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.

 

Prank call proves billionaire David Koch owns Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and the GOP

page: 14
77
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by kynaccrue
I usually don't post my opinions, but here it is.

I think from the context of the whole thing, it just seems that Walker is simply speaking that way as to avoid pissing a major conservative contributor off. It's like how a salesman would speak to a customer. He simply wants to sell his idea to a person who he think could help him achieve it. This is perhaps also why Walker did most of the speaking. He wants to prove that it is right to do this. That does not mean that Walker is for sale or is paid off, just that he would want to avoid bringing any surprises that might endanger what he wants to accomplish. Also, there are those who attribute his "thinking" about planting trouble makers to him having a flawed character. I would argue that the best way to politely change someone's mind is to first agree with them and then show them the flaws of their reasoning. This is something that not only politicians, but everyone intelligent human being should do.

like some of the other posts said, this whole thing actually restored some of my faith in politicians. Its not everyday you get someone who does exactly what he says he was going to do. Also, in the conversation Walker said he wants to keep private unions out of this whole thing. His beef is solely with public unions which make it hard for states of balance its budget. There are those who say that Walker created this deficit just to kill public unions and I think that this is false. As you all know, inflation is rising and it would make it harder for small business to stay open. The tax cut would give an edge to those businesses to keep them open. So we have here a governor who is trying to take from the glut of the public sector and give some of it back to Main st. which is think really is the correct thing to do.

I say all this despite the fact that my parents are both public sector employees and most of the time I hate republicans with a passion. If there are more politicians like Walker I might actually use my vote for a change.
edit on 24-2-2011 by kynaccrue because: Clarification

edit on 24-2-2011 by kynaccrue because: Clarify more


How quickly the liberals have forgotten the whole prank ACORN sting where they caught the ACORN worker helping to set up a prostitution biz. LOL


I don't understand what that's gotta do with what I said? and when you say liberal are you referring to me?




posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daughter2
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


I see so the Koch brothers can own Pipeline companies with Shell and Chevron but teachers can't get together and negotiate one contract?

Do you have a problem with franchises? They exist to gain market power by joining together. I see no difference between this and unions?



Except that franchises generally come under the heading of free enterprise Capitalism, they generally start with one location and then add more as demand increases, and they pay corporate taxes(which no doubt you are for raising).

Public union employees are paid out of the public treasury by you the taxpayer (unless you are one of those who dont pay taxes), and they use the bargaining power of Unions to demand higher pay (which you the taxpayer must pay if you pay taxes).

There's a world of difference.

By the way, the Soviet Union economy collapsed under the pressure of centralized control of the means of prodcution by the State which is generally the simplest definition of communism.


For the record darlin, here's a great quote on communist use of unions...

"It took both the collapse of the old and the new lefts to clear the ground for a new interpretation of the Communist Party’s experience. Memoirs of long-time Party leaders and scholarly studies began to de-emphasize the discontinuities in the Party’s theory and practice brought about by international events and focused on the Party’s continuous activities on behalf of those who never could or would benefit from capitalism. Among the best of the studies that focus on the accomplishments of the Party are Al Richmond’s A Long View from the Left (1972), which documents the Party’s leadership role in the 1935 San Francisco general strike, [4] and Roger Keeran’s The Communist Party and the Auto Workers Unions (1980), uncovers the key role of Communists in organizing automobile workers. [5] "

Wanna know where I got that???? Straight from a marxist webpage.... Marxism. Fresh. Daily.
.FeaturesWhat's NewEditors’ BlogPodcasts.Current ThemePast Themes.Features > 2010 > Recovering America’s Communist History
www.politicalaffairs.net...

Here's another great page on their website about unions.. www.politicalaffairs.net...

Anything else I can explain to you?


edit on 25-2-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 01:20 AM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 

Capitalism can actually support its workers buying what it produces. Your capitalist cries are false. As are your cries of communism. As are your constant deflections from the topic. But do keep going. This is quite humorous to watch. Oh and we know exactly where these words are coming from too.

edit on 2/25/2011 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 01:26 AM
link   
So third eye - Do you think the "free market" should allow the rich to give gifts to politicians?

It's my opinon neither corporations or unions should be allowed to give expensive gifts.

What's yours?



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by kynaccrue

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by kynaccrue
I usually don't post my opinions, but here it is.

I think from the context of the whole thing, it just seems that Walker is simply speaking that way as to avoid pissing a major conservative contributor off. It's like how a salesman would speak to a customer. He simply wants to sell his idea to a person who he think could help him achieve it. This is perhaps also why Walker did most of the speaking. He wants to prove that it is right to do this. That does not mean that Walker is for sale or is paid off, just that he would want to avoid bringing any surprises that might endanger what he wants to accomplish. Also, there are those who attribute his "thinking" about planting trouble makers to him having a flawed character. I would argue that the best way to politely change someone's mind is to first agree with them and then show them the flaws of their reasoning. This is something that not only politicians, but everyone intelligent human being should do.

like some of the other posts said, this whole thing actually restored some of my faith in politicians. Its not everyday you get someone who does exactly what he says he was going to do. Also, in the conversation Walker said he wants to keep private unions out of this whole thing. His beef is solely with public unions which make it hard for states of balance its budget. There are those who say that Walker created this deficit just to kill public unions and I think that this is false. As you all know, inflation is rising and it would make it harder for small business to stay open. The tax cut would give an edge to those businesses to keep them open. So we have here a governor who is trying to take from the glut of the public sector and give some of it back to Main st. which is think really is the correct thing to do.

I say all this despite the fact that my parents are both public sector employees and most of the time I hate republicans with a passion. If there are more politicians like Walker I might actually use my vote for a change.
edit on 24-2-2011 by kynaccrue because: Clarification

edit on 24-2-2011 by kynaccrue because: Clarify more


How quickly the liberals have forgotten the whole prank ACORN sting where they caught the ACORN worker helping to set up a prostitution biz. LOL


I don't understand what that's gotta do with what I said? and when you say liberal are you referring to me?


I dunno. Are you?



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by inkyminds

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus


How quickly the liberals have forgotten the whole prank ACORN sting where they caught the ACORN worker helping to set up a prostitution biz. LOL


How does that relate to the topic at hand?


Are you trying to deflect?
edit on 25-2-2011 by inkyminds because: (no reason given)


Equating the some of the richest businessmen in the U.S to ACORN staff too

PEOPLE STILL TALK ABOUT ACORN



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 01:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 

Capitalism can actually support its workers buying what it produces. Your capitalist cries are false. As are your cries of communism. As are your constant deflections from the topic. But do keep going. This is quite humorous to watch. Oh and we know exactly where these words are coming from too.

edit on 2/25/2011 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)


So tell me exactly where "these words are coming from".

Yes communism is very real and active. We saw it come right out of the woodwork when Obama started appointing self-avowed communists like Van Jones and Anita Dunn(you know she worships Mao, the Chinese communist mass murderer).



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by kynaccrue

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by kynaccrue
I usually don't post my opinions, but here it is.

I think from the context of the whole thing, it just seems that Walker is simply speaking that way as to avoid pissing a major conservative contributor off. It's like how a salesman would speak to a customer. He simply wants to sell his idea to a person who he think could help him achieve it. This is perhaps also why Walker did most of the speaking. He wants to prove that it is right to do this. That does not mean that Walker is for sale or is paid off, just that he would want to avoid bringing any surprises that might endanger what he wants to accomplish. Also, there are those who attribute his "thinking" about planting trouble makers to him having a flawed character. I would argue that the best way to politely change someone's mind is to first agree with them and then show them the flaws of their reasoning. This is something that not only politicians, but everyone intelligent human being should do.

like some of the other posts said, this whole thing actually restored some of my faith in politicians. Its not everyday you get someone who does exactly what he says he was going to do. Also, in the conversation Walker said he wants to keep private unions out of this whole thing. His beef is solely with public unions which make it hard for states of balance its budget. There are those who say that Walker created this deficit just to kill public unions and I think that this is false. As you all know, inflation is rising and it would make it harder for small business to stay open. The tax cut would give an edge to those businesses to keep them open. So we have here a governor who is trying to take from the glut of the public sector and give some of it back to Main st. which is think really is the correct thing to do.

I say all this despite the fact that my parents are both public sector employees and most of the time I hate republicans with a passion. If there are more politicians like Walker I might actually use my vote for a change.
edit on 24-2-2011 by kynaccrue because: Clarification

edit on 24-2-2011 by kynaccrue because: Clarify more


How quickly the liberals have forgotten the whole prank ACORN sting where they caught the ACORN worker helping to set up a prostitution biz. LOL


I don't understand what that's gotta do with what I said? and when you say liberal are you referring to me?


Oh no, I went back and read your original post. In fact I liked your post. My comment was not intended as a rebuttal of you. Sorry for that.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 01:40 AM
link   
Hey three eyes-

I asked you a question about Walker accepting an offer of a gift.

Do you think that was right?



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 

Capitalism can actually support its workers buying what it produces. Your capitalist cries are false. As are your cries of communism. As are your constant deflections from the topic. But do keep going. This is quite humorous to watch. Oh and we know exactly where these words are coming from too.

edit on 2/25/2011 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)


Yes, it would be great if we weren't so beholden to Chinese imports. But our manufacturing base has been degraded by higher corporate taxes, excessive regulations of industy(we all know liberals love regulations), and high cost of production including but not limited to wages(funny how that union thing creeps in here) and rising cost of individual components used in production. There's always accounting and economics courses for those who disagree.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 01:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 

Capitalism can actually support its workers buying what it produces. Your capitalist cries are false. As are your cries of communism. As are your constant deflections from the topic. But do keep going. This is quite humorous to watch. Oh and we know exactly where these words are coming from too.

edit on 2/25/2011 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)


My cries of communism are false? You just don't know the history of communism, and you obviously weren't watching the news when Obama's Green Jobs Czar had to resign after it become known he is an self-avowed communist. I just do research.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 01:48 AM
link   
Regardless of your feelings about unions - Unions are STILL legal and people still have the right to organize.

Until the laws are changed - they have to be respected.

Walker proved he didn't respect the laws.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 01:51 AM
link   
For those of you who haven't read this entire thread let me sum up third eyes agrument:

He/she feels unions are bad; therefore, it's ok for Walker to do unethical things to destroy them. This poster doesn't agree with the current law which makes it legal for public unions to negotiate. Instead of changing the laws (which they probably can't do because most people don't agree), they feel it's ok to try underhanded tatics.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 02:05 AM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 

You're right. My parents only grew up in the U.S.S.R., fought communism with their parents, and helped me cut my teeth learning about it.
Anyway, you're a clearly shill hung up on and falling for the old left/right blah blah arguments that no longer fool anyone, especially not here, so don't bother typing back to me and further derailing this thread. I just had to say my piece, and I'm done with you. You're no longer even amusing.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 02:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daughter2
So third eye - Do you think the "free market" should allow the rich to give gifts to politicians?

It's my opinon neither corporations or unions should be allowed to give expensive gifts.

What's yours?


Are you referring to charitable gifts or donations? The Democrats worked on a new law on this..."
11/04/2007 - 14:01:28
The Government has published a revised Ethics Bill, outlining what elected representatives can and cannot receive in the form of gifts and donations.

The legislation also requires politicians to declare the value and number of assets they own or have interests in.

The changes were requested last October by Progressive Democrats leader Michael McDowell following the controversy surrounding payments to the Taoiseach in the 1990s.

They are unlikely to become law prior to the General Election. "

Read more: www.breakingnews.ie...

Perhaps this question ought to be addressed to the current occupant in the WH, who seems to be spending most of his time golfing or paying back his backers with taxpayer dollars and sweet deals.
example:dancingfromgenesis.wordpress.com... ock-purchase-deal-barack-obama-gives-two-billion-for-development-of-huge-petroleum-deposit-field-brazil-ame/
"Multi billionaire and biggest backer of Barack Obama, progressive fascist idealogue George Soros, recently bought almost a billion dollars worth of Petrobras stock (the national petroleum company of Brazil), which just announced a huge oil and gas field discovery soon to be developed with the help of the american taxpayer as it turns out, because Obama plans to transfer two billion dollars from the american treasury to help the project, thus deliberately undermining our goal of becoming energy independent here in America, where Sarah Palin stands in the wings, gaining momentum, to take it away from Obama in 2012, as Soros gets even richer in the meantime, the brazilean deal part of his payback for all the help he’s given Team Obama, "



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 02:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daughter2
Hey three eyes-

I asked you a question about Walker accepting an offer of a gift.

Do you think that was right?


Evidently, you asked a rhetorical question of whether or not I objected to politicians receiving expensive gifts from wealthy people. You did not ask me if I thought it was wrong for Walker to accept a gift from the faux Mr. Koch. So while I was answering your rhetorical general question, you are petulantly demanding an answer for a variant of the original. So see my answer.

By the way, the reference to the Third Eye is from both Hindu and Egyptian mysticism, and also in Masonic literature. You know the Eye in the Capstone on the One dollar bill...

Oh yes, and does the same question apply to non-rich people giving gifts or donations? How about those Chinese people who donated to Ms Clinton???? Many of the donors could not be found, were poor dishwashers, and even said they were told to make the donations by someone... The angle was that Hillary would help some illegals get a path to citizenship. Heres the news story
www.latimes.com...
This is apparently a follow up to an older Chinese donor scandal involving the Clinton's:a story on the Lehrer news report www.pbs.org...
The New York Times has reported that controversial Democratic fund-raiser Johnny Chung funneled $100,000 of Chinese money into DNC coffers during the 1996 campaign. Following a background report, two members of Congress debate the latest allegations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A RealAudio version of this segment is available.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEWSHOUR LINKS:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 9, 1998:
A discussion about several campaign-related fronts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
December 9, 1997:
The House Committee hears testimony concerning the Justice Department's investigation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 1, 1997:
A review the Senate's investigation into the actions of Democratic fund-raiser Charlie Yah Lin Trie.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 8, 1997:
It is believed that the Chinese government had made a concerted effort to influence the U.S. government.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 8, 1997:
A possible immunity deal for Democratic fund-raiser John Huang.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 6, 1997:
A report on campaign fund-raising.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Browse the NewsHour's coverage of campaign hearings.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OUTSIDE LINKS:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The White House
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JIM LEHRER: The possible Chinese connection to Democratic Party fund-raising and to Margaret Warner.
Sen. Thompson: "The committee believes that high-level Chinese government officials crafted a plan to increase China's influence over the U.S. political process."


MARGARET WARNER: Last year, Senator Fred Thompson, Chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, opened his investigation of campaign fund-raising abuses by making a startling charge.

SEN. FRED THOMPSON: The committee believes that high-level Chinese government officials crafted a plan to increase China's influence over the U.S. political process. The Committee has identified specific steps taken in furtherance of the plan. Implementation of the plan has been handled by Chinese government officials and individuals enlisted to assist in the effort. Activities in furtherance of the plan have occurred both inside and outside of the United States.


edit on 25-2-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 03:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daughter2
Regardless of your feelings about unions - Unions are STILL legal and people still have the right to organize.

Until the laws are changed - they have to be respected.

Walker proved he didn't respect the laws.



And when did I say they weren't legal?
Quite honestly, the jury is not out on whether or not he broke some laws on this, but in my view its really just a typical lelftist obfuscation of what's really going on here. The scope of it is really just breathtaking, if you would only stop the knee-jerk reactions to some leftist prankster who deliberately attempted to entrap an elected official, I wonder where the line will be drawn on this scenario, but look behind the attempts at obfuscation to see the real issues heres.]

theeconomiccollapseblog.com...

And then of course theres the Greta report on the Obama admin and Democrat Party involvement in the protests. www.foxnews.com...
"GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, FOX NEWS HOST: Well, tonight, accusations are flying. Is the Democratic Party behind the massive demonstration in Madison, Wisconsin? Is the Democratic Party pushing teachers to abandon their classrooms and march on Madison? Many are pointing fingers directly back at President Obama and the Democratic National Committee. The group Organizing for America is working under the DNC and is mobilizing supporters to rally on. Now, the DNC says their role in this is being exaggerated."
And while we are at it let's talk about that ad in Craig's list where the SEIU guy brags about being involved in the Egypt protests and calls for bloodying Tea Baggers"....
www.freerepublic.com...



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 03:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 

You're right. My parents only grew up in the U.S.S.R., fought communism with their parents, and helped me cut my teeth learning about it.
Anyway, you're a clearly shill hung up on and falling for the old left/right blah blah arguments that no longer fool anyone, especially not here, so don't bother typing back to me and further derailing this thread. I just had to say my piece, and I'm done with you. You're no longer even amusing.


See you just had to resort to name calling because you are unable to argue without ad hominem attacks. Your parents may know what communism is, but you clearly haven't a clue. Who are you to tell me not to type back a retort on an open forum anyway? A shill?
Let me tell you something, although I am conservative, I studied Antony Sutton's books exposing the left/right Hegelian dialectical reasoning thoroughly, since you've brought up the topic. I heartily recommend you read any of his books, but particularly "America's Secret Establishment". My conservative values in no way undermines my understanding of the left/right Hegelian paradigm.
As for you, your insults will get you nowhere in a debate such as this.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 03:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daughter2
For those of you who haven't read this entire thread let me sum up third eyes agrument:

He/she feels unions are bad; therefore, it's ok for Walker to do unethical things to destroy them. This poster doesn't agree with the current law which makes it legal for public unions to negotiate. Instead of changing the laws (which they probably can't do because most people don't agree), they feel it's ok to try underhanded tatics.


I said they are a tool for communism, and then I proceeded to back up my argument with details on communist subversion of Capitalism. I never said it was ok to use underhanded tactics, and it is clear that Walker was caught by surprise by a real entrapment designed to implicate him. I have further shown you that I do have a position on illegitimate campaign contributions, but because they were based on the Clintons, you refuse to look at it. This is not about the unions having a right to negotiate. I never said they don't. I have pointed out that current news media did a story already on the WH and Democrat party involvement in these Union protests, and I've even made the connection to the Egypt protests, which I have been following since they started. I doubt you have even been able to accurately follow my entire line of reasoning and you have instead resorted to ad hominem remarks and sarcasm, and although I'm fairly new here and not part of your clicque, I did read the rules of the forum. So please do not lecture me on rules and laws.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 03:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daughter2
For those of you who haven't read this entire thread let me sum up third eyes agrument:

He/she feels unions are bad; therefore, it's ok for Walker to do unethical things to destroy them. This poster doesn't agree with the current law which makes it legal for public unions to negotiate. Instead of changing the laws (which they probably can't do because most people don't agree), they feel it's ok to try underhanded tatics.

For fun, let's dissect your post here. You have summed up what you think is my argument, then you have told everyone here what you think I feel using inflammatary statements, You have accused me of not agreeing with current law on union negotiations( and that's just flat out false), and you attempted to draw other people into your argument against me, third-partying if you will. You obviously did not read the content of any of my answers to you, or you would see that I gave you a well thought out position on how improper campaign donations can degrade the political environment.
If and when a jury convicts Mr. Walker for accepting improper gifts or bribes, I will consider making commentary on it.



new topics

top topics



 
77
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join