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 Nanny State Can't Last

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 02:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by abecedarian
One could argue it was the point where the government legislated what public opinion should be, done under Lincoln, that the government became tyrannical. And under FDR (a Democrat) welfare programs sprouted. And under Kennedy, US involvement in Vietnam was cemented. Therefore, the Democrats have sought more to enshrine the US in convoluted action than anyone else.


edit on 4/12/2011 by abecedarian because: (no reason given)


Under Lincoln the nation did not become tyrannical and to sit there and defend racists and slavery makes you racist, FDR's New Deal prevented TPTB from taking over and for the last 30 yrs they have been systematically destroying the very thing that helped this nation bounce back after WWII. JFK only wanted our involvement in Vietnam to be to train the North and it was under Johnson who took us to war with the now confirmed Gulf Of Tonkin incident of 1964. Reread and relearn history my friend because you need a re-education.




posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 02:54 AM
link   
There is no nanny state.
edit on 13-4-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 02:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Whereweheaded
 


Yes I agree with you in all your posting on this thread. The current POTUS has just expanded all the NWO plans and implementations, added Socialised health care to the list of already massive entitlements, added more government employees, shut down more of the private sector, socialised the auto and financial industry, invaded Libya without Congress(but went to the UN), insulted Patriots who object to this lousy treatment, and now is talking about raising taxes. He looks down his nose at us every time he talks( mean literally and intellectually, just look at the position of his head). He has also encouraged labor revolutions in foreign countries while telling more than one Head of State to step down, while discouraging genuine revolts against genuine authoritarian leaders(Iran), and ignored conservative protesters at home while encouraging labor uprisings. It is so obvious what he is about.


Is there anything you like about this nation? Evidently not. You and the lemmings are the problem.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 02:59 AM
link   
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
 


Deregulation must be a buzzword used by the DSA and the World Socialist Party. You directed us all to their website to promote a fabian Socialist President who is usurping that office to promote World Socialism. I've heard a lot of buzzwords lately. One from the UN Agenda 21 I hear enough to make me wanna vomit is "sustainable". Yes that is a buzzword of the UN, as well as "partnerships", "NGOs", and "stakeholders". I know exactly what agenda you are promoting here.
edit on 13-4-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 03:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1

Originally posted by abecedarian
One could argue it was the point where the government legislated what public opinion should be, done under Lincoln, that the government became tyrannical. And under FDR (a Democrat) welfare programs sprouted. And under Kennedy, US involvement in Vietnam was cemented. Therefore, the Democrats have sought more to enshrine the US in convoluted action than anyone else.


edit on 4/12/2011 by abecedarian because: (no reason given)


Under Lincoln the nation did not become tyrannical and to sit there and defend racists and slavery makes you racist, FDR's New Deal prevented TPTB from taking over and for the last 30 yrs they have been systematically destroying the very thing that helped this nation bounce back after WWII. JFK only wanted our involvement in Vietnam to be to train the North and it was under Johnson who took us to war with the now confirmed Gulf Of Tonkin incident of 1964. Reread and relearn history my friend because you need a re-education.


Immaculate, With this post, you really do show your partisan roots, and yet you are telling others not to be partisan. Not only do you show your partisan roots, but your Socialist roots as well.
edit on 13-4-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 03:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 


This site has a list of CFR members as of 2006. CFR membership has far more to do with the current state of affairs than just the President. Another list I have seen on the Net shows that since Eisenhower, every Secretary of Dwww.stopthenorthamericanunion.com... has been a member. It's something to think about. It's part of the mechanism of the Shadow govt.
edit on 13-4-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: oops almost forgot the link



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 03:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1

Originally posted by abecedarian
One could argue it was the point where the government legislated what public opinion should be, done under Lincoln, that the government became tyrannical. And under FDR (a Democrat) welfare programs sprouted. And under Kennedy, US involvement in Vietnam was cemented. Therefore, the Democrats have sought more to enshrine the US in convoluted action than anyone else.


edit on 4/12/2011 by abecedarian because: (no reason given)


Under Lincoln the nation did not become tyrannical and to sit there and defend racists and slavery makes you racist, FDR's New Deal prevented TPTB from taking over and for the last 30 yrs they have been systematically destroying the very thing that helped this nation bounce back after WWII. JFK only wanted our involvement in Vietnam to be to train the North and it was under Johnson who took us to war with the now confirmed Gulf Of Tonkin incident of 1964. Reread and relearn history my friend because you need a re-education.


Immaculate, With this post, you really do show your partisan roots, and yet you are telling others not to be partisan. Not only do you show your partisan roots, but your Socialist roots as well.
edit on 13-4-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)


I am not a socialist, I am an AMERICAN and to use any oppourtunity to trash your nation means you are a NeoConserviBaggerNazi who sees freedoms and regulations as hinderances to rape this nation of everything it has.

II care not for the "Left-v-Right" paradigm and refuse to play that card.

Deregulation over the last 30 years has put us into this mess, nothing else.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 03:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
 


Deregulation must be a buzzword used by the DSA and the World Socialist Party. You directed us all to their website to promote a fabian Socialist President who is usurping that office to promote World Socialism. I've heard a lot of buzzwords lately. One from the UN Agenda 21 I hear enough to make me wanna vomit is "sustainable". Yes that is a buzzword of the UN, as well as "partnerships", "NGOs", and "stakeholders". I know exactly what agenda you are promoting here.
edit on 13-4-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)


You are all for deregulation so when that new power tool breaks and slices your arm right off do not dare sue the company who made it because with no regulations anything that occurs to you is your fault.

When there is no regulations corporations do whatever the flip they want and there is nothing you can do about it.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 04:52 AM
link   
third eye; i dont think you are replying to the content matter of immaculates post but to the subject matter of its contents.

if it was legal for a company to employ you to brake a law in america and there was no law set in place by the persons elected to represent you as a citizen; then the ability for that company to monopolize within the domain of lawlessness will be limited only by its own competence. america is in a different situation and its governments are the lawless with its subjects, she is far from a nanny. the companies that enact my prior stated fact in other nations face little to no recourse and america the government is blamed for their atrocities; actions like guilty settlements with america when a company from america commits a crime in a nation like nigeria, is a crime. if companies were held accountable for their imposed loss on others, and if governments were as close to the guillotine as they are to the rights of its citizens (of which they have none) there wouldnt be such confusion over "entitlements" RIGHTS? the sad thing is that the truth is easy to perceive and implement; but a tyrant would feel comfortable telling persons that are american that they never met that they are suckling on his teet: much more so than facing the repercussions of fabricating disparity for the sake of a tyrants benefit.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 05:08 AM
link   
I`ve never understood Amerikans aversion to socialism.
When you consider there are millions of them who now live out of cars, have no access to healthcare, no decent retirement plans, stand in line at food banks, have crumbling infrastructure, no decent public education system, no modern transport system, poison and pollution in their air, water and ground.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 08:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Saracen1
 


because if a person feels indebted to a "sovereign" the idea of giving away what one man pays for to every man equally "seems" illegal; plus this act would force dependence on stated community ideals and take away the freedom to "hate" your neighbor, or use your "brother" for the sake of personal gain.

if you dont live in a socialist nation then how can you extol its virtues? and if you do im sure you appreciate americas shining viewpoints from your perspective much more.
edit on 13-4-2011 by Ausar because: spelling edit



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1

You are all for deregulation so when that new power tool breaks and slices your arm right off do not dare sue the company who made it because with no regulations anything that occurs to you is your fault.

When there is no regulations corporations do whatever the flip they want and there is nothing you can do about it.


No, actually with the regulations corporations can do what ever they want. Monopolies aren't the result of free market competition. Monopolists don't like free market competition. They like big government and regulations. Government regulations didn't prevent the fraud and deception of Enron, WorldCom, and Global Crossings. They only assisted them.

IF we did have free-market capitalism, there would be no guarantees that some fraud and corner cutting wouldn't happen. But, when it did, it would then be dealt with by local law-enforcement and not by the politicians in Congress.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 09:37 AM
link   
Ignorance on this thread, including the embracing of government intervention, as if they really want to help you....backing the Unconstitutional welfare programs, entitlements programs, ( Im sorry but no one is entitled to anything, you have to earn it ), but I guess earning for some is a term unheard of?

TheImmaculated one, Im sorry but you only solidified your ignorance with your comments about the other poster being a racist? Spoken like a true liberal, and a true lover of socialism. You have no other grounds, nor arguments in which to stand on, and like a true liberal, revert back to the only source you have to justify the means? Racism... You deny the paradigm of left vs right, and yet all of your sources are of the left persuasion? How with that known fact, balances your logic?

Sorry, but your comments and constant attempts to embrace the very thing you wish to decry, lost you what little credibility you once had, not to mention, solidified than none of your arguments had viable evidence, therefore lacks any merit you hoped to obtain.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
as if they really want to help you....


They don't if they believe in the things you promote, exactly why conservatives should stay out of government.
Putting people who hate government, in government doesn't make very much sense.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 


You do realize that Democrats have never pretended to be champions on small government, and believe whole heartedly that they should intervene and decide whats best for a person(s) right?



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 06:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1

You are all for deregulation so when that new power tool breaks and slices your arm right off do not dare sue the company who made it because with no regulations anything that occurs to you is your fault.

When there is no regulations corporations do whatever the flip they want and there is nothing you can do about it.


No, actually with the regulations corporations can do what ever they want. Monopolies aren't the result of free market competition. Monopolists don't like free market competition. They like big government and regulations. Government regulations didn't prevent the fraud and deception of Enron, WorldCom, and Global Crossings. They only assisted them.

IF we did have free-market capitalism, there would be no guarantees that some fraud and corner cutting wouldn't happen. But, when it did, it would then be dealt with by local law-enforcement and not by the politicians in Congress.


Regulations prevent fraud because it empowers Govt to step in when things don't seem right. With regulations no corporation can make an unsafe product as Govt would watch over them like a hawk. It';s when Gov't isn't allowed to hawk them is when you have to worry as that is when they are most confident and will use that as a chance to shove down so much yap it's not funny.

A heavily regulated industry is a safe and healthy one.

Regulations advance capitalism but does it in such a way that it allows for the advancement of growth in the private sector while keeping the services and products they provide safe for both consumption and sale.

An unregulated food cabal is a dangerous one and a will forever be a threat to public health and safety while a heavily regulated one keeps its products and services free and safe for all.

An unregulated bank will take a risk on literately anything if it thought it could make a quick dollar off of it, a heavily regulated bank will be more stable and will not take risks with either the economy or other people's money. Regulations that are now coming back into place ends the casino and returns the investment house that the entire stock market was originally sold to us on. You want to gamble go to either Las Vegas or Atlantic City, NJ you want to keep your money safe long range go to Wall Street.
edit on 14-4-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
Regulations prevent fraud because it empowers Govt to step in when things don't seem right. With regulations no corporation can make an unsafe product as Govt would watch over them like a hawk. It';s when Gov't isn't allowed to hawk them is when you have to worry as that is when they are most confident and will use that as a chance to shove down so much yap it's not funny.

A heavily regulated industry is a safe and healthy one.

Regulations advance capitalism but does it in such a way that it allows for the advancement of growth in the private sector while keeping the services and products they provide safe for both consumption and sale.

An unregulated food cabal is a dangerous one and a will forever be a threat to public health and safety while a heavily regulated one keeps its products and services free and safe for all.

An unregulated bank will take a risk on literately anything if it thought it could make a quick dollar off of it, a heavily regulated bank will be more stable and will not take risks with either the economy or other people's money. Regulations that are now coming back into place ends the casino and returns the investment house that the entire stock market was originally sold to us on. You want to gamble go to either Las Vegas or Atlantic City, NJ you want to keep your money safe long range go to Wall Street.


The free market is self-regulating, and any government regulation is detrimental. Regulations are put in place to do exactly what they do. Create monopolies. Big Corporations use regulations to stop competition, just look at farming, banking, etc -- is it not mega corporations basically owning those industries? Why do you need permission from Monsanto, just to plant a tomato garden?

Regulation and deregulation are used as doublespeak, deregulation usually means more regulation, or it means getting rid of a few of the regulations put in place and is generally funded by corporations so that corporations can capitalize. In a free and unregulated market there should be no bailouts, Federal Reserve, fiat currency, subsidies, and protection.

edit on 14-4-2011 by Rockdisjoint because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
Regulations prevent fraud because it empowers Govt to step in when things don't seem right. With regulations no corporation can make an unsafe product as Govt would watch over them like a hawk. It';s when Gov't isn't allowed to hawk them is when you have to worry as that is when they are most confident and will use that as a chance to shove down so much yap it's not funny.

A heavily regulated industry is a safe and healthy one.

Regulations advance capitalism but does it in such a way that it allows for the advancement of growth in the private sector while keeping the services and products they provide safe for both consumption and sale.

An unregulated food cabal is a dangerous one and a will forever be a threat to public health and safety while a heavily regulated one keeps its products and services free and safe for all.

An unregulated bank will take a risk on literately anything if it thought it could make a quick dollar off of it, a heavily regulated bank will be more stable and will not take risks with either the economy or other people's money. Regulations that are now coming back into place ends the casino and returns the investment house that the entire stock market was originally sold to us on. You want to gamble go to either Las Vegas or Atlantic City, NJ you want to keep your money safe long range go to Wall Street.


The free market is self-regulating, and any government regulation is detrimental. Regulations are put in place to do exactly what they do. Create monopolies. Big Corporations use regulations to stop competition, just look at farming, banking, etc -- is it not mega corporations basically owning those industries? Why do you need permission from Monsanto, just to plant a tomato garden?

Regulation and deregulation are used as doublespeak, deregulation usually means more regulation, or it means getting rid of a few of the regulations put in place and is generally funded by corporations so that corporations can capitalize. In a free and unregulated market there should be no bailouts, Federal Reserve, fiat currency, subsidies, and protection.

edit on 14-4-2011 by Rockdisjoint because: (no reason given)


Regulations keeps the free market system here open and free so that everyone can compete and prevents abuses and something called "AntiTrust". Ask Wall Street how deregulation almost bankrupted the planet, in an unregulated market there will always be bailouts because no one will follow a thing, regulations order that all are held to a standard.

As I've said in the past that regulations keep that shampoo and conditioner you use daily free from toxins, regulation keeps your food safe (if you have a food allergy regulations order that the ingredient and allergin list be listed), you car with safety equipment. Take away regulation on automobiles and watch things like seatbelts, airbags, crumple zones, parking lights would all be gone, it would be a box on wheels with no safety whatsoever that is why The Tato Nano car from India is banned in the US, little safety items.

When the stock market went south in Sept 08 is was because something called "Circuit Breakers" had expired the month beforehand which if in place in Sept 08 the entire economic mess would not have ever happened.

You ever wonder why that circular saw you bought has a piece that autoruns to cover the blade when you stop cutting? This is so it cannot slice your arm right off, without regulation this important safety feature would not be there.
edit on 14-4-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
 


You're confusing if/then correlations again.

Regulations didnt put that block on the saw. A manufacturer appealing to a broader consumer base did and the rest followed then gov came in and made their "regulation."

Shampoo regulates itself. A dead customer is not conducive to profit.

Regarding the govs power, people are poisoned all the time and thanks to their oversight the company guilty just pays a small bribe, the gov announces its safe again, and they go on making profit.

Gov regulation is a big bribe factory with all sorts of shady dealings.



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
 


You're confusing if/then correlations again.

Regulations didnt put that block on the saw. A manufacturer appealing to a broader consumer base did and the rest followed then gov came in and made their "regulation." - Without that regulation that blocker would not be there.

Shampoo regulates itself. A dead customer is not conducive to profit.

Regarding the govs power, people are poisoned all the time and thanks to their oversight the company guilty just pays a small bribe, the gov announces its safe again, and they go on making profit.

Gov regulation is a big bribe factory with all sorts of shady dealings.


No it is not, you want to see an unregulated Government, go to China!



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join