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.

 

The threat of ultra-conservatism in America

page: 4
27
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 12:20 AM
link   
Oh dear God, what a crock.
What we are witnessing here is pendulum swinging back once again.

Although I must admit, I wasn't expecting it to swing back as quickly as it has.
If anyone is to blame for this so called "threat", it's the folks that have brought it upon themselves and now everyone else is suffering because of it.

The Libs are still in the drivers seat and I suggest they keep their hands on the wheel and their eyes on the road and quit looking at the rear view mirror.

Long story short, if you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.




posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alxandro
The Libs are still in the drivers seat and I suggest they keep their hands on the wheel and their eyes on the road and quit looking at the rear view mirror.


To argue the changes afoot are simply re-corrections to the center is myopic.
Pelosi is no longer speaker. The healthcare bill was a giveaway to insurance companies. A liberal plan would be a public option. And Obama has governed as a corporate centrist. He is a timid pussycat.
There hasn't been a liberal president since LBJ. Forget the cult of personality that has risen around him, Reagan would be labeled a RINO in this political environment.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 





...I find that most Libertarians are rather anti-corporate

. It should be made clear: Capitalism is NOT the same thing as Corporatism. Corporations do not need to exist for Capitalism to function. In fact, Corporatism is basically an anti-Capitalism, because it stifles competition unless checked by Government. I would say nearly all Libertarians are Capitalist, yes, not Corporatist.....


Thank you for making that clear and for the rest of you very clear analysis of the situation. I certainly agree but you expressed it much better that I can.

Libertarians seem to believe in the individual and as you said Capitalism, a system killed off by Fractional Reserve Banking.

Capitalism is just that, investing the Wealth of an individual and producing more wealth. Fractional Reserve Banking short circuits that system by replacing real wealth (product of you labor) with banker printed fiat currency. This means instead of wealth producing more wealth, the Banking system is used to divert the countries wealth into the bankers pockets and the pockets of large Corporations who borrow large amounts of Fiat money and pass the cost on to their customers.

Fractional Reserve Banking increases the money supply, devalues wages and savings while increasing prices. As Mises said:


New money does not appear magically in equal percentages in all people's bank accounts or under their mattresses. Money spreads unevenly, and this process has varying effects on individuals, depending on whether they receive early or late access to the new money

It is these losses of the groups that are the last to be reached by the variation in the value of money which ultimately constitute the source of the profits made by the ... [BANKERS] and the groups most closely connected with them....

Some individuals are made better off by an increase in the money supply; others are made worse off. The existing money is an example of a "fixed pie of social value." Adding to the money supply does not add to its value.

Economists argue that in a conventional economic exchange, both parties win. One person does not benefit at the expense of another unless there has been fraud.... Mises on Money



Fractional Reserve Banking is of course legalized FRAUD! And it has been supported by BOTH the Democrats and the Republicans from 1913 to this day. That makes it painfully obvious that neither party cares for the interest of the citizens of the USA. they Only care for their OWN interests.



Weathiest Members Of Congress

John Kerrey (D) $900 Million
Herb Kohl (D) $315 Million
Jay Rockefeller (D) $275
Nancey Pelosi (D) $268 Million

Moving fast......The Clintons amassed nearly $169 million in the past 10 years of "public service".

But the entry that really sent my Democratic strategist friend ballistic was the one for Rep. Rosa DeLauro, the Connecticut Democrat. La Rosa--tied for #48 on the Richest list--gets the lion's share of her wealth from her husband--Clintonista pollster and campaign strategist Stan Greenberg. Says Roll Call, "DeLauro's primary asset is a 67-percent stake in Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research Inc., a Washington-based firm run by her husband, Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg. Her share in the company nets the Representative $5 million to $25 million. She has a partial stake in two other polling/consulting firms. The first is Greenberg Research, of which she and her husband own 100 percent, and Sun Surveys, in which she owns a 60 percent stake. Neither of these is as lucrative as Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, however."

My bud the political warhorse snorted, "Hell, she first ran for Congress she didn't have a dime--I was one of her biggest contributors. And Stan Greenberg, who worked for me back when he was starting out, used to have holes in his socks!" Noting that Congressional wealth is usually closer to the higher than to the lower estimates on the disclosure forms, my dour Democrat gasped, "That means they're making around $50 million! These people shouldn't be running Democratic campaigns!"

So, if you want to know why the national Democrats seem, in this campaign, to have a tin ear where touching the hearts and minds of the working stiffs is concerned, think about this: the three partners in the Democracy Corps--Greenberg, James Carville, and Kerry's chief message-shaper Bob Shrum--are all multimillionaires. And yet their counsel--proferred in an endless series of free Democracy Corps memos distributed to the party elite well before and during the presidential primaries, whose content (or lack of it) they helped shape--is taken as gospel by Democratic liberals feverish for victory. Well, as the old Texas populist Maury Maverick Jr. used to say, "a liberal is a power junkie without the power." www.mlive.com...?artid=624

The 50 Richest Members of Congress (2009)

Rep. Rosa DeLauro introduced the Food Safety bill and her husband Stan Greenberg was a consultant of Monsanto. The New Food Safety law will wipe out private farming and hand it to the Corporate Ag cartel while further trashing our "food Safety"

John Munsell's Comment in this article is the best description of the food safety problem I have seen: www.marlerblog.com...

Another pretty good overview of what the Food Safety Law actually does: www.forbes.com...
Tester amendment is scam: www.activistpost.com...
Lawyer says Home Gardens could be included: www.examiner.com...

Background and History: www.opednews.com...



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Schaden

Originally posted by beezzer

I say get rid of the EPA and move protections to the individual state. If a state wants to have clean air and water, let the people vote on it. Or are you into the whole "nanny-state" thing?


False premise.

Besides that wouldn't work. A state like Texas would become an extreme polluter and that air doesn't stay within the border of Texas. You're naive if you think the people's vote makes much of a difference in anything.

What about the Mississippi ? I can just see Missouri saying it's ok to dump toxic waste and then fisherman in Louisiana have to pay the consequences.

People who want to get rid of the EPA and "leave it up to the states" are not living in reality. There are consequences of pollution.

The Bush administration downplayed the risk of Mercury and laxed the rules on emissions.
www.ucsusa.org...
Now recent tests have shown every single freshwater stream in the US has some harmful unnatural mercury contamination. And 1 in 4 are so polluted, it's not safe to eat the fish. Get rid of the EPA, and within a few generations, they'd all be too dangerous to safely eat. Even with the EPA, we're slowly poisoning our environment. Want to see a country with no pollution controls ? It's called China. And the smog is terrible.

If there was no EPA and zero federal oversight all the natural wildlife would die, and eventually we would too.
Corporations only care about one thing, making money. If it was legal to put mercury in food as a preservative, they'd do it, if it added to the bottom line.


edit on 15-2-2011 by Schaden because: add hyperlink


Okay. On that, I see. But can there, at least, be some oversight, so that it's following a central focus instead of a political agenda?



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 



Okay. On that, I see. But can there, at least, be some oversight, so that it's following a central focus instead of a political agenda?


That's pretty much what the EPA does, in and of itself it's not a political force, politicians do however politicize it.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 11:03 AM
link   
What if....

ALL government when allowed to follow whatever it's platform is, will grow to tyranny.

Be it right or left....

...at least with the LEFT I don't get religion shoved down my throat....but of course I don't want atheism there either.

I want to breathe, therefore I need less government.

What if..the natural progression of freedom- IS anarchy?

I don't know. I really don't, I've just been thinking about that lately. Right now all we can do is elect good people, but I highly suspect that's being manipulated.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by crimvelvet
Capitalism is just that, investing the Wealth of an individual and producing more wealth. Fractional Reserve Banking short circuits that system by replacing real wealth (product of you labor) with banker printed fiat currency. This means instead of wealth producing more wealth, the Banking system is used to divert the countries wealth into the bankers pockets and the pockets of large Corporations who borrow large amounts of Fiat money and pass the cost on to their customers.


OK

fair...

So why did all but 1 GOP member vote for Gramm,Leach,Bliley,

I would assume there were at least 15, GOP, "real capitalists" in on this vote who understood EXACTLY what you stated above. So frankly, why did they vote like we lived in a free market system, WHY DID THEY VOTE LIKE CORPORATISTS??? ALL OF THEM???

They specifically designed a bill that would make it possible to manipulate this system that much more.

It is things like this that make me question the validity of real capitalism or real conservatism in practice.

Again all these elected official, voted in by conservative America, intentionally created a way for the corporations to loot America with this bill. INTENT, I refuse to think all of them are corrupt and/or retarded.

You said it your self this is not a free market and we do have an artificial currency

With that in mind, HOW does the conservative mind justify it??? What are the inner workings? To do something in the name of the free market, when the factional reserve system is clearly not a free market is puzzling.


Do you get it?



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join