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 end of free speech - Prez Appoints Speech Police Czar

page: 3
18
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 25 2011 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tonosama

Originally posted by dalloway
You're kidding, right? Chill out. This position will deal with online marketing and social media in order to most effectively use sites like Facebook and Twitter and to combat things like "Google bombing."


If that is the sole purpose of this person, which I doubt, then why is he being funded with taxpayer funds? About half of the USSA didn't vote for this guy, why are they being required to fund his reelection?


Oh, I'm sorry, you're right! Terrible of Obama to employ someone in the White House who is working in any capacity in his re-election campaign. [cough cough Karl Rove cough]




posted on May, 26 2011 @ 03:11 AM
link   
reply to post by dalloway
 


If Obama is paying the guy out of his campaign funds and he is working out of a campaign office then fine. If he is being paid with taxpayer dollars and working out of the WH that is not fine. Taxpayer dollars are not supposed to fund campaigns with the exception of the donation that can be made when taxes are filed, and that goes into a general fund for the party.

You are attempting to deflect that fact that payment of Mr. Politburo by taxpayer dollars is both amoral and possibly illegal by making a snarky commment. As usual, obamatons won't argue the facts or admit that the O is wrong.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 03:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Screwed
 


I got halfway through your post before I realized it was sarcasm.

that says a lot about the world I live in.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tonosama
reply to post by dalloway
 


If Obama is paying the guy out of his campaign funds and he is working out of a campaign office then fine. If he is being paid with taxpayer dollars and working out of the WH that is not fine. Taxpayer dollars are not supposed to fund campaigns with the exception of the donation that can be made when taxes are filed, and that goes into a general fund for the party.

You are attempting to deflect that fact that payment of Mr. Politburo by taxpayer dollars is both amoral and possibly illegal by making a snarky commment. As usual, obamatons won't argue the facts or admit that the O is wrong.


Nope, you're wrong. Not trying to deflect anything at all. My comment may have been snarky (Thank you for the compliment. Snark rules!) but it's true, nevertheless. I was pointing out your hypocrisy in complaining about something Obama is guilty of (notice that I just called Obama GUILTY) that Bush, who I am guessing you are a fan of, was also guilty of in regards to Karl Rove's functions in the Bush administration and campaigns. Try applying the salary requirements you stated above in the first paragraph of your reply to Rove's function in the Bush administration. Karl Rove was paid with our tax dollars to pretty much run Bush's re-election campaign, pure and simple. The point I'm making is that you can't call out Obama for what he's doing with this new position and not admit the Bush administration's guilt for doing the exact same thing. But for the OP to say that the new position Obama has created is akin to the "thought police" is still silly and paranoid.

In addition, I am not an "obamaton," whatever that cute (yet not snarky) little term means. Yes, I voted for Obama in the last presidential election, but I do not plan on voting at all in the next election and possibly never again. You see, I started hanging around ATS last December and have quickly incorporated into my personal beliefs set, some of the new information I have learned here. That's what ATS is all about -- studying newly presented information, filtering out the crazy stuff, and then making decisions about how the rational and possibly true information may or may not fit into your current belief system. If you come here with one set of beliefs and leave without any change in those beliefs, than you're missing the whole point of this entire website.

Probably the most important thing I've learned here so far is the true nature of our sham of a two party political system. It has been a hard pill to swallow, because I have been a die-hard Democrat for most of my life. In reality, the Democrats and Republicans are merely two sides of one deeply tarnished coin. The two sides of a penny may look different, but it's still the same coin. And it is still all about the money and the corporations. Not to mention that the copper penny isn't really copper at all. In other words, what you see on the outside is hiding something completely different on the inside.

So. Not deflecting and not defending Obama. Just helping to debunk some of that crazy stuff I referred to above. Are we clear now?
edit on 26-5-2011 by dalloway because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 04:50 AM
link   
reply to post by dalloway
 


Great, glad to hear you are enlightened and will not be voting for Obama again.

I am no fan of Bush either. If he were president I would be writing threads about him instead. Yes, Karl Rove should not have been allowed either and I am glad to see that "Scooter" Libbey was convicted for his crimes in the Valerie Plame scandal. More should have gone to jail. Rove and probably Cheyney.

I encourage everyone to vote "none of the above" like in the Brewster's Millions movie. Well, maybe not "none" but at least for someone else. No more republicans or democrats. They are the same people. They put on a good show of being different but they vote all the same on their tyrannical agendas.

I am a fan of Ron Paul right now but I will see if anyone else crops up. I encourage you to find the best possible alternative candidate and vote for that person.

A vote for a 3rd party candidate is NOT a wasted vote. The repubs and dems will say if you vote for a 3rd party candidate you are ensuring the victory of their opponent. This is to scare you into voting for more of the same.

If enough people on both "sides" get fed up and vote 3rd party we may actually have a viable 3rd party in a few elections. People need to make the leap of faith and once that happens the cowards who are afraid to vote for a 3rd party candidate will jump on the wagon.



new topics

top topics
 
18
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join