroy his voting base? Wouldn’t he rather benefit from the growing numbers of poor people? Isn’t this an obvious conflict of interests?

ANSWER: If a politician improves the lives of his base, that will generally solidify his base and help him get re-elected.

How did the “war on poverty” end? Has there been a peace treaty or a ceasefire?

ANSWER: The war on poverty is still ongoing.

Why weren’t there demonstrations with anti-feudal slogans under feudal rule?
And under Stalin, no anti-communist demonstrations? And under Hitler, no anti-fascist demonstrations? In a free capitalist society, anti-capitalist demonstrations are commonplace. Is capitalism really the worst system?

ANSWER: There were no effective demonstrations under Stalin and Hitler because these were brutal government dictatorships.

If capitalism makes some people rich without making others poor, who will benefit when capitalism is destroyed?

ANSWER: People who have been enslaved by capitalism will benefit, mainly those who were made poor by the rich (although not all rich people make others poor.)

If the poor in America have things that people in other countries can only dream about, why is there a movement to make America more like those other countries?

ANSWER: Because there are many countries that have a much better standard of living than America.

Why, on the rare occasions when Obama’s actions benefit America, does his base get angry? And every time his actions are hurting this nation, his base is happy? Who exactly are these people?

ANSWER: Because there is often speculation and disagreement as to whether an action is actually beneficial.

If cutting out the middleman lowers the price, why are we paying the government to stand between us and the markets?

ANSWER: Because regulation of the market place is very important to prevent crime and abuse by unscrupulous people.

If racial profiling is an abomination, what do you make of the last presidential election?

ANSWER: We elected someone with highly progressive ideas. As a side note, this person also happens to be our first African-American President.

After Eric Holder called Americans a nation of cowards, what has he done personally to help the situation?

ANSWER: Eric Holder's comment needs to be examined in context before any hard judgments are made.

If diversity training benefits everyone, why do those classes mostly consist of white heterosexual males?

ANSWER: In any business related activity, white heterosexual males will likely be the majority, because they are the majority of the business community.

Why is a huge poisonous cloud over a volcano considered magnificent — but a smokestack over an American factory is ugly and harmful?

ANSWER: Because a volcanic eruption is an uncommon natural event, whereas a smokestack is quite common and ugly and harmful man-made artifact.

How many Kyoto Protocols are rendered pointless by one medium-sized volcanic eruption?

ANSWER: Not sure, but I would guestimate that one medium-sized volcanic eruption is about 2% of a Kyoto Protocol.

Why is burning gas in my car hurting the planet, but setting fire to housing developments in California is saving it?

ANSWER: Because a controlled burn is a common, inexpensive, and safe way to clear land.

Why does Hollywood glamorize drug addicts, criminals, liberal Democrats, and mentally challenged people? What do they all have in common?

ANSWER: What these people have in common is that they are fascinating, for various diverse reasons.

How come Hollywood can always find a good side in thugs, but never in businesspeople? What was the last movie that pictured a self-reliant, industrious man as a role model?

ANSWER: The last movie that pictured a self-reliant and industrious man as a role model was "Inception" (the year's best movie, IMO.)

If it’s capitalist greed that forces Hollywood to exploit the lowest human instincts, why didn’t the same greed force Hollywood to exploit America’s patriotism and make war movies showing the U.S. presence in Iraq and Afghanistan as a force for good?

ANSWER: There are many patriotic and socially relevant movies. Go see "The Hurt Locker".

How come those calling Sarah Palin a “bimbo” often look like part of Paris Hilton’s entourage?

ANSWER: I don't see that as true, so I can't comment.

If there are no absolutes and family is an antiquated tool of bourgeois oppression, why is having gay marriage an absolute must?

ANSWER: There are various opinions on marriage, but generally someone will not get married if they think it is an antiquated tool of oppression.

Would you know from the media coverage that there are more sex offenders among public school teachers then among Catholic priests? How come the church gets the blame and the Department of Education doesn’t?

ANSWER: It is clear from media coverage that both groups get blamed.

Why is the media so outspoken about sex abusers being priests, but avoids calling them homosexual pedophiles? Who are they afraid to offend?

ANSWER: I don't see that avoidance, so I can't comment.

Why do those who decry modern civilization never live far from shopping centers and why don’t grind their coffee with a stone ax?

ANSWER: Shopping malls and coffee grinders are not particularly onerous aspects of modern civilization, unlike other aspects of modern society such as crime, pollution, and ignorance.

If we are called a “consumer society” because we consume, why aren’t we also called an “excreter society” because we excrete?

ANSWER: Because consumerism is a much more engaging part of our life than excretion.

How come the unselfish Americans hate their country out of personal frustrations, while the selfish ones defend America with their lives?

ANSWER: Nobody can accurately call someone "selfish" who is willing to defend an unselfish ideal with his or her life. I don't see that as common.

If describing terrorists as freedom fighters is justified by the journalistic principle of neutrality, what is the name of the principle that justifies describing U.S. troops as rapists and murderers?

ANSWER: Journalists often apply inaccurate labels in order to shape public opinion.

When the media portrays the killing of terrorists as “slaughter of civilians,” while slaughter of civilians is portrayed as “resistance to occupation,” is the media really being neutral? Whose side are they really on?

ANSWER: Some journalists are more neutral than others.

If Hollywood types are so opposed to capitalism, why is there a warning against unauthorized distribution of their movies?

ANSWER: Most people in Hollywood are capitalists. Intellectually property can be a legitimate type of property, and needs to be reasonably defended.

Why is experimenting on animals cruel, but experimenting on human embryos compassionate?

ANSWER: Both types of experimentation can be done compassionately, however wanton animal cruelty exists and is all too common and needs to be regulated and suppressed.

How come industrial logging is a crime against nature, but the destruction of forests by wildfires is a natural cycle of life?

ANSWER: Because industrial logging can be taken to excess, and can be driven by human greed. In contrast, natural wildfires are fairly beyond human control.

Why do those who object to tampering with the environment approve of tampering with the economy? Isn’t the economy also a fragile ecosystem where a sudden change can trigger a devastating chain reaction?

ANSWER: Because, while both the environment and the economy are fragile, the economy is mainly a man-made artifact and cannot exist without considerable human adjustment, regulation, and agreement.

Isn’t the latest economic crisis such a chain reaction?

ANSWER: The current economic crisis was caused by lack of regulatory controls.

Aren’t most of today’s social ills the result of tampering with social ecosystems?

ANSWER: Most social ills are the result of human weaknesses, such as greed, addictive behavior, lack of compassion, and lack of education.

Why is bioengineering bad, but social engineering good?

ANSWER: Both are potentially good.

If Al Gore is right and our consumption of the planet’s resources is a moral issue, doesn’t that make genocide an ethical solution? How about an artificial famine? What would Al Gore choose?

ANSWER: Indiscriminant consumption of the plant's resources is a moral issue because that type of unchecked behavior can lead to starvation, war, and genocide. I am sure Al Gore would agree.

If being a winner in nature’s struggle for survival is selfish, does being extinct make you an altruist?

ANSWER: Wanting to survive is not selfish.

Since our planet’s resources are limited, wouldn’t the ultimate act of environmental activism be to stop eating and starve to death?

ANSWER: Environmental activists want to create a sustainable situation where nobody has to starve to death.

How come those who hate humanity for its faults are called “humanists” but those who love humanity for its virtues are called “hate-mongers”?

ANSWER: Because labels can be misapplied quite easily. People often label things inaccurately and poorly.

If economic ups and downs are natural cycles, why is the downturn always blamed on unbridled capitalism, but the upturn is the result of a wise leadership of a Democrat president?

ANSWER: Because the current economic downturn is mainly due to unbridled capitalism, and our best hope of an upturn will require good leadership.

Why is there never a media story praising capitalism for the booming economy?

ANSWER: The benefits of capitalism are often highlighted.

Ever noticed that those who demand “power to the people” also believe that people can’t do anything right without government supervision?

How exactly does dependency on the government increase “people power”?

ANSWER: Because the government officials are elected by the people.

Why is there never a headline that says “Government program ends as its intended goal has been achieved”?

ANSWER: Because successfully executed government projects are quite common, so this is not usually headline news.

How come so many anti-American radicals are wearing American brands, listen to American music, watch American movies, and play American video games on computers designed by American engineers?

ANSWER: Because America has a lot of great things to offer the world.

Why do advocates for higher taxes have accountants advising them how they can pay smaller taxes? Wouldn’t you expect them instead to seek advice on how to give away more of their income to the IRS? Or at least not to hire accountants at all?

ANSWER: Because filling out your taxes can be quite complicated, and you sometimes need an accountant to figure out the right amount of taxes to pay.

Can you name one person who paid the IRS more than he owed because he trusted the government to put his money to good use?

ANSWER: Me -- I think a lot of people slightly overpay their taxes, and are not overly concerned with paying slightly more than they have to.

Did it occur to any of the 9/11 Truthers that a government conspiracy to murder thousands of people would have also included a plan to rub out a few troublemakers?

ANSWER: This suspicion has occurred to many truthers, and other people here at ATS.

If U.S. oil companies own everyone in Washington, how come they allowed Congress to grill them for the alleged price gouging — and to broadcast it on C-Span?

ANSWER: Because control of Government by the oil companies is only partial, and the U.S. still has freedom of speech and press.

Why didn’t Congress also grill Hugo Chavez, Vladimir Putin, and a guy named Abdullah Ibn Abdul Aziz Bin Abdulrahman Bin Faisal Bin Turki Bin Abdullah Bin Muhammad al Saud?

ANSWER: Because these people are not U.S. citizens, and not accessible to Congress.

Why are windfall profits a problem when they enrich U.S. companies that pay billions in taxes — but when Hugo Chavez uses the same windfall profits to fund Marxist guerillas in Colombia, it’s not a big deal?

ANSWER: Price gouging and monopolistic practices are always regarded as a problem. (What the windfall profits are spent on is another issue, and also a potential problem.)

If George W. Bush was an oil-thirsty dictator, why couldn’t he in eight years get permission from Congress to drill in ANWR? And why didn’t that failure in any way hurt his dictatorial reputation with the media?

ANSWER: Because Congress was unconvinced that the benefits of drilling in ANWR were worth the risks. Bush's persistent advocacy of drilling in ANWR reinforced Bush's image as oil-thirty, and a wannabe dictator.

If it’s true that the media emphasized bad news and harassed President Bush only because they competed for ratings, what changed now? Aren’t they worried that today’s emphasis on good news from the White House will destroy their ratings and make journalism irrelevant?

ANSWER: The good news / bad news cycle occurs irrespective of who is President, and has always occurred.

And finally, if all opinions are equal, how come a liberal who disagrees with a conservative is open-minded, but a conservative who disagrees with a liberal is a bigot?

ANSWER: Everyone has the same right to express an opinion, and there are always people who will agree or disagree with an opinion no matter how popular or how inane or how valid that opinion may be.



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by Janky Red
 



Corporations are NOT humans, their charters are granted by the people and their rights and existence are subject to governance in ACCORDANCE with the constitution.



Indeed, this sentence is why Citizens United won the case.


Nope, the judges were activists as there was the legal structure in place Mccain Feingold. The case was argued in 2009 and it was upheld; (08-205, 558 U.S. 50 (2010) - exactly as I stated and you misconstrued above. The federal government could not censor individuals, but could censor corporations based upon precedent. This ruling
when it was overturned further augments the march of corporatism in America. A corporation is not an individual, only thru abortion of principle like this may it be considered so by people like yourself... the speech of the individuals were never censored as individuals - . this ruling ensures that people with extra resources get an extra voice in the electoral process depending upon their level of wealth and ability to pay for that extra voice.
It also reenforces the dynamic which now legalizes favor and graft, which invariably grows government and undermines the republicanism you champion.

I am not sure what is the point of all your constitutional rhetoric if you leisurely ignore the framework and principle behind the words and text.



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 


And here I thought you took your ball and went home.

I disagree with the notion of any person or group being denied constitutional rights based on how much money they have or what the function of the group is. Stop accusing me of wanting some sort of fascist state.



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by Janky Red
 


And here I thought you took your ball and went home.

I disagree with the notion of any person or group being denied constitutional rights based on how much money they have


Does this include non-citizens? Becausse the assumption that corporations merely consist of American citizens is narrowminded. Many corporations do not merely consist of american citizens, but foreign investors, owners and stakeholders. There is nothing stripping american citizens of their constitutional rights to vote and spend their money as they wish, so this furthers the question as to why corporations, which are not necessarily american by nature, need rights granted under the constitution to participate in our elections? Individual citizens within them already hold these rights.
edit on 2-1-2011 by Southern Guardian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Starred for a good reply..


I think I'm starting to get where you're going with this...

Foreign influence.. I never thought about it that way...

Perhaps it's time to return to the drawing board...


I shall have to review the case again.



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Not just corporations, how bout them international unions?

And those $200+ million that were never listed on one side of the presidential election.

Moral relativism.



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Not just corporations, how bout them international unions?


How about them. Nobody was asking for Unions to be declared persons, I don't recall any major liberal figure calling for such a thing. I do know that the "Unions" were added in with the corporations so that the judges and conservative activists could act as if this was for both sides, yet, no major democratic or liberal figure was asking for it.

So, what about them? I don't think they should be declared persons, I don't recall any liberal calling for such.


And those $200+ million that were never listed on one side of the presidential election.


What, you mean in the 2008 elections, before the conservative supreme judges made this ruling? I don't think corporations and foreign interests should have unlimited donations for anybody. And as for the $200 million+ folks who donated to Obama? were all those the actual corporations? or individuals themselves?


This table lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2008 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.

www.opensecrets.org...

Do you have no issue with foreigners being able to donate unlimited sums of money to presidential campaigns? If you have a problem with illegal immigrants jumping over the border fence it makes no sense for you to hold a different tune to foreigners influencing our elections without boundaries.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


You should not have gone there. Maybe start LEARNING a little instead of listening to others.

Because there WERE CERTAIN entities that were allowed to have free speech as in giving all the money they WANTED. Hmmm, where have I read that before?

That would be Animal Farm, some animals are more equal than others. Right SG, they be mo equal than private individuals huh. Because them animals in gubment unions and are more equal than I.



And as for the $200 million+ folks who donated to Obama? were all those the actual corporations? or individuals themselves?


I guess we will never know huh? Because they were all just so happened to be under the limit of disclosure. Hmmm, AIN'T that spaycial!

But, you believe what Obama has said with NO proof. Hmmmm, what did you say about Clinton when caught taking money from the Chinese? LOL, probably made moral relativistic excuses than too huh?
Oh get out of here. Seems you think libel is fine and dandy now huh?

Glad you back liars, libelists, war mongers, crony capitalists, fascists, etc etc etc.

Funny how pretty much EVERYTHING you attacked Bush with, you now defend Obama.

Let me see, cognitive dissonance, hypocrite, liar, moral relativistic progenitor, war monger, what other descriptors would apply to anyone that backs this administration?

By the way, you back this administration, what does that make you?



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Starred for a good reply..


I think I'm starting to get where you're going with this...

Foreign influence.. I never thought about it that way...

Perhaps it's time to return to the drawing board...


I shall have to review the case again.


I thought you were aware of this aspect - SG is good


I believe the ruling also nullified disclosure requirements of funds laid out by Mccain Feingold. This would allow
ANYONE to directly engage in the American political process. If you think this is constitutional, then what premise would prevent a forging government from having agents form a charter in America and heavily influence elections? By your stance Foreign agents are protected by the first amendment and their bottomless Treasuries should not be disparaged or discriminated against either.

Your position anger/s/ed me greatly because
had this aspect gone unsaid, you would have supported this based upon your principle as opposed to thinking
about repercussion and how they effect the founding principles, sadly this is how it is done. Read about the rise of the corporations after the civil war, these are the exact same methods, just updated and highly evolved. The courts did the work, inch by inch, year to year... All done BY citing the constitution and """rights""",,, get that???

If you really want expand you mode of thought I think you should consider this concept - as it applies to everything, from corporations to government... bascilly - The things unsaid and extremely difficult/impossible to calculate are often the most important factors when forming an opinion.

en.wikipedia.org...

Corporations already get economic advantage due to limited liability, so do unions and NFPs - individuals in these types of entities have their individual rights as INDIVIDUALS. To further augment their benefit and rights is an insane maneuver, especially considering the slow death of soul propriety.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


That would be Animal Farm, some animals are more equal than others.


I call B.S foam - Did anyone say the CEO, CFO, Chair or President is not allowed to vote? You are exagerating
and running defense for... corporate rights


I thought you disliked corporations and unions?

Are you really arguing about defending the rights of ficticious entities???

for the millionth time, this is what REALLY screws up conservatism... I have a feeling this is what leads to
neocon doctrine too, sorry to say... Once you can justify this, where does it end???
edit on 3-1-2011 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 


ARE YOU FORGETTING SOMETHING?

Look into the language of the McCain/Feingold Bill and refute this-

Was there a list of entities that were not held to the same tenets of the legislation as EVERYONE else?

Hmmmm?

That is right, some pigs are more equal than the unwashed masses. Oh well.
How bout writing a law where there are NO too big to fail. NO exceptions given.

You know, the ol EQUAL UNDER THE LAW component of LAW.

Seems like YOU and OTHERS are advocating a feudal system of government. Hmmmm?



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 


Well, no need to get angry, frustrated, sure, but angry?

This is supposed to be fun. It is supposed to be a learning experience for the both of us...
We'll both do well to remember that.


But, honestly, it didn't cross my mind that foreign corporations would be influencing our elections...But McCain Feingold also has issues that are indeed unconstitutional..Some of the language, although not interpreted that way today, could be used to revoke certain rights from certain individuals. At least this way Congress can start again and try to get a good bill in there that is more in line with Constitutional law.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 02:27 PM
link   
So, did anything come of those questions and answers, or are we pretending they never happened now?



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 


Thanks for the great question set, Salty... F&S! Have a feeling this post will
attract more addenda than a song in a Danny Kaye movie. How old am I NOW?

But I can't resist: last question(?)
" Would you want democracy to be the predominant mode of
governance; if all the people viewing the candidate KNEW his
platform was either socially destructive, intrinsically dishonest,
or both... and hit the button for him in the booth anyway?" GAHHhhh.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
reply to post by Janky Red
 


ARE YOU FORGETTING SOMETHING?

Look into the language of the McCain/Feingold Bill and refute this-

Was there a list of entities that were not held to the same tenets of the legislation as EVERYONE else?

Hmmmm?

That is right, some pigs are more equal than the unwashed masses. Oh well.
How bout writing a law where there are NO too big to fail. NO exceptions given.

You know, the ol EQUAL UNDER THE LAW component of LAW.

Seems like YOU and OTHERS are advocating a feudal system of government. Hmmmm?


Like corporations, union and 501Cs -

Tell me are any of those individuals which comprise those INDIVIDUALS barred from voting, speaking?

I recall you were against the ruling until other members talked you into being for it... It is further legalizing corruption... Of all of your stances THIS is the only one that I think is COMPLETELY fraudulent, 100%
I certainly understand the rest,,, but not this - this legal system was corrupted inch by inch, you are advocating
a marathon by comparison. You are advocating the granting of title and entitlement too, go figure. Tell me why are now for something your were very against at first, what changed?



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 


No, I initially did not know what it was about and the emotional rhetoric got me going.

Then I read the bill and noticed it had exemptions for certain corporations and unions. Hmmmm, imagine what THEY favored?



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 06:58 AM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 


Yes, you say this. but your problem is that you don't want dialogue. I answered your questions with more questions. This is the Socratic method. My questions are answers to your questions. You don't want anyone to better your ideas- you want your ideas to be the only ones agreed to. You don't want a democracy of ideas - you want only your ideas to be acceptable.

I was a Soviet specialist for a number of years- and I wouldn't look at your former USSR individual's questions as anything deep or insightful.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 07:04 AM
link   
reply to post by glome
 


and as for how ideas translate into political reality? that's another story. America is bought and paid for by megacorps. The wikileaks cables expose a number of right wing crimes- such as using US diplomacy to do the bidding of Boeing- going so far as to recreate Air Force One for the Saudis so that they'd buy a dozen or so Boieng Airplanes. You have two massive wars that were entirely wars of choice and not necessity and have both ended without making America safer or any closer to achieving its goals. You have a skyrocketing national debt while banks got off scott free from bringing down the world economy. But your loaded questions sure do prove how the right wing is all about making America a better place and constitutionally governed.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join