It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by dontdrinkthewater
reply to post by kro32
Agree that was some selective examples by me. My point is that the corporation v corporation lawsuits over copyright/patent infringment and like that you are referring to are meaningless in a larger context because the most powerful industries I referred to control our foreign policy. There is no "equally powerful" corporate interest on the other side of the problems that are destroying our freedom, destroying our financial system, getting our soldiers killed, and complicit in the wilful destruction of the middle class.
Originally posted by kro32
One of the political sciene theory's regarding politicians is that unless they plan on leaving office they will do whatever it takes to remain in power. In order for this to happen they often have to play the game of securing financial support from corporate america while not upsetting their voters.
This I believe is the true nature of the politician. They will probably comply with whoever has the strongest influence on them if and only if it won't affect their chances of remaining in power.
Originally posted by kro32
Good point but I would disagree with you on one point. Certainly oil is a major reason why we take alot of the actions we do but I would argue it's not the only reason. I would also disspute the fact that it's destroying our freedom or financial system or is willful in it's destruction of the middle class.
Meeting in Birmingham, Alabama, the Dixiecrats nominated South Carolina governor Strom Thurmond as their presidential candidate, and Mississippi governor Field J. Wright, as their vice-presidential nominee. The party platform represented the openly racist views of most white southerners of the time. It opposed abolition of the poll tax while endorsing segregation and the "racial integrity" of each race. In the November election, Thurmond carried the states of Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina. Although Thurmond did not win the election, he received well over a million popular votes and 39 electoral votes.
By 1952, southern Democrats had concluded that they could exercise more influence through the Democratic Party and therefore returned to the fold. They remained in the Democratic fold, restive, until the candidacy of Republican conservative Barry Goldwater liberated them in 1964 by refreshing some of the Dixiecrat ideologies and therefore accelerated the transition from a solid South for the Democrats to one for the Republicans. Strom Thurmond switched to the Republican Party that year and remained there until his death in December 2003.
Richard Nixon, campaigning in 1968, did his utmost to assure that America's segregationist diehards, white supremacists and anti-Semites would find a new political klavern. Nixon invented the "race card" and transformed the Republican Party, the party of Lincoln and the wellspring of the Emancipation Proclamation, into the last bastion of the Confederacy. The G.O.P. has been playing the same hand -- with remarkable impunity -- in every election since.
The Republicans deny that they are the electoral refuge for America's bigots. But whenever an ex-Klansman, decrying the mongrelization of the white race, enters a primary election somewhere in Louisiana or Texas, it's always a Republican primary.
Originally posted by ThaLoccster
Is this really what ATS is becoming?
Obama's an alien, this politician is a shill, that politician is a Nazi. Tea Party is this, democrats are that.
I thought this was a conspiracy site, not the Huffington Post.
Originally posted by MarkofCain
Does adding "the absolute truth about (insert anything here)" in the OP title make it the "absolute truth"?
I've read the OP and I haven't seen one bit of his "absolute truth" sadly...
Originally posted by orbitbaby
Sorry OP. The greatest scam in the history of US politics is that people still
think there is a difference between Republicans and Democrats. Both are betraying
us on an equal basis. They answer to someone, but its not the American
people. Fortunately, more and more people are starting to wake up to the truth about
American politics. There is no difference between our Republican and Democrat politicians.
Hopefully you will see your way through that BS as well.
Originally posted by dontdrinkthewater
Originally posted by JerryB08
I wonder if Obama is aware that the democratic party is actually the Party that supported slavery. Started the Civil War. Tried to settle make peace with the South with a deal that would have divided our country into two. This party Countless times has tried to destroy the US. After the civil war. They had to change the name of their party they were so hated through out the united states. google the democratic party during the civil war see for your self.
Haha, not a single thing in your above paragraph is true, even the vaunted scholars at Wikipedia disagree....
In 1854, despite strong protest, the main Democratic leader in the Senate, Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois, pushed through the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Although it was not the initial purpose of the act, it established that settlers could vote to decide to allow or not allow slavery. Against the backdrop of the slavery issue, a major re-alignment took place among voters and politicians, with new issues, new parties, and new rules. The Whig Party dissolved entirely. While the Democrats survived, many northern Democrats (especially Free Soilers from 1848) joined the newly established Republican Party. Buchanan, a Northern "Doughface" (his base of support was in the pro-slavery South) split the party on the issue of slavery in Kansas when he attempted to pass a Federal slave code; most Democrats in the North rallied to Stephen A. Douglas, who preached "Popular Sovereignty" and believed that a Federal slave code would be undemocratic.
Linkedit on 23-4-2011 by dontdrinkthewater because: (no reason given)
Powerful or influential people using falsehoods to manipulate other people's behavior is not a new phenomenon. More than a hundred years ago, "father" of modern psychology William James observed, "There's nothing so absurd that if you repeat it often enough, people will believe it." The "big lie" technique caught fire in the John Dewey, Woodrow Wilson, FDR days of the progressive era. The concept has found fertile gray matter inside the skulls of American progressives ever since.
Progressives relentlessly preach a narrative assembled from high-sounding fallacies. And the tactic works. Eyes do indeed eventually glaze over. Fiction does gain acceptance as fact. In other words, progressive falsehoods have staying power. One progressive gimmick after another has darkened the American psyche. Multiculturalism culturally divides. Affirmative action positions "underrepresented minorities" for failure in roles for which they are under-prepared. Relentless "diversity" efforts decay into emphasis on assembling the races toward one end: the assembling of the races.
Diverse thought is diversity's main fatality. Lopsided taxation moves income from "winners" to "losers" and teaches losers to give up the idea of winning. Crime-reducing incarceration gets painted as an abomination, while feeble "rehabilitation" schemes are repackaged as successes. Sermons on "building" self-esteem dismiss the importance of earning self-esteem through achievement. Casualties of hideous political correctness occur daily, as "choice" ends the lives of tiny humans.
Dressing ugly reality in diversionary language erases no ugliness. And now the gargantuan federal debt run up through drunken deficit spending is poised to end all of the games, ending America in the process.