Republican: the party of ignorance and greed?

page: 30
47
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by mastahunta

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Found this too on wikipedia under the Stalin heading


After Soviet forces remained in Eastern and Central European countries, with the beginnings of communist puppet regimes in those countries, Churchill referred to the region as being behind an "Iron Curtain" of control from Moscow.[217][218] The countries under Soviet control in Eastern and Central Europe were sometimes called the "Eastern bloc" or "Soviet Bloc".



In Soviet-controlled East Germany, the major task of the ruling communist party in Germany was to channel Soviet orders down to both the administrative apparatus and the other bloc parties pretending that these were initiatives of its own,[219] with deviations potentially leading to reprimands, imprisonment, torture and even death.[219] Property and industry were nationalized.[219]


en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 28-9-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)


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.


Yeah that should be a no-brainer. Communists help communists, socialists help socialists and capitalists help capitalists. Not always...........but usually!!!
The people who fear international socialism or communism have no idea of how different political ideologies play out. Vietnam, russia, china, cuba are virtually capitalists.

Meanwhile europe silently switched from socialism to welfare state capitalism and somehow miraculously think they still have socialism. It should be obvious just by looking to the fact that industry and banking have gone private.




posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 06:42 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.


If they were "classified" how would I have evidence?

Do you have evidence that they are not "classified"?

My contention of who rakes in more "donations" is based on the party that favors corporations more than people. I don't think democrats are corporation lovers, but they do put up with corporatism in a capitalist world!



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by WarminIndy

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...


Thanks for the links - I reckon that proves against earthCitizen07's contention that these donations are somehow "classified".




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?


Huh? ME? I think you have me confused with someone else. I think the Democrats try to make an issue of it after first slipping their donations under the radar. hoping no one will notice their funding as they rail against "corporations", in effect biting the hand that feeds them - or so it appears to the "masses".

MY point is that I don't CARE who gets the most from where, since it is the SAME people donating to what is the SAME party under two different brand names. Would you rather buy a Coke or a Pepsi? Yeah, I know, I know... there's at least a REAL difference, however slight, between those two! Not so with the Republicrats or the Demicans.

No, I was asking EC07 for confirmation of his contention that political donations are somehow "classified", which he used to mask the fact that his beloved Democrats get more corporate donations than his hated Republicans. If he can convince us that these donations are actually "classified" then he doesn't have to prove his contention that Republicans get more corporate political donations than Democrats, which is a contention he will never be able to prove - hence the attempt at the "classified" smoke screen.

Myself, I don't care which gets what from where. It ALL goes into the same effort to subjugate us peons.

And the band plays on....



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


Have you heard of the phrase "under the table" deals?

Think about that for a moment before you believe only what is announced on the media.

If I wanted to make the democrats look bad all I had to do was exaggerate one side while downplaying the other. Yeah its rocket science........



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

If they were "classified" how would I have evidence?

Do you have evidence that they are not "classified"?


So you throw out a red herring in the form of claiming these donations are somehow mysteriously "classified", hoping I won't call you on that contention, then demand that I prove a negative when I do, while at the same time offering NO support for your position?

Not exactly "masterful"....

See the post above for your "classified" material. Oops. CIA has a leak, eh?



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


By "classified" I meant under the table, secret, non-existant!

Geez I was hoping you would catch on a bit faster man.

Yes both parties are corrupt but I am still going to vote for the party that raises the mininum wage $2, supports unions and at least pretends to go after the corruption. I would rather be a sissy realist than demand a bloody revolution, which by the way looks more and more likely.



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by nenothtu
 


By "classified" I meant under the table, secret, non-existant!

Geez I was hoping you would catch on a bit faster man.


Yeah, well, my mistake, I reckon. I know what "classified" means, and presume that when people use that word, that's just what they mean. "Under the table" means something else altogether, ESPECIALLY when dealing with the government.



Yes both parties are corrupt but I am still going to vote for the party that raises the mininum wage $2, supports unions and at least pretends to go after the corruption. I would rather be a sissy realist than demand a bloody revolution, which by the way looks more and more likely.


A bloody revolution could work, or it could go altogether sideways in a hell of a hurry. It seems that ought to be a last resort, when all other options have been exhausted, not a first choice. I don't believe it necessarily HAS to be one of those two choices - either kowtow and embrace slavery by supporting "evil", or go all out and draw as much blood as you can before they get ya.

If you support what you believe to be evil, whether greater or lesser, you're doing it WRONG. If you have to have a bloody revolution, it means that your other attempts were all FAILURES - what makes you think the revolution won't be, given that track record?

No, there are other, less drastic, options. Working within, always striving for the good over the evil. Chipping away at the evil, and NEVER, EVER supporting it - that is, itself, an admission of failure, a capitulation to the enemy. It's a surrender, a defeat.

I will NEVER vote for anyone who supports Unions. NEVER. They are as much a part of the problem as corporations - perhaps even more so, since they have such a violent bent. I worked in a Union shop ONE time, and will NEVER have anything to do with them again, nor ever support them. NEVER. I will starve first, and that's not an idle promise.

PRETENDING to go after the corruption is not good enough. No politician should EVER get more than one chance to demonstrate that he's willing to go after corruption if he says he is when campaigning. If he doesn't do as he claims when he makes that claim, it's a pink-slip for him, post haste. Fool me once, shame on YOU. Fool me twice, shame on ME.

If he or she doesn't deliver on promises made that got them elected in the first place, then I don't care if they live in a cardboard box and eat in a soup kitchen for ever after.

ONE chance to show that they mean what they say. ONE. No excuses. Don't let yer mouth write a check your ass can't, or has no intention to, cash.

edit on 2011/9/28 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 03:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by spiritualzombie
From the denials of global warming and man's impact on the environment, to their constant loyalty toward corporations and support for war in oil rich nations, blind nationalism, hatred and distrust of outsiders, while always saving judgement and cynicism for the poor, the needy, the sick, the peace loving, and environmentally conscious. Does the mainstream republican base rely solely on a mixture of ignorance and greed?

There is something extremely disturbing about this hive mentality. In fact if you notice in debates and other discussions... republicans who do not embrace the hive mentality are shunned from the group.

I don't understand how any free-thinking, socially conscious person can embrace this twisted mentality? In order to support today's Republican party must a person also embrace Ignorance and/or Greed?



Being neither Republican or Democrat I'll make an effort to tackle your question. I would like to preface with this question; isn't it ignorant to make broad based assumptions generalizing a group of over 40 million people? I'd say so. Yeah, it is. Both parties have platforms and core issues but voting for one party over the other doesn't mean the individual supports 100% of their value system. I've never seen a political candidate that I agree with 100% of the time.

Global Warming. There are two types of global warming and your generalization doesn't specify which one you refer to. Man made global warming or the natural warming and cooling cycles of the earth? I assume you mean the acceptance of man made global warming and what level of impact man's actions have. THere is no consensus on that topic. Of the 8 pieces of legislation I looked at that were designed to directly curb the alleged man made global warming, 25% of senate democrats didn't agree with the findings and voted with the republicans.

As far as war with oil rich nations 29 out of 50 dem senators voted for war in Iraq and 82 out 0f 208 democratic senators voted for it. Obama was one who voted for it. If you don't think both sides of the political system have a heavy interest in oil you are mistaken.

Actually I think I see the problem. Your taking subjective information and forming an opinion. You then represent said opinion as fact on this site and in your own mind. THen you make sweeping assumptions about a group with some vocal members who's opinions don't match your own. THen you make even more broadstroke assumptions that all of it's members agree with everything that the the vocal members of the party say in public. Then you make another assumption that those members by having some positions that disagree with you must disagree with all of your positions and have nefarious reasons for doing so. Then you make another assumption that everything your party does is unicorns, rainbows and butterflys and has noble intentions.

You can have an intelligent conversation with a person who believes that. It's like trying to debate historical data vs biblical information with a devout christian. Science vs faith, the impossible argument.

You don't appear to realize that information has no party. And the information is only as good as the person interpreting it. YOu also fail to realize there may be additional information from other sources which may conflict with yours. And unless you have intimate knowledge of how the information was obtained and that the scientists are recording the data properly and are drawing the right conclusions, how can you be 100% certain that your opinion is fact and intelligently represent it in such a manner? YOu can't. You essentially make the statement that democrats are good and republicans are evil. That means your judgement is flawed if for no other reason than you make a generalization over a huge group of people. What your doing is no different than Hitler talking about the Jews being evil or the Ku Klux Klan talking about the inferiority of black people.

Members of a party are individuals. With individual opinions. No large group shares a consensus opinion on every issue.



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 05:05 AM
link   
Without either starting or adding myself into an argument I will say this :

The evidence speaks for itself and is quite clear.



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 05:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by mastahunta

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Found this too on wikipedia under the Stalin heading


After Soviet forces remained in Eastern and Central European countries, with the beginnings of communist puppet regimes in those countries, Churchill referred to the region as being behind an "Iron Curtain" of control from Moscow.[217][218] The countries under Soviet control in Eastern and Central Europe were sometimes called the "Eastern bloc" or "Soviet Bloc".



In Soviet-controlled East Germany, the major task of the ruling communist party in Germany was to channel Soviet orders down to both the administrative apparatus and the other bloc parties pretending that these were initiatives of its own,[219] with deviations potentially leading to reprimands, imprisonment, torture and even death.[219] Property and industry were nationalized.[219]


en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 28-9-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)


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.


Yeah that should be a no-brainer. Communists help communists, socialists help socialists and capitalists help capitalists. Not always...........but usually!!!
The people who fear international socialism or communism have no idea of how different political ideologies play out. Vietnam, russia, china, cuba are virtually capitalists.

Meanwhile europe silently switched from socialism to welfare state capitalism and somehow miraculously think they still have socialism. It should be obvious just by looking to the fact that industry and banking have gone private.


and mafia help mafia and crips help the bloods....Hillary helps Obama...
There are always going to be rivalries. One must take into account the slow and steady degradation of both parties, as well as the Hegelian positioning.
But take the Viet Nam war. We went in to that war to fight the North Viet Cong. History shows that the Left were anti war at the time, which means that they definitely did not want us fighing the commies...Jane Fonda is a premium example.
The War on Terror changed the focus a bit. Of course with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the Cold War being "over", the Power Elite had to find some other way to fight wars. None of this had meant that communists do not still exist, they just changed the name a few times. It may not even be the "Soviet" model being featured. Seems people are finding lots of different ways to categorize it. It's like how ACORN renamed itself, but the consciousness behind it is relatively the same.



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

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.


Sorry, but SS is not bankrupt due to Military spending.
SS is bankrupt because first, it was placed into the hands and control of the Fed Govt, two it was a (Insert scheme) Scheme to begin with, three it has been bastardized into something it was not deigned for and four it was never designed to be a static program with no end.



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


SS has a $4 Trillion balance so how is it broke?



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by macman
 


SS has a $4 Trillion balance so how is it broke?


As per what source, calculation and formula?

If it is not broke, why do both parties cry about it being broke.

Why are there massive reports stating that it is broke and on its way to bankruptcy?



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


To get people to turn away from the insurance policy that's worked beautifully for the last 80 years all so that the people can willingly turn it over to TPTB without any resistance. Since this money is not borrowed from the Treasury or TPTB prohibits it from being able to use that to further push the nation into debt.

The way the law reads is you do not pay the tax direct from your cheque but your employer is charged the tax which enables them to dock your pay to recoup the costs. This is on average about 10c on the dollar of your overall cheque.

This is the insurance policy that you pay into for nearly 50 yrs and when your time comes due to get your share back it will be there waiting for you.
edit on 29-9-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 09:20 AM
link   



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


It is one of a handful of entities in the nation that does not go "Out of House" for funding as it's self financed hence why it cannot go broke.



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by macman
 


To get people to turn away from the insurance policy that's worked beautifully for the last 80 years all so that the people can willingly turn it over to TPTB without any resistance. Since this money is not borrowed from the Treasury or TPTB prohibits it from being able to use that to further push the nation into debt.

The way the law reads is you do not pay the tax direct from your cheque but your employer is charged the tax which enables them to dock your pay to recoup the costs. This is on average about 10c on the dollar of your overall cheque.

This is the insurance policy that you pay into for nearly 50 yrs and when your time comes due to get your share back it will be there waiting for you.
edit on 29-9-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)


That is nice and all but it still does not void the fact that the Fed Govt has been taking from the SS funds, placing in IOUs and then using accounting tricks and gimmicks to suggest that the fund is still good, on paper.

Sorry, but citing tax laws does not prove that the money is not gone.
It suggests that as long as people still pay into it, there will be a revolving cash flow, but it is shown time and time again that the cash flow is drying up and in the Red.



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by macman
 


It is one of a handful of entities in the nation that does not go "Out of House" for funding as it's self financed hence why it cannot go broke.


Yeah, kind of like a person taking $10 from me, using their right hand to place it in the left pocket, then the left hand taking out the $10 and placing it in the right pocket and exclaiming "We have $20!!".


Hurray for more Govt control of life.



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by macman
 


To get people to turn away from the insurance policy that's worked beautifully for the last 80 years all so that the people can willingly turn it over to TPTB without any resistance. Since this money is not borrowed from the Treasury or TPTB prohibits it from being able to use that to further push the nation into debt.

The way the law reads is you do not pay the tax direct from your cheque but your employer is charged the tax which enables them to dock your pay to recoup the costs. This is on average about 10c on the dollar of your overall cheque.

This is the insurance policy that you pay into for nearly 50 yrs and when your time comes due to get your share back it will be there waiting for you.
edit on 29-9-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)


That is nice and all but it still does not void the fact that the Fed Govt has been taking from the SS funds, placing in IOUs and then using accounting tricks and gimmicks to suggest that the fund is still good, on paper.

Sorry, but citing tax laws does not prove that the money is not gone.
It suggests that as long as people still pay into it, there will be a revolving cash flow, but it is shown time and time again that the cash flow is drying up and in the Red.



SS is bankrupt proof as the way it is designed still follows the mantra it was founded upon.

The money has not and does not get borrowed against.as the only reason why we've even been forced to borrow against it is the rapid loss of American jobs. If you run a system who gets in only $750 Million and requires a Billion in outlay of course you are going to be in debt. Any SS money generated does not finance any outside Admin item. This is also interest free money.



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by macman
 


To get people to turn away from the insurance policy that's worked beautifully for the last 80 years all so that the people can willingly turn it over to TPTB without any resistance. Since this money is not borrowed from the Treasury or TPTB prohibits it from being able to use that to further push the nation into debt.

The way the law reads is you do not pay the tax direct from your cheque but your employer is charged the tax which enables them to dock your pay to recoup the costs. This is on average about 10c on the dollar of your overall cheque.

This is the insurance policy that you pay into for nearly 50 yrs and when your time comes due to get your share back it will be there waiting for you.
edit on 29-9-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)


That is nice and all but it still does not void the fact that the Fed Govt has been taking from the SS funds, placing in IOUs and then using accounting tricks and gimmicks to suggest that the fund is still good, on paper.

Sorry, but citing tax laws does not prove that the money is not gone.
It suggests that as long as people still pay into it, there will be a revolving cash flow, but it is shown time and time again that the cash flow is drying up and in the Red.



SS is bankrupt proof as the way it is designed still follows the mantra it was founded upon.

The money has not and does not get borrowed against.as the only reason why we've even been forced to borrow against it is the rapid loss of American jobs. If you run a system who gets in only $750 Million and requires a Billion in outlay of course you are going to be in debt. Any SS money generated does not finance any outside Admin item. This is also interest free money.




The money doesn't get used for other Govt expenditures?
Where have you been the past 10 years, under a rock?

It has been robbed and pilfered. Even people in the Govt have stated this.

Ok, Sure sure.

You go ahead and depend and count on SS.

Have fun with that.





new topics
top topics
 
47
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join