It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


War declared on Tea Party

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

log in


posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 02:59 PM
I may just vote Ron Paul but I still don't agree with many of his policies. Maybe our government cannot help but that does not mean there can be a system where The government functions and does its job. If Ron Paul is truly serous he must look into new economic policy such as Green Government. We cannot just go back to the 19 hundreds. But I do believe we are entering The Golden Age so Maybe Ron is part of change.

posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 03:06 PM
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

Yep, "Fair Tax" or a so-called "Consumption Tax" which is really just a National Sales tax makes the most sense of all the plans. This rewards those people who live frugally, and it penalizes those that spend frivolously, and it avoids penalizing those who are more successful than others.

My next choice is a Flat Tax, where everyone pays a certain percentage for every dollar made above a certain threshhold. For instance, 15% on everything over $25k. No deductions, no loopholes, no credits, no Earned Income Credit, just a regular ol' flat tax. It doesn't hurt those below the poverty level, it doesn't require an army of accountants, it doesn't penalize those in the upper tier, everyone pays the same percentage.

I cannot believe so many people think more complicated means better. Why not make it simple and enforceable and fair?

posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 03:10 PM

Originally posted by dron020
I may just vote Ron Paul but I still don't agree with many of his policies. Maybe our government cannot help but that does not mean there can be a system where The government functions and does its job. If Ron Paul is truly serous he must look into new economic policy such as Green Government. We cannot just go back to the 19 hundreds. But I do believe we are entering The Golden Age so Maybe Ron is part of change.

I have to disagree with you on the Green policies. I have read too much information on the UN and the Green agenda coming out of the NWO Statists. Why would you vote for Ron Paul when Obama is already doing the Green thing? And where is it going to get us? Forcing the auto industry to design hybrids, which just forces people to use up more electricity by the way. What kind of a solution is that, when at the same time he is trying to bankrupt the coal industry and "electricity costs will necessarily skyrocket"... heres the vid of his statement

It's almost amusing how upfront Barack is on his agenda and what he wants to do to our country.

Another Green agenda is those awful cfl bulbs. More regulations and more Totalitarianism is what it amounts to, and also more dangerous mercury in the landfills. How green is that? Why present a solution that is more dangerous and toxic than the original? Plus now they are finding that other toxic materials are released when the cfls are on for lengthy periods and they say to keep the area ventilated. Well that sounds like fun doesn't it!

Or, I don't know, maybe you meant something different by Green Government? How about less red? Green is the new red.

edit on 31-8-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 03:25 PM
reply to post by beezzer

Just my take on it.


Divided.....and conquered.

All bases are covered and there all going along with there scripts and plots.

The fun has just begun, more shall be coming down the wire.

They all have good points and bad points I ain't going to say which is which, let them all argue about it till they get it or are blue in the face, because none of it matters much.

So if they actually solve anything it will probably be by luck or other forces were involved, in the meanwhile remember all your base belong to us. Really its for all of your own good, since I wouldnt trust anybody in government or the rich or the poor or the middle class or whomever or whatever who is looking for power with a lemonade stand much less the future of this silly society.

So don't go crying when it comes time to pay the piper, because for some of you the price will be high. And don't be surprised when they all dance in tune to that piper. Now dance sucka dance, now grove sucka grove, now move sucka move. All in tune now.

So no there is no war, the war happened a long time ago and you all lost but don't worry you wont have to pay, your children and children's children however are another matter. It will just take a long time for all you fools to figure out that you lost. And this tea party is what the mass media says it is, not what people say it is, not what you say it is, or this or that groups says it is. Don't you know what the unthinking masses see it as, well that is exactly what it is. Even if its exactly what it is not. Much lolz there.

I think this whole thing is a waste of time and energy to even think on, But I admit it is funny to watch them all get worked about and even fight among each-other over something that is totally meaningless. Real'y that is the true job of all the minions and shills, not to actually make any points but to just keep bringing it into the lime light and into the group consciousness. And if you do that for a long time well even the most stupidest and unimportant things will become the most important.

That's how lots of governments political parties and religions started. And if you repeat bull# long enough then it will become real and true.

"If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth. " — Joseph Goebbels

I think your full of it op, I think this whole thread is full of #.

Dam didnt know politics had so much lolz in it, its like a gold mine for the lolz.

posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 03:27 PM
reply to post by Kitilani

thats funny never forget ats is a 2 way street any number of people can and would say the same about your postings but if you reall want to go there feel free.

so lets take the 7 sins for example and the biggest thing that isnt christian like government can not and should not legislate morality.

ie the rich and a myriad of other examples prevalent in the last 3 years and there is nothing stoping the rich paying more themselves but wait nope hold a gun to their head and force them to.

not very chrisian like and dont see a whole lot of morality there from the postings i have read you could use a dose of a modicum of religion

with the emphasis on "do onto others as they would have them do unto you".

edit on 31-8-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 03:31 PM

Originally posted by spyder550
You got on that bus for sure. (bus provided by Dick Arney and Fox News)

Not by a long shot bro. I don't get my news from the one way sewer pipe. Nice try though. ~SheopleNation

posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 03:34 PM

Originally posted by lkpuede

Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by lkpuede

14 presidents before the first President GW?
I don't follow you.

well i don't mean to be smart, but maybe it's time for you to brush up on the history of your country. there were, in fact, 14 individuals that carried the title President before George Washington came down the road. and We The People do not elect the President.

now...for a bunch of people who know all about Elenin and The Galactic Federation of Light and the Reptians and Draconians and What Really Happened On 9/11....but don't understand the basic functions of their own government is a truly sad state of affairs.

just sayin...

You are referring to the 7 men who served during the Continental Congress and 7 who served under the Articles of Confederation, but Washington is still the first to officially serve under the new Constitution.

The numbers 7 and 14 are quite interesting too, from an esoteric point of view.

edit on 31-8-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 03:47 PM
reply to post by beezzer

Humans are a greedy animal in nature. It is in the genes. Left overs from the "good old" hunter-gatherer days. The days when humans could only think about survival and could not afford to show compassion.
The days when humans needed to think about getting what they needed, no matter which person/s had to pay for it.

That is why the concept of playing on that for political gain will work. Unfortunately.

The most tragic thing is that humans do not even need to be this selfish anymore.
With the proper guidance and use of some of the remarkable technology that already exist, humans could live a good life on this planet. But once again, the greedy-gene is in the way for the path of enlightenment.

Though I have to add that I do not contribute in political opinion what so ever. I transcend that.
Knowing that it all is a charade anyway.

posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 03:53 PM
reply to post by beezzer

Great summary always.

posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 03:53 PM
reply to post by newcovenant

What exactly did Jesus do for the poor? He healed certain people as a public statement of spiritual understanding, not as a profession as a healthcare provider. There really is a difference, and then there is that little thing that he only did it for 3 years as recorded. He did preach a bit before his official mission, but the miracles were all performed during a short period of time, before which a number of years went unrecorded almost completely, except for some documentation of him showing up in India as St. Issa. His mission is not socialism as you are interpreting it.
Even the multiplication of the loaves and fishes at the marriage of Cana is not an example of socialist redistribution of wealth, as socialism takes from some and gives it to others, dividing it, so to speak, whereas Jesus MULTUPLIED the loaves and fishes. Last I checked multiplying and dividing are different actions mathematically. His demonstration was in fact an example of a spiritual concept of infinite abundance from the Creator, not that of limited resources spouted by economists of today who take advantage of people with usury.
The examples of healing were also spiritual, and had nothing to do with the socialist concept of the State providing health insurance and/or healthcare services for a populace using all or partly redistribution of wealth.
If the masses could be healed as Jesus did, we wouldn't need health insurance, now would we?

posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 04:04 PM
reply to post by Kali74

Why is the Tea Party so against raising corporate taxes and taxes on people who make more than 250K/year but are perfectly ok with raising taxes on the middle and lower classes

The Tea Party is against all excessive taxation on all brackets. It is in fact a Democrat talking point you are speaking of, as no Tea Partier I know of talks about raising taxes on the middle class. As far as taxes on corporations and people who make over 250,000, the answer is that many small businesses are in that range, so why would you want to raise taxes on small businesses or self-employed?
In fact, anyone for free enterprise would understand that the progressive income tax is a tool of Marxism. That is a fact, and was a goal of communism.
edit on 31-8-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 04:06 PM
The more you make the less you should pay in taxes.

I'd start out those making less than 10k pay 80 percent tax of income

20k can pay 60 percent

30k pays 50.

40k to 60k pays 40.

60k to 100k pays 30.

100k and over are tax free.

Job creators need more money to create jobs.
edit on 31-8-2011 by UnknownSoldier because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 04:29 PM

Originally posted by links234
You edited your now I have to edit mine to make sense:

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

Are you...agreeing with that sentiment (the Lenin quote)? Because you might be more of a socialist than you think.

That's Lenin on Marx, FYI. The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism by V.I. Lenin, published in 1913

Edit to add:
There's left and right then there's up and down. Communism can be both left and right, socialism can be the same. Did you know there are libertarian socialists? They are essentialy anarchists, but they do exist. You can be a socialist without being a statist.

Stalin didn't believe in or practice international communism. He forced conformance and created social orders within the communist party (see Orwell's 1984).

You sound like a leftist, I'm not entirely certain on your social ideals but on your economic ideals alone you could be a leftist.

This is really where I'm coming from: Political ideologies
edit on 31-8-2011 by links234 because: Because someone else did it first.

Ah, your post is intriguing. I am still trying to figure out how socialism and libertarians mix, but yes, I do know there are socialist libertarians, green libertarians, and other factions, some left, right, centrist, paleo, etc.
Socialism by its very nature tends to be more Statist and Totalitarian, so I am not entirely sure that it is truly compatible with classically libertarian ideals. Socialism deals with forced redistribution of wealth, and what part of force is libertarian? It is really just more Totalitarianism. Why not just say that Mussolini was Libertarian? Or Wilson? Or is the concept of socialist libertarian something like evereyone really wants to be taken care of by the state and so everyone does it voluntarily? Then that is like, well the income tax is really voluntary, while the IRS enforces it as law and even puts people in jail over it.
Socialism simply cannot be a function of the right, unless you are talking about the false paradigm of left and right where the right is really left, and again, that is more of Bill Maher's thinking process. If it is really right then it's not left. It may be a pretend right though. The Hegelians have gotten very good at that game.
Maybe that's what Bill Maher meant to say...

I am not sure why you say I sound leftist, as I posted source material on Marxism as a defense against someone who claimed I did not understand Marxism and Socialism. I did not mean to say that I agree with Lenin or Marx. It was meant to show that I do indeed understand the concepts Marxism and socialism are based on. So if you thought it made me sound leftist, well then voila, Lenin is leftist, and so is Stalin.
edit on 31-8-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 04:30 PM
reply to post by beezzer

As a single momma of 9 chilren, i gotta have help to keep food in they belly. I cant work cus I gotta care for the chilren. My great gran worked and it put her in an early grave. If teaparty wants us to starve then we have to fight back.

posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 04:43 PM
reply to post by UnknownSoldier

I hope you're joking, because that may be the dumbest thing I have ever read in my life.

Here's my take, for what its worth.

You have zero power. None. Nada.

You sit on this site and argue for your personal political position, shooting down the 'other' sides position.

They get pissed, you get pissed, and not one thing has changed.

Tea Party, GOP, Democrats, Liberals, Progressives, Fascists, Socialists, Commies, Conservatives, Neo-cons, BLAH BLAH BLAH.

Its all a carnival show, designed to entertain.

Do you really think these idiots don't fight in front of cameras and play golf together on the weekends?

Wake up you morons!

You have no control, no representation, and no chance of changing the outcome of this rigged game.

Educate yourself. Electoral colleges can vote whichever way they feel, regardless of the tallied 'votes.'

Follow the money, follow the money, follow the money.

Who prospers?

Not anyone in the middle class (what's left of it).

We pay for the poor AND for the rich.

As a school teacher, I paid more in taxes last year than the top 20 Fortune 500 companies, combined.

If that isn't sick, I don't know what is.

What ever happened to the clause in the constitution that said the document should be re-written every fifty years to avoid corruption?

If you think electing Ron Paul or Jesus Christ himself is going to change something, think again.

The only way it will change is if we stop being lazy a$$holes and actually participate in OUR DEMOCRACY.

For those who want smaller government, consider what you are asking for:

Totalitarianism, plain and simple.

You can't get rid of the government, so BECOME the government instead.

posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 04:43 PM

Originally posted by RisenAngel77
It is a well known fact that the tea party is corrupted. It is just a representation or face or actors hired by TPTB to spread the illussion that there is a "movement" out there defending us. While sending the real movements into the shadows hidden from the public. This is TPTB way of controlling libertarians.

I am all for government, but when it gets to the point that they decide what I should put inside my own body, from what drugs I should take, what I should eat or even drink. We have a major problem and liberty is not longer liberty.

All of this is happening for big bucks.
edit on 31-8-2011 by RisenAngel77 because: (no reason given)

Really? Where did you come up with this little ditty? Am I hired by TPTB? Oh, man, I wouldnt have to work my day job!!!!

posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 05:02 PM
reply to post by links234

ok, I looked at that chart from your link. I can see how the Hegelian paradigm is used there, with fascism as the so -called "right wing". That is the paradigm which was set up by socialists to present fascism as a right wing system. I must tell you that I agree with Jonah Goldberg that fascism is and always was still a faction of the left. Fascism is Totalitarianism. Mussolini coined the term. It means the govt controls pretty much every aspect of our lives.
If we just come out of the paradigm box set up by leftists, we have Totalitarianism or the State on one side and Liberty and freedom and limited governance on the other side.
You see, from where I stand, Republicans who stand for bigger govt and corporatism are not truly conservative. To call Hitler conservative when even he called himself a socialist would be sheer folly. While Marxists and communists generally have a sheer hatred of corporations and Capitalism, the bankers and industrialists did support the communist revolution and also supported Hitler, both factions of which are really leftist in nature.
To explain my point of view, I refer to Antony Sutton, who really explained the concept well.

Probably the most difficult task in this work will be to get across to the reader what is really an elementary observation: that the objective of The Order is neither "left" nor "right." "Left" and "right" are artificial devicces to bring about change, and the extremes of political left and political right are vital elements in a process of controlled change.
The answer to this seeming political puzzle lies in Hegelian logic. Remember that both Marx and Hitler, the extremes of "left" and "right" presented as textbook enemies, evolved out of the same philosophical system: Hegelianism. That brings screams of intellectual anguish from Marxists and Nazis, but is well known to any student of political systems.
The dialectical process did not originate with Marx as Marxists claim, but with Fichte and Hegel in late 18th and early 19th century Germany. In the dialectical process a clash of opposites brings about a synthesis. For example, a clash of political left and political right brings about another political system, a synthesis of the two, niether left nor right. This conflict of opposites is essential to bring about change.
In the Hegelian system conflict is essential. Furthermore, for Hegel and systems based on Hegel, the State is absolute. The State requires complete obedience from the individual citizen. An individual does not exist for himself in these so-called organic systems but only to perform a role in the operation of the State.
We trace the extraordinary Skull and Bones influence in a major Hegelian conflict: Naziism vs. Communism. Skull and Bones members were in the dominant decision-making positions -- Bush, Harriman, Stimson, Lovett, and so on -- all Bonesmen, and instrumental in guiding the conflict through use of "right" and "left." They financed and encouraged the growths of both philosophies and controlled the outcome to a significant extent.

So it doesn't matter from the viewpoint of The Order whether it is termed left, right, Democratic, Republican, secular or religious - so long as the discussion is kept within the framework of the State and the power of the State.

edit on 31-8-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 05:04 PM
reply to post by HauntWok

Lets take a look

Because of rising minimum wage, workers salaries, benefits, corporate taxes and costs on the increase, decrease in manufacturing, increase in costs of trading, over all penalties for running a business within the united states, cap and trade, etc. These "job creators" have had enough and are going to move their companies elsewhere. Now let’s be fair. Majority of them are hardworking and honest corporations trying to run a successful business. But yes, some feel they are entitled, some cheat and some are dishonest. But very small percentage. But you have been brainwashed by MSN and CBS and ABC to think that ALL companies are bad. Also, what party was responsible for most of policy changes I have listed above? Democratic Party? I think so. With that said, it needs to be said that the American worker is not efficient. Meaning for what you pay into it, you don’t get a lot out of it. We have to pay and provide and give to the American worker much more than most countries have to give to their workers. And have you seen the work ethic and education standards of Americans compared to other countries? Let’s just say most countries have us beat in this area as well. I think we can agree on that. So my question to you is, why wouldn’t these "job creators" want more rights? And less taxes? Because if you continue to raise taxes on these companies and the individuals that run them, they will take their companies and the jobs they provide elsewhere. That is exactly what the Democratic Party wants. They think that if they raise taxes and redistribute the wealth from these individuals and companies to other working class, that action would be considered fair by most Americans and they would be perceived to be the good guy. But actually, they are damaging America by encouraging these companies to either raise their costs on products and goods (which you have seen in the past 4 years) or to push them out of this country, with the end result hurting the american worker, not helping. Now, please try to explain your way out of that.
edit on 31-8-2011 by kellynap43 because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 05:09 PM

Originally posted by GeoSorosReptilian
reply to post by beezzer

As a single momma of 9 chilren, i gotta have help to keep food in they belly. I cant work cus I gotta care for the chilren. My great gran worked and it put her in an early grave. If teaparty wants us to starve then we have to fight back.

Please, try a bit harder then that to troll....

Seems like the cointelpro pool is tight staffed these days to bring fools like this out.

posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 05:16 PM
In reply to Outkast Searcher from the other thread that was closed, I am not arguing that Obama did not cut tax rates for many. My point is that economic policy of both the Obama Administration and previous administrations has lead to a pseudo-tax hike because the currency has been devalued to search a large degree.

In addition, the Obama healthcare reform plan, which has yet to be implemented, will be a tax that hits working Americans the hardest. In that regard, Obama is certainly working to raise taxes for many, even if he hasn't been fully successful as of yet.

top topics

<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in