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.

 

Could Sarah Palin be right about Michelle Obama?

page: 4
27
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by zuul000
 


regarding the anarchist issue.

i can appreciate the sentiment, but can we live in a state of anarchy? even wolf packs and herd animals have some form of self regulation.


anarchy seems like a means to an end, but not an end unto itself.

nothing can grow in a perpetual state of chaos. correct?


however, i may be misinformed, and may not understand anarchy in its fullest. what would a state of anarchy be like on a local level? on a state level? on a federal level? on a global level?


PS just so we are clear, i am in no way shape or form for any sort of Big Brother government. blech.
the question of how to govern a people is a fascinating one, so i am curious.

cheers.




posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by mythos
i can appreciate the sentiment, but can we live in a state of anarchy? even wolf packs and herd animals have some form of self regulation.


I consider myself, and humans generally, better than mere wolves and herd animals.



nothing can grow in a perpetual state of chaos. correct?


Anarchy does not equal chaos. It is a not a cartoonish, Road Warrior scenario. Anarchy is the minimization of state-corporate coercion. It is placement of preference for institutions of horizontal organization over the status quo of vertical organization.


however, i may be misinformed, and may not understand anarchy in its fullest. what would a state of anarchy be like on a local level? on a state level? on a federal level? on a global level?


There would be no mega-corporations. Companies like Boeing, Best Buy, Aetna are extensions of the State. They can only exist in a legal framework established by the State through the laws of incorporation and the charter of limited liability. In an absolute free market it would be impossible for these companies to exist.

Likewise, there would be no vampire state. Parks, libraries, health care - anything that didn't require a monopoly to accomplish - would be handed over to the private sector. In this case the private sector, rather than being for-profit mega corporations, would be voluntary membership cooperatives, similar to credit unions or REI. This accomplishes the functions of government but in a completely non-coercive and competitive fashion. Cooperatives have no police power and no authority to levy or collect taxes. They rely on their actual ability to deliver services that people find beneficial to retain membership and elicit dues from those members. When they cease being beneficial their members simply quit.

A remnant non-state administration would continue to fill those very minimal functions that require a monopoly or police power to effect.

The anarchist revolutionary non-state would see popular administration occur in a framework analogous to that of the Zapatista Free Territory in Mexico which is successful and ongoing. In it there are no elections (legislatures are chosen by lottery) so political classes and professional politicians are eliminated. There are no taxes, the minimal remnant functions of government are adequately financed through voluntary contributions by cooperative institutions as well as user fees.

I could go on but this is a topic for a different thread.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 06:49 PM
link   
The real question is "Could Sarah Palin be right?" .

Sorry guys I just had to say it.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by zuul000
 



seems you've pondered this for a bit.

not sure i've associated what you've describe as anarchy, at least in an etymological sense. but hey, as they say, give it a name, and what you describe seems to be a system that has its perks.

a system, mind you. a collective must agree upon it. someone must enforce it, to a degree. yes? no?


anyway. the description is appreciated.

PS i must defend the "mere" wolves, mind you, for if humans were so much better, well...

why the need for anarchy?



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Eh - as you said, historically 1st ladies have always taken on some kind of softball issue like drugs (Nancy) or fat kids ( Michelle).

Personally, I've always found 1st ladies doing this (and I'm old enough to have seen several from both Democrats and Republican admins) to be very annoying - honestly to me it hasn't mattered if it was Nancy, Michelle, etc.. or what their issue was - the whole "issue campaign" just always annoyed me.

But, that doesn't mean its wrong. In the grand scheme of things it doesn't really hurt anything.

The only harm could be if something a 1st lady basically used her pull to get a law passed around whatever her "pet issue" is. So Michelle saying kids shouldn't eat chips is fine. Michelle screaming at Barry till he drafts a law banning chips for everyone under 18 and taxing them at the rate of $1 per chip for those above 18 isn't fine.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by zuul000
 

Spot on that palin is sayanim, designed to keep Christians on the wrong path. To hear a Christian pipe Jesus quotes, then screw you to the wall with stupid, impossible interpretations of them while saying you 'need to listen to creflo dollar' and finishing with 'I dunno, I LIKE PALIN. I LIKE her', is just enough to get me to pass out in disbelief.

The woman is whack. The country is doomed by what the zionist media have programmed them for.

Is all discernment lost?



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by mythos

not sure i've associated what you've describe as anarchy, at least in an etymological sense. but hey, as they say, give it a name, and what you describe seems to be a system that has its perks.


Unfortunately, the state worshipers have fronted an interpretation of anarchy couched in ridiculously cartoonish excesses; the "Mad Max" faux synonym. What I've described is absolutely anarchy. Regrettably, anarchists are not allowed to enunciate this vision and the general public is left with an idea of anarchy as chaotic disorder, mass rape, looting and general terror.


a system, mind you. a collective must agree upon it. someone must enforce it, to a degree. yes? no?


One only needs to enforce power, not the absence of it. Where there is nothing, there is nothing to enforce.



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Yes. She is right about Ms.Obama.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by freedish
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Yes. She is right about Ms.Obama.


Explain.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


*double post*
edit on 4-1-2011 by freedish because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by freedish
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Yes. She is right about Ms.Obama.


Explain.


Just a hunch



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by zuul000
There would be no mega-corporations. Companies like Boeing, Best Buy, Aetna are extensions of the State. They can only exist in a legal framework established by the State through the laws of incorporation and the charter of limited liability. In an absolute free market it would be impossible for these companies to exist.


Anarchy lifestyle for everyone, huh?


Say goodbye to human progression should it happen.

Your vision. I am not a fan,,,at all.
You can choose to live in some lawless area of the world producing little for the civilization, but don't try and impose your stagnation dreams onto the rest of us. thanks


Enjoy mexico



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 12:48 AM
link   
Ah some folks just can't shake the left right paradigm programming... Don't the lefties realize attacking Palin endears her to the righties and makes her more popular? Ever heard the cliché; "no publicity is bad publicity"?

Much as I don't care for Palin if she gets the R nomination she will beat Barry like a dirty rug. Her reality show is brilliant for campaigning and shows her as a down to earth real person to millions of Americans who will relate to her from both sides.

So brilliant move attacking her over this joke of an issue and helping endear her to more folks. I'd say right now she has an 80-90% chance of being the next president...



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
Ah some folks just can't shake the left right paradigm programming... Don't the lefties realize attacking Palin endears her to the righties and makes her more popular? Ever heard the cliché; "no publicity is bad publicity"?

Much as I don't care for Palin if she gets the R nomination she will beat Barry like a dirty rug. Her reality show is brilliant for campaigning and shows her as a down to earth real person to millions of Americans who will relate to her from both sides.

So brilliant move attacking her over this joke of an issue and helping endear her to more folks. I'd say right now she has an 80-90% chance of being the next president...


The left wants her to run, yes. making sure that she is always in the limelight.

And as far as beating? heh...according to every poll conducted by everyone...its landslide Obama win. Sarah appeals heavily to the base party. the moderate republicans sort of tolerate her in a cringing way. Independents strongly object to her.

Thats just the facts. Your percentages are only trumped by reality. You might want to stop listening to the most brainwashed of all media and check into a bit of reality. 80-90% my arse. only if everything left of the far right forgot to vote.

Sorry...because she is a national joke doesn't mean she will become POTUS. but yes...there is an effort (from the left) to keep her in the news under the guise of annoyance.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 01:52 AM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 



Not sure what polls you're looking at:


The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 26% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Thirty-nine percent (39%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -13 (see trends).
www.rasmussenreports.com...


This guy has the lowest ratings in history. Still I wasn't basing my opinion on polls. Call it intuition if you like. Only time will tell for sure.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 02:01 AM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


I too have seen the outrage over Michelle Obama pushing for better nutirion and my reaction is and has always been


We have Glenn Beck pretending there's a sinister agenda here and now Sarah Palin too?

As a fat person who is hopelessly addicted to junk food I fully support Michelle Obama, I just hope she knows what she's getting herself into. I wouldn't be surprised to see paranoid folks in the far right wearing T-shirts with the image of a heavy set man and a bag of cheese puffs and the in a speech bubble next to the man it says "From my cold dead pudgy Yellow Dye #5 stained hands".. in fact, I better get on selling those as parody shirts before they come up with something like that.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 02:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by zuul000
There would be no mega-corporations. Companies like Boeing, Best Buy, Aetna are extensions of the State. They can only exist in a legal framework established by the State through the laws of incorporation and the charter of limited liability. In an absolute free market it would be impossible for these companies to exist.


Anarchy lifestyle for everyone, huh?


Say goodbye to human progression should it happen.


Do you mean progression or progress?

Real progress is when those of us who speak the same language can decipher a common character set and style of written expression. The absence of that ability is indicative of devolution.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 02:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Where in the Constitution does it say the Fed's have the power to subject children to specific learning curves and or specific subject based material?


Right after the part of the constitution that says I cannot cook meth in my kitchen.
I think it comes just before the part of the constitution that says I may not legally own nuclear weapons.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 02:38 AM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


When asked specifically if it was between Sarah Palin or Barack Obama...Palin gets toasted

Actually...the only one close to winning over Barack is a toss between Huckabee and Romney...and both of those lose if it was today...however, they are in the swing area where if they do a bit of magic, could potentially swing it.

Palin is a insult.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 02:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX
reply to post by hawkiye
 


When asked specifically if it was between Sarah Palin or Barack Obama...Palin gets toasted

Actually...the only one close to winning over Barack is a toss between Huckabee and Romney...and both of those lose if it was today...however, they are in the swing area where if they do a bit of magic, could potentially swing it.

Palin is a insult.


Is Palin "a insult" or "an insult"?




top topics



 
27
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join