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.

 

Republicans....I'm Calling You Out!

page: 4
13
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 22 2011 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 

No offense, but I believe you are proving my point. You keep spouting on about this is Marxist, or this is socialist.... Can you debate the heart of the issues, or are you going to throw more mantra my way?

Do we need smaller government? YES! I agree! Why is it that when the Dems are in charge excessive spending it's socialist, driving up the debt, and just WRONG.....but when the Republicans are in charge they spend like crazy and drive up the debt just as much, and it's ok? ReagAn was a big spender, but he is considered to be the Holy Grail of what the modern Republican should be. Right? (I apologize for the misspelling of ReagAn)

Hypocrisy in its finest form!

Also, I am not espousing big gov't or socialism just because I believe we have to find a happy medium between hardline "every man for himself" republican governance and complete nanny state liberalism. Republicans do not have all the right answers and neither do liberals.

As I have said before, the world is not as black and white as many seem to view it. Just because I disagree with the Republicans does not mean I am a Marxist. Just because I am willing to compromise does not mean I believe in bigger government. To say so is intellectually dishonest on your part.

By the way, ask Bush, Reagan and the Republican party about big government....can you say Patriot Act or this stupid propaganda called "national security"?




edit on 22-5-2011 by sheepslayer247 because: grammer




posted on May, 22 2011 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic
 

Isn't that our most important issue...community? Gay marriage, war, immigration, terrorism and other such issues are important but they are blown out of proportion to perpetuate the "soap opera" coming from DC.

These issues are used to divide and distract Americans while their communities fall apart! And it's working. We can no longer discuss reality in a way that does not separate us into groups or ideologies. There is no grey are in which we are able to justifiably compromise without harsh backlash from both sides. Sadly, ATS is no different. Look at some of the comments on just this thread so far.

It's a war on words more than anything....the Nazi-style propaganda machine at work!


edit on 22-5-2011 by sheepslayer247 because: grammer



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 12:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Homedawg
Facing facts mean you realize that no one,other than a dim or a Repub,will ever be elected president...the Repubs most closely reflect my values and my demographic,so I vote Repub...hey,are far from perfect.but they look out for me better than others.....but the dims are almost communist(mr o's speech the other day where he referred to having industry in he hands of the many and out of the hands of the few)Thats communism....so I agree with you about most of what you say,but I gotta still support Repubs....supporting the others is just signing myself and my family into slavery...if,somda,som oher guy,like a Ron Paul,WHO HAS A CHANCE TO GET ELECTED out of a 3rd party comes along,Ill consider changing...but thats a looong way off....even RP is running a s a Repub...he saw the light:[edited on 5/21/2011 by Homedawg because: sp

edit on 5/21/2011 by Homedawg because: clarity


I'm just curious, but how do Republicans look out for you more than Democrats? I consider myself an Independent but would definitely lean Democrat if I was forced to chose one or the other.

I am just baffled why people vote Republican. In the past, I can understand why but definitely not anymore. I know most Democrats in office today suck but Republicans are even worse and it's not really close in my opinion.



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 01:32 AM
link   
reply to post by sheepslayer247
 


As I have stated many times on this forum, Bush was a big spender. I don't care if it's repubs or dems spending too much.
Socialism has been creeping in to this country over a century. It has not happened overnight. Considering there are around 70 members of Congress who are also members of the Democratic Socialists of America, I do not think it is any stretch of the imagination to suggest there has been in a rapid increase in Socialistic programs, not the least of which is the new healthcare legislation. Ironically, we cannot repeal it on grounds of Socialism, but on grounds it is an abuse of the Commerce Clause.
When people go around saying "spread the wealth", we know they are talking Marxism. It's so simple.

By the way, I am not for the Patriot Act. It was re-written based on Clinton's anti terrorism bill after the OK bombing. But then that is more in the category of George Orwell than it is straight Socialism. If we want to use the term "Statism", that can include anything involving Big Govt that is not expressly redistributing wealth. Socialism is a bridge to the end goal of communism, and even the Communists say it on their websites. Fabian socialism is incrementalism. Sort of the boiling frog syndrome, if you will. So, no it is not entirely black and white, but communism is the end goal, make no mistake. Or if you want you can call it by one of its newer names, Globalism, NWO, Global Governance, or community organizing.
edit on 23-5-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 01:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by sheepslayer247
 


As I have stated many times on this forum, Bush was a big spender. I don't care if it's repubs or dems spending too much.
Socialism has been creeping in to this country over a century. It has not happened overnight. Considering there are around 70 members of Congress who are also members of the Democratic Socialists of America, I do not think it is any stretch of the imagination to suggest there has been in a rapid increase in Socialistic programs, not the least of which is the new healthcare legislation. Ironically, we cannot repeal it on grounds of Socialism, but on grounds it is an abuse of the Commerce Clause.
When people go around saying "spread the wealth", we know they are talking Marxism. It's so simple.


I couldn't disagree more about this country becoming Socialist. Obamacare would make everyone get health insurance from PRIVATE companies. That is not Socialism.

How has Obama spread the wealth since taking office? I wish he had!

I think it's the opposite, Capitalism is totally out of control in this country. When the statistics continually show that the rich have gotten richer while middle class wages remain stagnant and everyone else gets poorer or stays the same, that's not Socialism.

Wall Street has made a fortune with Obama in office, again, that's not Socialism.

I'm just baffled how anyone can come to the conclusion that our country has been headed towards Socialism. I think it's pretty clear that corporations control this country. the FDA is a joke and doesn't look out for the best interests of the people, they look out for pharma companies, etc. The list goes on and on. It's all about big corporations.



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 02:13 AM
link   
reply to post by origamiandurbanism
 


Then what do you think is the issue of paying for it? Remember that whole scenario of the Congressional Budget Office running the numbers? So you think it is not socialist to force taxpayers to fund Obamacare ?
John Conyers apparently spilled the beans on Obamacare being on the path to single payer system. He calls it a "platform" for Universal healthcare...
All the welfare programs we have had in this country are Socialism in one form or another.

obamacarefail.com...

blog.heritage.org...

Have you also not noticed the Totalitarian nature of this current admin, from Pelosi saying they have to pass the bill for us to know what's in it(a sneaky method of Totalitarianism overriding the citizens input), to forcing us to purchase goods and services, to the actual controls Obamacare will put on the health industry. We are on a collision course with full scale Totalitarianism.
edit on 23-5-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 02:32 AM
link   
reply to post by origamiandurbanism
 


True, Wall Street did make a fortune off Obama's and Congress' baillouts. That's called cronyism. Did you know that western bankers and industrialists financed both Hitler and the Bolshevik Revolution? What makes it any different today? What makes you think there was no cronyism in communist Russia?
blogs.telegraph.co.uk...

The same is, and will remain, true in Russia, where corruption that was fostered through nepotistic and other links between Communist Party leaders, cronies and intelligence operatives pre-existed but was brought into the open by the reform process.


The corruption and violence underlay Soviet society, and grew as it neared its end, before exploding into the open on reform. We know that similar mafias, cronyism and thuggism exists within and at the fringes of the Party in China.


Here's a good report from Princeton, interestingly

www.princeton.edu...
edit on 23-5-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 03:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by origamiandurbanism
 


Then what do you think is the issue of paying for it? Remember that whole scenario of the Congressional Budget Office running the numbers? So you think it is not socialist to force taxpayers to fund Obamacare ?

Have you also not noticed the Totalitarian nature of this current admin, from Pelosi saying they have to pass the bill for us to know what's in it(a sneaky method of Totalitarianism overriding the citizens input), to forcing us to purchase goods and services, to the actual controls Obamacare will put on the health industry. We are on a collision course with full scale Totalitarianism.
edit on 23-5-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)


No, Obamacare was a compromise that was made to appease conservatives because they feared a socialist
type option, Universal Healthcare. Is Romney a socialist??? Better hope he is not your candidate by your standards. Forcing you to spend money on yourself is not socialist Mr, personal responsibility, it may be unconstitutional, but it is not socialist. Really you sound very paranoid, two of your arguments clash, it is a
hot mess. Not once do you consider the Millions of Americans who are priced out of being able to see a doctor,
while prisoners and enemy combatants are afforded the decency. If I focus on this light, I could care not for the scumbaggery which communicates through the silence you convey. I will pretend your are just misguided and not just another self centered clone for corporatism.

Fight the Socalisms Mitt Romney



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 03:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 


I do not care for the stealth Progressivism of Romney. That is why I will not vote for him in 2012. Yes, what he implemented in Mass was Socialist form of healthcare. It flew under radar most likely because it was under States rights and Mass is clearly a Progressive state.
Why are you trying to convince me it's not Socialism? But let's look at the model of the UN Agenda 21, which involves public/private partnerships. Corporations today are looking to cut costs on their group insurance on emploiyees. I posted this already before on a different thread that large corporations are stepping on individual liberties such as smoking and obesity because it costs them money when employees lose work days due to ill health. They figure it's something the employee can control. In my view it makes little difference whether it's a corporation telling you how to live your life or the govt. Illegal drugs are a different issue. Now, if corporations won't pay your insurance if you smoke, why would you think Big Brother will?
faultlineusa.blogspot.com...



edit on 23-5-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-5-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 03:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by sheepslayer247
 


As I have stated many times on this forum, Bush was a big spender. I don't care if it's repubs or dems spending too much.
Socialism has been creeping in to this country over a century. It has not happened overnight. Considering there are around 70 members of Congress who are also members of the Democratic Socialists of America, I do not think it is any stretch of the imagination to suggest there has been in a rapid increase in Socialistic programs, not the least of which is the new healthcare legislation. Ironically, we cannot repeal it on grounds of Socialism, but on grounds it is an abuse of the Commerce Clause.
When people go around saying "spread the wealth", we know they are talking Marxism. It's so simple.

By the way, I am not for the Patriot Act. It was re-written based on Clinton's anti terrorism bill after the OK bombing. But then that is more in the category of George Orwell than it is straight Socialism. If we want to use the term "Statism", that can include anything involving Big Govt that is not expressly redistributing wealth. Socialism is a bridge to the end goal of communism, and even the Communists say it on their websites. Fabian socialism is incrementalism. Sort of the boiling frog syndrome, if you will. So, no it is not entirely black and white, but communism is the end goal, make no mistake. Or if you want you can call it by one of its newer names, Globalism, NWO, Global Governance, or community organizing.
edit on 23-5-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)


This whole post I am quoting above is garbage...

Boiling Frog Syndrome? You must have left your intelect in the frogs pocket.

Communism is dead, didn't you hear? Union membership is at its lowest point in nearly a century, even China is raking in the cash using a capitaist model for emerging markets there are more and more millionaires every year in America, so what all you tarting on about? You post is exactly what the OP is refering too, maybe when you grow some chest hair, you can come here and talk some substanitive policy.


edit on 23-5-2011 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 03:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Janky Red
 


I do not care for the stealth Progressivism of Romney. That is why I will not vote for him in 2012. Yes, what he implemented in Mass was Socialist form of healthcare. It flew under radar most likely because it was under States rights and Mass is clearly a Progressive state.
Why are you trying to convince me it's not Socialism?
edit on 23-5-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)


socialism is universal coverage, single payer system... my cousin who live in Mass pays her own health insurance, so does a friend of mine.

The real question is why are you exaggerating so much?
edit on 23-5-2011 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 03:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 


I understand that you are left leaning. I have seen it in virtually every one of your posts. I do not take your assaults on me seriously.

Here is more truth regarding Obamacare

www.cchfreedom.org...



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 03:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 


As I said before, even John Conyers said that Obamacare is the "platform" for a single payer system. Obamacare is centralized control over healthcare, it's govt run, and it's Socialist. What part of govt funding of it don't you get?
www.aapsonline.org...

Many critics of the Democrats’ “healthcare reform” call it “socialized medicine.” Advocates respond, condescendingly, that since the government would not own the means of production, and physicians would not be salaried by the American equivalent of the British National Health Service, this is not socialism. Physicians and hospitals would still be “private,” as in Canada.



So let’s work backward: Start with the definition, then think of the word. These are the characteristics of the plan. It is: (1) compulsory; (2) redistributive; (3) collectivized; (4) centralized; (5) dictatorial; (6) oppressive; and (7) intrusive.
Even if there is as means of opting out and seeking private care, everyone will be forced to pay, either through “premiums,” taxes, or both.
Effective premiums, net of subsidies, will be based on income, and are thus a mechanism for redistributing wealth.Not only is payment collectivized. The whole ethic of medicine is to be transformed. Physicians are to be held responsible for optimizing the health of the state, and patient care is to be prioritized on that basis. The individual patient may be sacrificed to the good of the whole.
Planning is to be centralized. Thousands of decisions will be delegated to the Secretary of Health and Human Services or other unelected federal executive agencies



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 04:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Janky Red
 


I understand that you are left leaning. I have seen it in virtually every one of your posts. I do not take your assaults on me seriously.

Here is more truth regarding Obamacare

www.cchfreedom.org...


Did you not read where I suggested Obamacare is unconstitutional???

I personally think Obama care is a bad idea, I think single payer opt in paired with the private model would have been great for this country, provided the service for those who cannot afford the extent of the private model,
allowed people the freedom of choice and let people with the rescources have whatever suits them.

So I sit in the most unpleasent position of being against Obamacare and being against the position of those who cannot be bothered to care two craps about the many Americas who cannot afford to get treatment.

Your position is no more rightious than Obamacare, it unsavory and unfortuante all the same
edit on 23-5-2011 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 04:57 AM
link   


Not once do you consider the Millions of Americans who are priced out of being able to see a doctor,


Here you go with the altruistic Socialist do gooder thing. Obamacare is not only unConstitutional(and when have leftists ever cared about that?) it is Totalitarian, and will lead to rationing of care. Is rationing good for anybody? The State will control every decision. You seem to be glorifying the Socialist way. the Marxist way when you try to rationalize that it is the State's job to make sure that everyone gets insurance. Ironically, it doesn't mean they will get better care. Your argument seems to be that the private corporate way is not adequate for many people and therefore it is better for the State to run things.
Centralized control is the model of communism. You know it too don't you?



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


It is fascism that has been creeping up on us for well over a couple hundred years, IMO. The idea of free-market economies, capitalism and fair trade has dominated the American economy since its inception. Over time, it began to spiral out of control and the backlash became known as socialism. Corporations and corrupt governments work hand in hand to pass legislation that benefits the “free market”, and then the corporations are allowed to leach every dime they can out of the public consumer. At the same time we make a mad dash to privatize everything we can in the name of capitalism and “personal responsibility”.

Fascism is the problem, not socialism.

Our government is fascist

Healthcare is fascist (handout to the corporations and big pharma?)

The Economy is fascist.

The justice system is fascist

Our country is quickly becoming a fascist oligarchy while we are distracted by the notion that socialists and commies want to take over our lives and eat our babies! This is complete hogwash! This is the propaganda machine working at work. Don’t pay attention to what the right hand is doing, because the left hand is commies, Nazi socialists!

ETA: The free-market, capitalistic healthcare model has had its chance to prove its validity, and failed badly! Want proof? Ok, the proof is the fact that we can talk about healthcare being a problem, period! If the free market was the saving grace, then we were screwed a long time ago. The fiscaly responsable system and better system would be a single-payer system. Oh, but we cant say that cuz thats socialism, and not the truth!



edit on 23-5-2011 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by sheepslayer247
 




This ties in directly with the national security issue. Simply put, you have nothing to fear from Muslims, Islam, Sharia Law or crazy radical terrorists that intend to bomb your children's schools.


Your right judging from this video we have nothing to worry about.

Part (1 of 10)
www.youtube.com...
Part (2 of 10)
www.youtube.com...
Part (3 of 10
www.youtube.com...
Part (4 of 10)
www.youtube.com...
Part (5 of 10)
www.youtube.com...
Part (6 of 10)
www.youtube.com...
Part (7 of 10)
www.youtube.com...
Part (8 of 10)
www.youtube.com...
Part (9 of 10)
www.youtube.com...
Part (10 of 10)
www.youtube.com...

-Alien



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Alien Abduct
 

Please re-read the OP.

Youtube is NOT a valid source!



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 

By the way, ask Bush, Reagan and the Republican party about big government....can you say Patriot Act or this stupid propaganda called "national security"?

When people live in a world of fear, psychologically, they do things in which are excessive. If I were the President of the United States on 9/11/01, I don't think my perception would have been any better. Imagine being in charge of a massive country, and 6 million people depend on you for safety. How far would you go if 3,000 members of your civilization were just killed? My hair color would go from pitch black to pure white.

Second, we are all human beings. When it comes to giving yourself (or being given) a party affiliation, based upon your belief system, the nature of such designation is deceptively divisive. Its just as bad as hyphened societal designations. My wife does not see herself as an African-American, and I do not see myself as a Caucasian-American. We are just human beings with a U.S. citizenship, which stretches back to the migration caused by the Irish Potato famine. What am I getting at? As you may have noticed from the news, party affiliation is a license for behaving like an animal.

I want everyone to live freely without external interference. I don't care if you are heterosexual, homosexual, lesbian, male, female, trans, black, white, or gray. As long as you do not mettle in everyone's life, I have no problem with calling you a friend, cousin, sister, aunt, father, brother, daughter, son, or mother.

Republicans, Democrats, and Independents are all the same. Each one of them are seeking power, and they do not care who gets hurt in the process. If placing mandates on citizens will get them rich, all political parties would sign on the fine or dotted line.

I don't think a single person in power has a soul, for none of them have asked, "Is what I am doing morally right?"


Originally posted by sheepslayer247
We must be willing to break party lines and willing to accept the truth when it presents itself. We can no longer manipulate the truth to conform to our political brainwashing.

We really need a multiparty government, which does not live on a horizontal scale.

After watching the Democrats (Liberals & Progressives) and Republicans (Conservatives/Neo-Cons) rip our country apart, my pipe dream is to ban both political parties from ever holding office. If you think about where we are historically, the 45/45 voter split is a dual-ideological nightmare ready to explode. Unless we do something to remove the horizontal scale, our society will eventually rocket itself into a two sided war. Everyone else will be stuck in the crossfire.

Technically, the United States is suffering from multiple personality disorder, and the end result from such inner conflict is self-destruction. As both parties slap each other around, corporations, unions, and media manipulate the piece on both sides of the board. Everyone else who just wants to live in freedom is being trampled upon, so those seeking power can manipulate, steal, and control the system.

We need an alternate solution, so we can throw all their buts out.

edit on 5/23/2011 by Section31 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus



Not once do you consider the Millions of Americans who are priced out of being able to see a doctor,


Here you go with the altruistic Socialist do gooder thing. Your argument seems to be that the private corporate way is not adequate for many people and therefore it is better for the State to run things.
Centralized control is the model of communism. You know it too don't you?


again, it is funny that you equate me being concered about my people with socialism.
I suppose you are an elititist who veiws healthcare as some sort of luxery to be earned.

I would be fine with the corporate way if it wasn't outpricing people at the tune of 150% inflation in the last ten years. If it wasn't getting so far out of reach, I would not care now would I? I work in the industry, it is a racket,
you don't care to understand or you wouldn't make such foolish assumptions

edit on 24-5-2011 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
13
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join