Shasta and Goliath: Bringing Down Corporate Rule

page: 2
77
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 10:48 PM
link   
I guess none of these people need the blue-collar work that these industries provide.
I wonder how many of the residents would have issues with commuting to a polluting factory job or bottling company if they had to, as long as it was someone else's town the corporation was in.




posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 02:46 AM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 


WTH? Is that you Saltheart?


reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 


Oh there you are, it's ok then. I thought hell had frozen over for a minute, but everything is back to normal.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 04:38 AM
link   
Awesome!
This place is just 30 minutes away!
edit on 1/18/2011 by TasteTheTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 05:11 AM
link   
Our community railed against T mobile when they tried to stuff a MIC tower in a park, where the children come to play with their toys.

I would figure they're slinking around it at the moment, as there's been no word since the 'meeting', in which I feel bad for not having asked if they'd like to see a 'cell free zone' crop up, nationwide, and starting here.

I applaud the town for their brilliant stroke of counterpoint. Corporate technofascism is on par with political zionism and the patriot act. The whole damn thing needs to come down.

Watch out for halliburton, however. Is mount shasta a mountain? That makes it easy for them to frack right under you, poisoning the water directly. Usually they just drill sideways under people's property. In time, though, the poisonous waste cloud slinks underground like fallout.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 05:15 AM
link   
reply to post by AlienMenace
 


What's so great about the way we live, that we all chase the dollar, anyways?

I think it would be better if we followed Ecuador's lead and simply allowed nature to flourish. Once you trim the evil from the politicians, there's no longer the huge need for money and taxes. We don't all die just because people stop buying news cars and plasmas every month. Before you know it, you're dead, and it will be the quality of life that you'll mourn having missed.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 07:36 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Well, I believe there is a problem with corporations being in bed with government, ol Barry is neck deep under the covers, with big oil, big pharma, big monsanto, etc etc etc.

Does not mean I want to switch to communism.

By the way, the OP should write there spiel in the first comment, not spread it out to two. First they used the first comment to tell the story about the town that did a good thing. Then the second comment is used to push some weird idea to steal rights away using some kind of communist doctrine.

But hey WUK, glad you like the communist ideas. Stepping out from the shadows?



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 07:40 AM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 


I was just shocked that you would go with "We the People" instead of "We the Multinational Organizations". But, you didn't shock me after all, you sided with your multinational corporate buddies as expected. Personally I would go with We the People, but hey, that's one of them "communist" ideas now isn't it?

I guess all that "States Rights" go right out the window when your multinational corporation buddies bottom lines are affected huh?

Don't worry, I am sure thanks to free market people like yourselves, sooner or later the preamble of the constitution will look like this:

We the Multinational Corporations of America , in Order to gain a bigger market share, establish Profit, insure International Free Trade, provide for the Shareholders, promote the general Welfare of our companies, and secure the Blessings of the Central Bank to ourselves and our Prosperity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Multinational Corporations of America.
edit on 1/18/2011 by whatukno because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 08:00 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 




Tell me poo flinger, why do you always have to LIE to push your ideology?

Why do you have to frame other people's positions as LIES to push your ideology?

Is it because your ideology cannot stand on it's own. Because your entire argument is based on LIES, that is why you only have 20% of the nation behind you. When the light is shown on your ideology, people are repelled by what they see.

You cannot and do not argue ideas, you attack, fling vicious, vile and heinous accusations.

Why can you not argue the merits of your position? Is it THAT WEAK?

Right NOW, I challenge you to a debate. Socialism vs Individualism.



Do you accept or are you just going to continue to fling poo?

By the way, quit misrepresenting my positions, the only ones that believe that are you and your sycophants.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 


But see, now you are the one lying, I don't believe in socialism. This city decided to take their 10th Amendment right and use it. I really don't see what the issue is. I thought that cities have the right to govern themselves and if they don't want certain activities going on in their town, then they have the 10th Amendment right to refuse it.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 08:11 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


WOW, you are a vile LIAR.

You have the first comment is what I initially flagged. Then I read the second comment and recognized it for what it is. A communist amendment talked about in progressive circles.

Then you come on this thread and lie about my stances.

Stick your lies and tactics where they belong. You are the poo flinging master.
edit on 18-1-2011 by saltheart foamfollower because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 


So you changed your opinion based on political spin instead of the story itself. How does it feel to be so easily swayed by opinion?



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 08:48 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


WHAT?

The first COMMENT was fine, but then the OP brings a Communist manifesto type amendment into the OP.

Tell me whatukno, what do you think about the part of the manifesto to shape political opinion?

Sounds kind of like a Chavez thingy. I know you like it but HEY, you are the WUK.

By the way, CHALLENGE, bwaaaaahhhhhk!


BWWWWAAAAHHHHHHKKKK!



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 


Are you ok? Did you just have a seizure?

See, I look at the story and ignore the political opinion, I prefer to make up my own mind and not be swayed by what others tell me.

But like Ronald Reagan's son said on Sean Hannity the other night, "Conservatives need a leader". That's because Conservatives don't want to think for themselves but instead want someone else to think for them.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Ron Reagan, the darling of your ideology?

Yeah, no matter how good parents are, they can be subverted by the Socialists/Communists in the schools.

Funny how the number of people in the US that define themselves as liberals/socialists/progressives-20% is awfully similar to the number that are said to need a leader-25%

Did you hear the descriptions of the people that need a leader? It pretty much described the liberals to a T.

Would you like me to post them?


Hehehehehehehehehe

edit to add-funny how the side that calls for individualism and PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY would be considered the ones needing a leader. Can you say? PROJECTION?

Funny how those that believe the COLLECTIVE is the strength and you are telling us they are NOT the ones needing the Leader? You so funny! {say with oriental voice}

Brwwwwaaaahhhhhk!
edit on 18-1-2011 by saltheart foamfollower because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 


Actually the son was Michael Reagan that said that "Conservatives need a leader", he called Ron Jr. an embarrassment to his father when he was alive and an embarrassment to his mother now.

Is Michael Reagan in your opinion a socialist? I think he would disagree.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Well, since I did not watch the Sean Hannity show the other night, I did not know it was the other.

Oh and by the way, the conservatives do not need a leader.

It is one of the PROBLEMS with the idiots. What we need is everyone to foment a front to destroy the lies that have been spread.

But hey, you keep with your agenda. I will keep with mine.

By the way, CHALLENGE! Brwwwwwaaaahhhhh!



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by awake1234
 


SO good to hear. Thank you for posting this.

This is a real alternative. wow. Hope more municipalities get onboard - can't really see it happening in Canada, but we can hope.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 11:08 AM
link   
Bravo! I love the idea. Once this kind of group action becomes common place at the municipal level, then it will surely move up to the state level too.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by awake1234
 


Thanks mate.

AT LAST! People are actually *doing* something other than slapping their chops about how bad it all is.

Nice one.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 11:12 AM
link   
Aloha

thank you all friends for contributing

certainly you both, whatukno & saltheart foamfollower, have shared many ideas and your views are appreciated

each of you have shared your truth as you know it, and you may be more similar than appearance allows, so let us come together in understanding - and our movement toward freedom

ideologies rise and fall as with the proponents of each shifting society, and so too, this amendment is the product in progress of a people in progress, yet it is a more powerful agent of change, even in its imperfections, when we stand together

the fact of the matter is this movement has accomplished more than any of our ideologies could from the comfort of our computers, those that this amendment challenges would pleasantly laugh as we bicker amongst ourselves rather than side together under the banner of an amendment which is actually shaping communities

we all know talk is cheap when in the context of social change, and yet when we stand apart in these matters talk is very expensive, to our personal liberty

would we rather have the success of ego in an intellectual victory of words, or unite together in a cause for freedom

the most important thing here which may be missed is the idea of "take your power back"
these people and their communities are challenging state and federal injustice camoflauged as justice and are victorious

Unity in the Community - - - - - even the ats community; because in this time we can stand al-one or as One

∞♡∞





new topics
top topics
 
77
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join