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.

 

Republican: the party of ignorance and greed?

page: 29
49
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


Again.





posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


I laughed at that. I had to look at it several times to get what it was saying. I may not be a Republican (I am in the Constitution Party) but I am a Conservative.



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by mastahunta
reply to post by nenothtu
 




The "right" side is the one that isn't trying to kill or subjugate you. how hard is that to figure out?


It is a matter of what you fear most Orwell or Huxley -

I fear Huxley's "model" of controlling humanity, which is subtle, without boots and very much like
a corporate induced cage of distractions, barely detectable or noticeable for many.


I can't say that I "fear" either model, but I suppose I would lean more towards a fear of the Orwell model. A cage that I can walk out of doesn't bother me. If I can be controlled through a corporate distraction, than that's my own fault, and their advantage.






It's not a matter of "cheering on intervention and war", it's a matter of WHY intervention or war is prosecuted.


I would say that the Old School Republicans would not entertain the motive, they would first entertain the
principle or war and associated costs first and foremost.


If that's the case, then there's another good reason for me not to be a Republican of any sort. Anyone who counts pennies when his house is on fire is beneath contempt, in my estimation.

Oddly, perhaps, the Republicans have gone through several evolutions and sea-changes since their inception. In the beginning, in the time of the Civil War, they were the "liberals" of the day, and proudly called even themselves "radicals", arrayed against the "conservative" Democrats. It sounds like you are calling the mid to early 20th century version the "old school" Republicans. I think perhaps I should follow in my grandfather's footsteps, and simply call myself a "Whig". The Republicans are dying out and being replaced, just as the Whigs were in his day.





There are times that intervention and war are needed, and in most cases where they are actually undertaken, there is NO need for them. No need in Iraq War II, no need in Libya. There WAS a need in Nicaragua, and Carter dropped that ball, preferring to intervene on the side of those who were killing and subjugating the campesinos.


Some would say that Vietnam was just because it served as a virtual barricade against the spread of Communism in SE Asia. Had Reagan started that war, I think conservatives would have projected and proclaim valid justification. However I often hear Conservatives use JFK's interjection as a way to "prove" that liberals
and Democrats are the title holders of war mongering.


Nicaragua is in "our own back yard", Vietnam is not. I could, if I chose to, WALK, entirely on foot, from my house to the old battlefields in Nicaragua. It would take a long time, but I could do it. the same can't be said for my uncle's battlefields in Vietnam. Therefore, I viewed unrest in Nicaragua as a more immediate threat to me and mine than the unrest in Vietnam.

I hear ya, though. I've often heard my uncle blame "his" war on LBJ, rather than JFK or Eisenhower, which a case could be made for. The "chicken or the egg" concept.




The net result was a "loss", 15 years of hardship under the Sandinistas.and export of "the revolution" to Guatemala and El Salvador, where the battle had to be fought even harder to stop the madness.


The recent Middle East depose-ments are being touted as similar acts of popular uprising, what makes
you distinguish them as unjustified. Also, earlier you wanted me to accept war as an all out act i.e
Vietnam, WWII, Iraq, Korea, yet, in the case of Libya you classified it as a war, but Libya is similar to
other limited support role engagements by Republicans; you seemed to make the argument that those were not WARS... what's up with that???


I can't walk to the Middle East, either. I can't say that I care in the least what they do within their own borders, but the involvement of the Muslim Brotherhood in those "uprisings" has a potential for problematic export.

Libya was an entirely internal war, contained within their own borders. When we started dropping bombs, it made it an external war in a hell of a hurry, with the outside involvement. It was "justified" for Libyans, but not for outsiders to get involved. Same for Egypt, which we didn't drop bombs in but a number of US citizens involved themselves in, and the same for Syria, where we haven't yet done much of anything.

Given rumblings from State lately, the key word there may be "yet". if we go into that one, I'm likely to be against that involvement, too.



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by WarminIndy
reply to post by spiritualzombie
 


It is interesting that people always talk about Republicans and Corporations as though they go hand-in-hand.


I'm pretty sure it's the republican base that reminds people "Corporations are people" and it was the republican base that embraced the idea of unlimited corporate spending on political campaigns under the notion of free speech.

It's the republican base that will defend government assistance for wealthy corporations and yet deny it for the poor and needy.

It's also the republican base that will push to lift EPA regulations, try to sell the idea of clean coal and drilling, while always having excuses to avoid embracing cleaner alternatives.

If you have to choose between teachers and Big Oil, you can bet the republican base will choose big oil.

If the topic turns to illegal immigration and you happen to hear one side advocating violence in the form of guns and land mines along the border... You can bet that's the republican base.

If the topic is the environment, you can bet a republican will choose to disregard man's impact on the planet, ignore his own responsibility to it, and come up with weak excuses wrapped in greed for why we need to continue ignoring the environment and continue to embrace Big Oil and other destructive industries.

There is a reason the topic of the Republican Party being a party of ignorance and greed has struck such a cord with people. The republican base has also become the party of 'backwards' and the party of 'anti-science'. How shamefully pathetic to be so consistent in their ignorance and greed and then deny it. Pathetic.

edit on 28-9-2011 by spiritualzombie because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-9-2011 by spiritualzombie because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by spiritualzombie
 


and im pretty sure that the left and the democrats who constantly remind us

the plants and trees and bugs and the earth as people.

pot calling the kettle



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by mastahunta
That sentiment of the old right sounded like the Conservatism you were speaking, in contrast to
neoconservatism, which you dislike for warmongering, because it's "liberal"... This is were I am confused


Addressed above. Neocons are "liberal", but that isn't where the warmongering comes from. If I fostered that notion via an inability to express myself properly, I can understand your perplexity in the matter.



In the case of Afghanistan, America could have just as easily looked to
Pakistan for aiding and abetting or the Saudi's for providing financial and material support. I think Afghanistan was about high dollar contracts garnered from the logistical aspects and the resulting sub contracting bonanza that resulted. I don't buy the cover story on that one at all, frankly I am surprised you do. Saudi blows
up buildings with plans, funded through the ISI with Arabian money = go to afganistan and spend 10 years?
I have experienced more sense after drinking half quart of Scotch...


Saudi Arabia didn't blow up any buildings with airplanes, Saudi citizens did. The distinction may be best illustrated by pointing out that when Jared Loughner went on his rampage, that was not the US attacking itself. I wouldn't be surprised to find ISI fingerprints on the operation, but I don't think it was at the direction of Pakistan, any more than it was at the direction of the Taliban. The Taliban's miscue was in providing refuge to AQ, not in any direct involvement in that operation.

Pakistan is becoming a problem that may need solution all by itself. I personally think that we ought to cozy up tighter to India to send the message that we are displeased with their shenannigans rather than attacking Pakistan itself. There are already too many wars on too many fronts, spreading us too thinly in the beaten zone.




The spread of communist militarism also disrupted the coc aine supply chain, which severely impacted the profit and routine of many players involved with our own Government and it's entities. That served as a huge imperative which is rarely examined, policy comes quick when someone can't ensure the second
leg is clear because it is impeded with rebellion and chaos.


I've heard that argument, but I never saw any coc aine transshipments, so I can't really say yea or nay. I CAN say that in the early 90's, I was looking at some satellite pictures of the area I was in, and saw a shiny new 7000 foot runway on them. It seemed a bit much to service a copper mine at la Rosita, the closest facility to the runway. It seemed to me that an improvement on the runway at Bonanza, where there is a gold mine, would have been more logical, but then there are more people at Bonanza, too, and so more potential witnesses...

All I can say for sure is that I wasn't visiting for the coke. In the end, I was there for the Miskitos.

We lost anyhow. The Sandinistas uprooted the Miskitos for "relocation" closer to the mines to work for the State, and to that end razed entire villages to the ground. That's how the Miskitos ended up on the Honduran Border, and where the bulk of the manpower for the Contra Wars (after my time, those were) came from.



I provided plenty, if Libya is a war then my examples are wars too.

And just to get it straight, I think engaging in aggression, funding, arming and active subversion are
methods of war.


Methods of war, but not necessarily war itself, just as a hammer or a rock is a method of driving a nail, but is not the driving itself. Agreed, though, those ARE all methods of war.



You missed

William McKinley and the Spanish American war


So I did. Point goes to you



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by mastahunta

You and your obsession with commies, yet you never explain why American liberals and progressives
have engaged in war with communist forces if they are advocation for communism. Seems pretty
dumb to repeatedly smash on your ideological allies, who would be better utilized propagation the secret communist agenda you speak of constantly.


If I may, I submit that it's for the same reason that China and the Soviet Union were at friction for so many years, although both were "communist", each had their own objectives that the other stood in the way of. They were even closer as "ideological allies", and yet came to blows over border crossings.

Some times, even brothers fight.

Just a little something to stir the pot. I personally don't believe that Liberals are "communists", even though they may lean slightly in that direction. The Progressive faction does appear to be a good deal further along the political spectrum towards that end, though.



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by macman
What part of my statement is unsubstantiated nonsense?

I have always paid lower taxes and done better while Reps were in charge.




Democrats tax more and spend less.

!




Really? Spend less, or spend less on things like the Military.

Spend less.

You so funny.


Do you consider the cia to be part of the military?

What would be an acceptable budget for the cia?

What would be an acceptable budget for the dod(department of defense) considering 25% of the funds are constantly unaccounted for? I mean we are talking trillions here, not billions.

I have no beef with the military, in fact I liked it so much I was part of ROTC in high school, went on field trips during the summer with m-16 training, gas attack training in a closed enviroment, 5 mile jogging, etc.

Making social security go bankrupt just because we need 50 aircraft carriers, 20 b-2 bombers, 20 f-117 fighters and I won't even speculate about rail guns, laser and plasma weapons related to star wars program, etc IS kind of irresponsible imo since russia has gone down the sink and china recently tested their FIRST air craft carrier.

Clearly overkill me thinks, but I don't get to vote on anything.



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by mastahunta

Originally posted by nenothtu

There IS NO difference between Neocons and Clinton - or Obama, or any other current office holder. that's the entire point of my posts! Not any difference at all - much less any "distinction". The original contention was that Republicans are behind every war, and Democrats are innocent. I pointed out the fallacy of that, and you swooped in for the attack, defending some illusory "difference".


I agree with the fallacy of the illusory diffence, I swept in because it appeared that you were absolving the
Republican party of war like tendencies and ambitions. I only took issue with you after you said


Republicans don't start wars, whatever other faults they may have.


I was not speaking about the Democrats, because you effectively threw the entire bucket of "War blame"
upon them. I was trying to get some of that onto the GOP where it belongs all the same.


Wow! A lot of posting to catch up on, and I'm sure I'll miss something, but here goes:

I think our differences of opinion may be less ideologically oriented and more definition/semantically oriented. The specific concept in question appears to be what constitutes a "start" of a war, rather than the prosecution of one. In that difference, we could go round and round with the "chicken or the egg" argument, so to avoid that, which would ultimately be non-productive, I'll just say that I was flat out wrong in applying such a blanket statement.

EVERYBODY fights - Republicans, Democrats, Neocons, Liberals, Conservatives, Socialists, Communists, hell, I even met a Buddhist once who was a hell of a fighter. Perhaps the differences are in what they are willing to fight for, or what constitutes a "trigger" that they would consider provocation enough to have at it. I personally think that the spread of an ideology by force of arms is just plain wrong, whether it's spreading Socialism, Democracy, Christianity, Islam, or any other "ism". If people want it, they'll adopt it, and if they don't they'll just resent having it forced upon them, no matter which ideology it is.



I don't expect you to agree or entertain the idea, but the reason the conservatism you speak is not
present in politics, is because it an idea, not a physical manifestation of an idea. If I said Stalin was not
a real Communist because he murdered millions of people, would that change your views on the
implementation of such policies.


I accept that Stalin wasn't a "real" communist because I have been told so by communists, and must accept that they know their own ideology better than I do. The killing and the totalitarianist approach is an outgrowth of individual implementations, not the ideology itself, and that applies across the board.



I think we see eye to eye here

WOW, now I have a whole lot to get to, it may take me a while.



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by mastahunta
reply to post by nenothtu
 




That's your take on Sun Tzu. What do YOU think war is? Of course, if you want to defer to Sun Tzu, I can REALLY work with that.


I think it is a contest or conquest that is waged to achieve an advantages objective, while casting
a disadvantages outcome on the loser.

War does not need blood, China could destroy our technical infrastructure without firing a shot,
the world would still recognize it as an act of war.


If it doesn't require bloodshed, why does it require "conquest"? If you go in, kick there butts, and then just leave, and leave them to their own devices, is that not "war" then? If you walk up to the border, lob a grenade into a sentry box, and saunter away, never intending to return, is that not an act of war?




Anti war sentiment was very popular in the GOP during the early to mid half of the last century.
I always thought those were the REAL CONSERVATIVES that have been replaced by the RINOs.
Is there a third group I am unaware of???


As I said above, Republicans have gone through several evolutions since their inception, so there are likely several remnant "groups" that we never hear from much.

I was wrong, of course, in my application of such a broad statement. There may well be "anti-war" Republicans, but I've never, in 50 years or so, ran across one that was "anti-war" in all circumstances. That doesn't mean that such doesn't exist somewhere, though.



Look, I'll be honest, you are saying conservatism hasn't occurred in twenty years, that would lead me to believe that somehow it did, previous to 20 years ago,by simple deduction I am guessing you are suggesting Reagan???
That I could have viewed conservatism then... But I remind you that Ronald Reagan and his presidency increased the national debt more than all the presidents combined before him, in two terms. Ronald Reagan,
also had the entire cabal of Neoconservative fame serving his administration, developing his, monitory policy
and foreign policy alike. There is nothing conservative about the interest born, compounding debt obligation
we still shoulder due to Reagan's conservatism. Over half of the current debt obligation is principle and compounding interest incurred between Sept 81 and Sept 93 - that would fall right into a twenty year time period
all the way to a thirty year time period, where some shred of conservatism must have flourished somewhere.


Interesting statistic. I don't know what your source is, and so can't check for myself, so I'll just ask you - how much of that sum fell-to between Sept 89 and Sept 93 under King George I, of "read my lips" fame?



I think conservative refers to the conservation of tradition/s - not the conservation of money, blood or honor. ... I can conserve resources or I can conserve the practice of exploiting resources, there is definitely a lot of liberty in conservation isn't there?


Yup, there are all kinds of places to put the stress, which is why some are "fiscal conservatives", some are "social conservatives", etc.



I could liberally pepper you with bullets or liberally shower your intellect with praise and I suspect you would have very deferent opinions on each notion.


I'm not comfortable with either one, although the bullets do tend to leave more permanent marks.



I could take liberty with spending or i could take liberty devising a radically efficient budget.


Yes, but then you'd be a conservative? >>>>
@ a "liberal conservative". That concept bends the brain! I'd rather you just stay a Conservative Liberal



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by spiritualzombie
 


and im pretty sure that the left and the democrats who constantly remind us

the plants and trees and bugs and the earth as people.

pot calling the kettle


Did you just compare corporations to nature?



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman

You forgot LBJ with Vietnam.
Obama with Libya, continuation of Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.


Nah, he didn't. he was only addressing my statement the "Conservatives don't start wars", and so he only listed the Republican entanglements. He's even handed, and owns up to the Democrats who got all tangled up, too.



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Check your history. Republicans don't start wars, whatever other faults they may have. I presume you're talking about Bush. Bush is not a Republican, he is a Neocon, as was most of his administration. Neocons are "liberals", left-wingers, masquerading as Republicans or "conservatives". Republicans call them "RINOs". Just because they have taken over the Republican party so as to label themselves "Republican" doesn't make it so, A label swap doesn't change the contents. This is why we see no appreciable difference between the Bush administration and the Obama administration, regardless of how much folks want to make a distinction.


So the republicans have been infiltrated by "liberal" neo-cons just like the democrats have been infiltrated by colored muslim loving "socialists"? Is that your point?



The lesser of two evils is STILL evil. If you would truly see change, then work for change - not perpetuation of the same old evil.


Easier said then done. The best way to bring change is through the system itself by people slowely waking up to the disasterous corruption that has plagued america for nearly a century(from the inception of the federal reserve to be precise) and demanding positive change...not just "change" for the sake of "change". Obama promised "change" but he delivered quite a little.



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by hawaii50th
reply to post by nenothtu
 

I agree with you all the way, got to keep the good fight going. And if someone with integrity and honor gets in, he will need a huge majority of the people to stand together with him, will that be the case? I hope so.


I think IF he could get into office to begin with, and IF he could demonstrate results, and articulate them, the "troops" would rally 'round him in droves.

That's a mighty tall order, and an awfully lonely beginning, but not entirely outside the realm of possibility. It would take a hell of a no-nonsense thick-skinned, hard-headed, carpet-tack-eatin' sort of individual.



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Maybe you should take a few minutes out of your busy schedule and point out something that you believe to contradict this statement, rather than just dismissing it as a contradiction and leaving it lay.


I already posted the link on page 20 but its easy to miss so here.



Exactly. How does pointing out that the list was by far incomplete change the fact that it was accurate as far as it went? The point made was that the Democrats are no more angelic than a bunch of Neocons, and instead of demonstrating any difference, you called it a contradiction, then proceeded to reinforce the assertion by saying "you didn't include all the donations". That's called "side stepping the issue". How does pointing out that it's worse than the other poster claimed negate his point?


Clearly both parties receive "donations". My point was that republicans receive more "donations" than democrats. Can I prove it? Probably not easy if we go by public documents/information. It would be "classified"!



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

So the republicans have been infiltrated by "liberal" neo-cons just like the democrats have been infiltrated by colored muslim loving "socialists"? Is that your point?



Say what? Where did you read me saying that? I'd like a link to the post, so I can read it for myself. This MKUltra MPD programming is a bitch, ain't it? Type stuff, then your memory get wiped clean...




The lesser of two evils is STILL evil. If you would truly see change, then work for change - not perpetuation of the same old evil.


Easier said then done.


Only if you're a waffler who doesn't really believe what he says. The rest of us can "just say NO" to what we perceive of as evil. we don't feel a compulsion to support it.



The best way to bring change is through the system itself by people slowely waking up to the disasterous corruption that has plagued america for nearly a century(from the inception of the federal reserve to be precise) and demanding positive change...not just "change" for the sake of "change". Obama promised "change" but he delivered quite a little.


Indeed! How does supporting evil further that agenda to rid yourself of it?



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Clearly both parties receive "donations". My point was that republicans receive more "donations" than democrats. Can I prove it? Probably not easy if we go by public documents/information. It would be "classified"!


OK, let's start out slow here... provide some evidence that political donations are "classified", per your contention.

We can then file a FOIA request to the appropriate classifying agency, find out just who gets what from whom, and perhaps support your point that way.



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
Yes, it IS interesting, isn't it? You should think DEEPLY upon that.

In point of fact, the "enemy" is neither conservative nor liberal. the enemy is "STATIST, and promotes a globalist/collectivist/statist agenda. It is CENTRALIZATION of power that is the danger, not the "left" or the "right".

The CENTRALIZATION. That is the problem with both "communism" and the like on the left, and "fascism" and the like on the right. They are statist, all of them, Those are the only "rights" and "lefts" you have ever known, all your life. they are the same under the skin, and it never fails to amaze me how they have convinced the youth these days that there is some sort of ephemeral "difference".

There ain't.
edit on 2011/9/27 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)


Conservatism is no more an american "philosophy" than liberalism is.

Conservatives want to conserve the status quo and they are usually "nationalists" better known as imperialists.

I am not talking about the republican party right now, so just forget it. Going back centuries when europe was ruled by monarchs the goal was to expand the empire. England had the most colonies, then came france, then spain, portugal, holland and the vikings. The title was "Your Majesty" ............

France is renknown for socialism because they brought upon the french revolution. Russia is reknown for communism because the bolsheviks brought down the czar. Traditionally left wingers want to change the status quo and conservatives oppose this. If you were a king or queen would you want socialism or communism? I think not!

Today, the last 200 years since the industrial revolution in europe, we have seen monarchs replaced by elected officials who still pay homage covertly to the nobility. Now it should be known that the bankers and industrialists of the 19th and 20th century such as the vanderbilts, duponts, rockefellers, rothschilds, astors are a working arm of the blue bloods.

The republic(and I dislike this term) we have today is no more real than an oasis in the sahara desert. So lets review and include the modern day republicans as the conservatives of our era just like the house of lords in the uk. The democrats are the liberals of today just like the house of commons in the uk.

Did I make myself clear? Please leave the socialism and communism alone as it died when state capitalism was brought about by reagen and thatcher respectably. Nevermind the McCarthy era WITCHTRIALS! What example of modern day socialism or communism can you see that is remotely imperialistic other than nazism by hitler and communism by stalin?

Somethings never change eventhough people are desperate to create confusion and illusions. BTW I don't have a serious problem with imperialism as long as it is "my tribe" that is doing the conquering. For example as a greek I am proud of alexander the great and his spread of greek influence throughout asia during his time and as an american I am proud we protect israel.



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Clearly both parties receive "donations". My point was that republicans receive more "donations" than democrats. Can I prove it? Probably not easy if we go by public documents/information. It would be "classified"!


OK, let's start out slow here... provide some evidence that political donations are "classified", per your contention.

We can then file a FOIA request to the appropriate classifying agency, find out just who gets what from whom, and perhaps support your point that way.




To nenothtu, I can prove Democrats get more.Look at my earlier post on that..

And this
abcnews.go.com...

And this
articles.latimes.com...

And this
www.npr.org...

And this
newsbusters.org...

And this
abcnews.go.com...

And this
www.seattlepi.com...

Your point is that Republicans receive more...not according to the liberal sources I just quoted from. And look at the post I made earlier, it says the LARGEST donation has been to the Democrat party.

Really, who are you listening to when you hear this stuff nenothtu?



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by newcovenant
 


We probably agree on alot more.
~SheopleNation



new topics

top topics



 
49
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join