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.

 

I hold you accountable, America.

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 05:21 AM
link   
I think, in my humble opinion, that misconceptions and media lies are what has fueled this 'revolution' as you call it. Obama has/is trying to create a European-style government molded like my Swedish government. With the media lying about what kind of government it would be (if he were successful) the Americans have becomed hoodwinked.

For example, here in Sweden we are NOT a (completely) socialist country. We are a mixture of capitalism and socialism. I know, I know. People hear that word socialism and they think communism. Wrong. That is a media lie. We accept all religions and promote independant thought. Last time I checked, that was anti-communism. However, the American media has portrayed it to be. Here in Sweden we have virtually no one on welfare and almost nothing is handed out. You won't hear that in the media over there. You hear that we have free healthcare, free this and that and milk and cookies for bedtime.
Absolutely not. We pay for everything via our taxes. Here in Sweden it works and I will give you two examples of why it works:

1. Sweden has nowhere near the population as America does. Our form of government will only work for much smaller populated countries.

2. Here in Sweden, when we pay our taxes, it actually goes to what the government says it will: services. Our government doesn't take the taxes from us and spend it on other things, then borrow from a program to pay for it and borrow from another program to pay for the borrowed (from) program, and then borrow from another country to pay for all the borrowing from its programs that it has done! That's INSANE!. What a hairball the IRS is dealing with and to think it's from its own bosses' doing!


Obama means well, but he's vain to think that our style of government would work over there. Capitalism is great, but so is socialism if it is applied right and the public is educated enough about it. Hence, Deny Ignorance. How appropriate.

Now, is Sweden the land of milk and honey? I don't know. But, it's working. I do know that. We have billions of Krona in surplus and we have no outstanding bills owed. It took us 25 years for it to finally start working. It didn't happen overnight and I think that is the crucial mistake Obama made. He tried to do everything at once. You cannot do that. Plus, TPTB would have to give up some control if our style of government was enacted over there. Well, as we all know, they would NEVER go for that.

Sweden is a valuable trading partner with the USA and we our sometimes referred to as the '52' state. We don't hate America, We are rooting for you! Get this racial crap behind you, unite together against your lying and deceitful government and take control of your country! Stop falling into the traps that the elites have set forth and educate everyone you know. Ignorance is no excuse. God Bless the USA.




posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 05:30 AM
link   
reply to post by sbctinfantry
 


You cannot fix any of those things. America is the big monster in the room, and you think the monster will stop, no.

All the american people love there violence, and rubbish, and its an endless cycle, so americans will join the military, so they can kill others.

Your not going to change that.

What makes me laugh is americans think its normal human behaviour, lol.
edit on 2/10/2011 by andy1033 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by MeSoCorny
reply to post by sbctinfantry
 


I won't take the blame! Nawsir! Wasn't me! I ain't got nothing to do with it!

And if you say other wise I'll shove a boot in yer ayyuss!

'Cause it's AmeriCA not AmeriCAN'T!


Yeehaw! That's 'er spirit thar!



I can't wait for the whole goddamn thing to fall clear to the bottom. Then I get to pick through the rubble and choose what I like from it all for myself. Me and my kind, we get to eat the fresh stuff before the rest of it wakes up hungry.

heh heh



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 07:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by andy1033
reply to post by sbctinfantry
 


You cannot fix any of those things. America is the big monster in the room, and you think the monster will stop, no.

All the american people love there violence, and rubbish, and its an endless cycle, so americans will join the military, so they can kill others.

Your not going to change that.

What makes me laugh is americans think its normal human behaviour, lol.
edit on 2/10/2011 by andy1033 because: (no reason given)


Americans make things happen don’t they? It’s a country of we can, not we can’t
Where do most of the break throughs in science, medicine and technology take place?
All driven by capitalism-wealth is the incentive of progress.ask the russians
How is life in the worlds biggest bank vault?



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 09:10 AM
link   
Its a fallacy that i see espoused again and again that anyone wants bigger government. You can ask ANYONE, right or left, liberal or conservative if they want bigger or smaller government, and all across the board will say smaller. The problem with our government is BLOAT. Its huge, but cant accomplish anything without stepping on its own feet, and that is what everyone is against. The right, conservatives, and corporations want bigger government overseas, where we wage war, but smaller government over our corporations. The left wants bigger government regulating corporate predations, but smaller government involvement in other countries and in instigating wars. Unfortunately, here in the US, corporate power and money IS government, so when the right is pushing for more corporate power, they are in effect pushing for more government control of the working poor and middle class.



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by sbctinfantry
After many a thread full of outrage over policies emanating from Obama, Congress, Senate and the Supreme Court at a lesser extent, I feel like it has to be said.

Ultimate blame falls on Americans.

We elected them, and seem unable to look at the root of the problem.

Blame yourself, America. Blame YOURSELF.


A: The people don't pick the President. Never have. Electoral College does.
B: Americans living in US Territories don't get to have Congress Critters than can vote.

So Blame the mainland Americans....the Americans in US Territories aren't to blame. You've been robbing us for decades...we've had +12% unemployment for decades. Welcome to our world. Poverty.



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by sbctinfantry
 


Careful there. Most of those who see the Constitution as a holy relic really don't know what the constitution contains, aside from the 2nd amendment. Like most religious fundamentalists, they take a line or two that they like, and ignore the rest, while demanding strict adherence to the very text they ignore.



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by pexx421
 


Actually, what it seems to me is that Liberals tend to want smarter government; that is, the old adage about how size doesn't matter, it's how you use it. A huge government that performs well is preferable to a small government that does not.

On the other side of the spectrum, conservatives seem hell-bent on a smaller government that is made smaller by cutting away every ounce of responsiveness to the people. They don't want to cut the military (generally, I know some Paulians do) and are less concerned with government efficiency or productiveness than with size.

What happens when you empower a corrupt government to shrink, is that it cuts away all the portions that are not corrupt, leaving a useless financial and political black hole, usually heavily authoritarian, and backed by an all-powerful military; in other words, a dictatorial police state, similar to Saddam's Iraq. And many other nations that have performed this experiment of "smaller government," often through the influence of American right-wing economists (Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Indonesia, and Tajikistan come to mind)



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 



Actually, what it seems to me is that Liberals tend to want smarter government; that is, the old adage about how size doesn't matter, it's how you use it. A huge government that performs well is preferable to a small government that does not.


Liberals tend to want a large government that is hyper-reactive. Their lack of functional intellectual capacity desires to see all of the power and control expressed in the highest form of government with the lowest forms being subjugate enforcers of higher policy.

I would also contend that you lack proper distinction between "large" and "small" government. More on that in a minute.


On the other side of the spectrum, conservatives seem hell-bent on a smaller government that is made smaller by cutting away every ounce of responsiveness to the people. They don't want to cut the military (generally, I know some Paulians do) and are less concerned with government efficiency or productiveness than with size.


This is incorrect. Conservatives want to see a smaller national government with the most powerful and reactive forms of government being closer to the people - city, county, and state governments, for example. The military is part of the express purpose of the national government - providing for common defense. Governments are, inherently, not efficient or productive - particularly at the national level, as all of those policies affect such a diverse range of people and interests. You're trying to get representatives for thirty million different people spread across a hundred degrees of longitude and eighty degrees of latitude (not just spanning a whole continent, but regions from arctic to tropical, desert to swamp, concrete metropolis to nearly impenetrable forest, land values at less than a thousand dollars an acre to millions of dollars an acre, and cost of living expenses from less than ten thousand a year to nearly thirty thousand a year) - all to agree policies that will have a direct impact on all of those different groups.

That's not going to be 'efficient' no matter how hard you try.


What happens when you empower a corrupt government to shrink, is that it cuts away all the portions that are not corrupt, leaving a useless financial and political black hole, usually heavily authoritarian, and backed by an all-powerful military; in other words, a dictatorial police state, similar to Saddam's Iraq.


This would not happen in the U.S.

Here is what "small" government is: The U.S. National government exists to handle issues between states and issues of states denying Nationally protected rights. For example - when California got upset over a law that Arizona wrote and declared a boycott; Arizona then turned around and offered to shut off California's power. That issue is a perfect recent example of what the National government is for. When various states attempted to try and instate a 'toll booth' for voting and thereby restricting and inhibiting the right and responsibility to voting - the National government stepped in and said that wasn't going to fly - as it should have, because a clearly stated right within the Constitution was being violated.

The National government, under the "small government" model, would involve itself minimally in the personal affairs of people. Its focus would be on the states. It should not be a highly reactive tier of government - what it does do, however, it should be done deliberately and carefully as it affects everyone.

The State government would be the smallest recognized form of government by the nation as the states are given individual authority and responsibility to distribute power (they can, theoretically, be a dictatorship or communist state, so long as representatives are provided in accordance with the Constitution as well as rights guaranteed to the people). It would, therefor, be meaningless for conservative models of the national government to look beyond the states, as each state is going to have different sub-architectures that meet their own demands.

The states would hold most of the power, and have the authority to be the most reactive tier of government. Considering states can delegate these powers to even smaller divisions - this doesn't necessarily mean the most reactive tier will be the state, but more local forms of government (cities, county). As each smaller geographical region tends to have a more homogeneous demographic composition by comparison to a larger - giving those smaller divisions of government the most reactive and individual-influencing powers inherently leads to a more efficient and effective government structure that can respond to the needs of the people it serves without forsaking others.

"But states will argue and fight each other!"

That's what the national government is there to settle and prevent. To do that, it doesn't need to be managing Social "Security," Medicare, and billions of dollars in discretionary spending to build sidewalks in Podunk, Kansas, among other places.

"But we have the right to healthcare."

Go to Massachusetts, or any other state that has decided to turn itself into a communist haven. They'll probably have some requirements to keep people from "border hoping" to get treatment - but you can see how well they do versus how well other states do.


And many other nations that have performed this experiment of "smaller government," often through the influence of American right-wing economists (Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Indonesia, and Tajikistan come to mind)


Completely different political cultures, and, honestly, examples of rather impotent governments that will probably never be able to put much of any policies into effective practice. The people in those countries don't understand the concepts of self-governance, and the existing governments don't have much of any authority to delegate.

And, quite honestly, that's the difference between a conservative and a liberal. A liberal wants to be governed. A conservative wants to govern him/her self. I don't really care to govern your life unless you're being completely obstructive about things - then you need to be taken aside and told to be responsible or go find some other people to annoy with your existence. I also do not feel like I need to have all that big of a say in what goes on in Texas, New York, etc. If they want to make laws I disagree with - it doesn't affect me. If it works for them - great; if not, then they are more than capable of changing it provided their rights are still intact.

And that is why many of the countries out there cannot function as a "small" government - all of the people want to be the big government and call all of the shots. And it is exactly that mentality that has taken hold within the liberal demographic within our own country.



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 02:41 PM
link   
I did not vote for any of the clowns in charge.
In fact I sounded off against Bush as he was getting ready for his second term.

The blame falls on the un-educated voter, the liberal leftists and the 1 world people.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join