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.

 

99%? Who wants to be a part of the 100%?

page: 51
25
<< 48  49  50    52  53  54 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


www.wnd.com...


he original targets of the Ku Klux Klan were Republicans, both black and white, according to a new television program and book, which describe how the Democrats started the KKK and for decades harassed the GOP with lynchings and threats. Read more: KKK's 1st targets were Republicans


can prove it eh and want to cease and desist with tellin me what your do not the boss of me.

thought i was doing one outstanding imitations of the last potus..

edit on 12-10-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)


The originators of the KKK were indeed Democrats... but these were NOT the same as modern Democrats. In fact, they were Southern CONSERVATIVE Democrats. The parties during the 19th century were quite different from the parties now.




posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by smarterthanyou
reply to post by DieBravely
 


wow this is the dumbest post i have ever seen anyone post, ever. enjoy being co-opted by Soros.

edit: alot of people need to research how we got where we are today, its more complex than the rich taking your money. Although the people who took our money have gotten rich from it, its not the fault of everyone who has been successful in this country. Use some logic stronger than that of a 3rd grader, please.
edit on 10/12/2011 by smarterthanyou because: (no reason given)


End the Fed, Reinstate Glass Steagal, write off some of these mega debts that the taxpayer is NOT RESPSONSIBLE FOR! Taxpayers, all of us, are not responsible for the 1.45 quadrillion that the banks have racked up with the help of the Federal reserve and their scheme lending and fraud. Learn 2 Economics.
edit on 10/12/2011 by smarterthanyou because: (no reason given)


Soros AGAIN?? SERIOUSLY? Soros is NOT and will NEVER BE the puppet master of OWS. Period.

Second of all... OWS absolutely takes into account what you've said, there are plenty of people there who are talking about these things, AMONGST other things that are LARGER than just the bailouts/crashes... it goes deeper into corporatism, campaign finance reform, corporate personhood, and Capitalism ITSELF (which has very real blood on its hands despite denials by free-market cultists).

DO YOUR HOMEWORK. Says you live in Central NY... why don't you take a lil road trip down to ground zero and actually talk to people there? And don't go looking for dumbasses, go actually talk to people who are educated within the movement and then tell me they're puppets of Soros who don't understand what got us into this mess. Plenty of people understand what happened, at LEAST in the basics.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by Honor93
 

So you agree.
We went over this a couple nights ago. You need to read the post I was replying to. It was a post talking about democrats of that time having started the KKK. I said that in part it was because of the imposition of the federal government over the state.

I notice that you cherry pick words and disregard context. In this case it was the word "federalist" which was in lowercase and did not refer to the Federalist Party but to the people in the federal government at that time, regardless of what they called themselves, that believed that preserving the union trumped state sovereignty.


edit on 12-10-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

don't know how you figure i cherry pick words, i quoted your entire post and i read neos that prompted such a lame response ... neo's post

since we went over this previously, i don't get why you call me out and profess any such thing ... neither the democrats or republicans had anything directly to do with the formation of nor was either specifically targeted by the KKK ... they were ex-confederates (dems & repubs)

the atrocities of the civil war, re-construction and the imbalance of "rights" between southern black & white folk are what necessitated the formation of the KKK.
most don't even know about their true history ... they began as practical jokers, literally.

if you don't know the details but want to ... start here ... kkk history or here ...linky

It was amid this atmosphere that John Lester, James Crowe, John Kennedy, Calvin Jones, Richard Reed, and Frank McCord met in a law office in Pulaski, TN., on Christmas Eve, 1865 and, innocently enough, decided to form a social club for the purpose of mutual entertainment. The club adopted the style of the college fraternities in vogue at the time. They would dress up in weird costumes and play practical jokes on unsuspecting people. To create an aura of mystery they invented an unusual name and called their social club: the Ku Klux Klan.
--- snipit ---
The Klan was quick to realize that their newly discovered ghostly image could be used to control bands of unruly Negroes. At first the night riders went out unarmed. Not intending to hurt anyone, they believed that anyone they met would be too frightened to try to harm them. Things were soon to change.
--- snipit ---
These patrols did not hesitate to open fire on the Klansmen, who, up to that point, were guilty of nothing worse then Halloween tricks. The Klan responded in kind. Soon skirmishes broke out when night patrols of each side would chance encounter each other.


Footnote: (The "disbandment" of the KKK in 1869 was, in fact, an ending of one phase and the beginning of another. The robed night riding patrols, parades, and punitive extralegal activities of the KKK were ordered to end. All robes, trappings, and paraphernalia of such were ordered destroyed. But, the KKK itself was not actually ordered to dissolve. That did not happen until Forrest's death in 1877. After 1869 and until 1877, Forrest remained in command in name, but his second in command, Georgia Grand Dragon, and exConfederate General, John B. Gordon, actually ran the KKK. Respecting Forrest's request to do so, Gordon dissolved the Klan upon Forrest's death. Between 1869 and 1877 the KKK changed from it's former self into a body of men who essentially formed a "White" lobby attempting to restore Constitutional rights to the disfranchised White southern population using legal means. They did this not as a political party, but by individually getting involved in politics through the Democratic Party. Once exConfederates had their rights to vote and hold office restored, many "former" Klansmen were elected to public office.)
-- hence, Senator Byrd.

so no, we don't agree ... completely.
you want to generalize and blame the republican Lincoln and i prefer to see the whole picture and realize it became a post-war necessity (blame not needed), via the animalistic nature of humans (all of them)

i do agree that the Fed / Lincoln chose to over-step his authority, however that does not make him, the democrats or the republicans responsible for the development of the KKK. that is nonsense.

i linked your post above and you used no such wording ... federalist ... (nor does the excerpt neo posted) not in lower case or capitals ... you sure you're referencing the right post?

and yes, i agree about the Feds over-stepping their authority ... however, at that time there were no Federalists in govt, that party had dissolved almost 50yrs earlier.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by earthdude
If the 1% gave all of thier money to the 99% every person in America would get about 15$. Correct me if I am wrong on this. I think I will abandon the protest.


While this is speculation (that I'm assuming is wrong)... NOBODY is saying to redistribute the rich's wealth evenly to everybody....



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by projectvxn
 



Part of what pisses me off so much is that they denigrate the very system that allows them the liberty to spew their idiocy.

Screw capitalism they say?


Capitalism is not what we have here in the United States of America, didn't you know that?


Let's take a little walk around the block, shall we?


Capitalism
1. An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state


So, you think that Capitalism is what we have, right?

Right?



Do you know what it takes to get into office? Political Office?

You need the media, you need LOTS of money, more than any random individual would likely have possession of.

Because while you can campaign, Huge piles of money go a long way for advertising.

And corporations slowly but surely change our laws to be more amenable to their bottom line, to our detriment through lobbying representatives morning noon and night, with little gifts, or worse.

So.... *WHO* has control of the means of production again?

Because if it's the people who are controlling the government... Then that's not capitalism at all.

That's Corporatism... Plutocracy, Oligarchy.


Well no... if the PEOPLE controlled the government, that'd be a Democracy.

If the PEOPLE controlled the means of production, that'd be Socialism.

Both are preferable to totalitarianism and/or Capitalism.

Thus SOCIAL DEMOCRACIES that you see in France, Germany, Scandinavia, etc.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
until all pro ows start mentioning union lobbyists and special interests

i am chalking this up to stacking the deck in your favor right along with all those "demands" that wreak of left wing ideology that i have heard for the past decade.

be original for once.


Do you SERIOUSLY think union lobbyists come anywhere near the power of other lobbyists?? And even if they have HALF the amount of power of other private interests... do you SERIOUSLY think unions are trying to destroy the poor/middle-class?? They're trying to LIFT WORKERS UP, and despite any union corruption, they're a necessary lesser-evil to stand up to massive private entities which could give a rat's ass about workers, consumers or anyone/thing but themselves and stockholders.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by NoHierarchy
 


There is not a Democratic Congressman who doesnt get paid by unions and the current potus could not have raised 1 billion dollars from the "people" so nice try that dog doesnt hunt.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia
 


The government, even with all of it's interventionist economic policies, does not control the means of production.

What exactly are you trying to say?

really ???
i suppose no member of govt has controlling interest in any of the following, right?
automotive industry
medical industry (Obamacare)
insurance industry (Obamacare - Citizens - Medicare - Medicaid)
digital industry
oil & gas industry
wildlife preservation industry
research industry

who's kidding who in your mind?



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by SeleneLux
 


All I said is that we shouldn't paint with broad brushes and that envy is a sin.


Envy might be a sin but in my opinion it's not as deadly as avarice or gluttony.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


There you go again. I was not blaming the republicans for the KKK.

I said Lincoln was a republican and during his government the federal government forced itself upon the southern states.

My exact words were these:


Could this have been because republicans were federalist which forced federal government upon the confederate states?


Federalist as in "in favor of the federal government" and not federalists as in members of the Federalist Party.

You say that I never used the term yet there it is three posts below Neo's. You go on to say twice that you agree that Lincoln/the Feds over stepped their authority which was the main point I was making.


edit on 12-10-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 10:49 PM
link   
Originally posted by NoHierarchy
reply to post by Honor93
 

sorry, but my historical reference holds much more weight than your wiki ... nice try though.

you couldn't have done much research if you believe the KKK was even conceived in the South.
see this post and the historical reference accompanying it ... post

you are soooooooo clueless it's not EVEN funny.
during the re-construction period, southern whites had NO rights, and that's no typo either.
the freed blacks had nothing but their rights ... no home, no funds, no job, no resources (kinda like the OWS sees themselves today) ... lawlessness ensued (anyone with half a brain could see that one coming)

you've got to be kidding ...several southern states had large numbers of black members in their legislatures ... or is that new to you too?
Georgia
wiki

Blacks were a majority of the population in many congressional districts across the South. In 1870, Joseph Rainey of South Carolina was elected to the US House of Representatives, becoming the first directly elected black member of Congress. Freedmen were elected to national office also from Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina and Virginia.

and let's not forget this little known fact either ... kkk facts

The most unfortunate victims of the Reconstruction Era were the poor whites and freed Negroes who fared the worst under the violent conditions. The most infamous villains were the Carpetbaggers and Scalawags, most of whom just happened to be Jewish.


i'd bet you didn't even know this little tidbit, did you?

Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 did not apply to Union-held territory. Thus, slavery continued in the thirteen Louisiana parishes under Union control.
source
no wonder these kids today are clueless ... they were educated by the boob tube !!!!

edit on 12-10-2011 by Honor93 because: re-format larqe quote

edit on 12-10-2011 by Honor93 because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-10-2011 by Honor93 because: format



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
yeah the desperation is pretty thick in this thread rampant personal attacks,marginalization of a poster simply because they dont agree seriously

totally 100% pathetic anything to justify their own beliefs classic liberal playbook oh now where have i heard that ?

oh yeah saul alinsky.

meh two thumbs down on my get a clue meter


If you read the first few pages of the thread, it was the wannabe 1%ers whos started the personal attacks.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by NoHierarchy
 



Well no... if the PEOPLE controlled the government, that'd be a Democracy.

If the PEOPLE controlled the means of production, that'd be Socialism.

Both are preferable to totalitarianism and/or Capitalism.


I really don't think that capitalism is a bad system, honestly... If you keep judging capitalism as a SYSTEM, by how the West is functioning, then you can't really claim that you are making a point against capitalism, because what we have here is NOT capitalism.

If a Few wealthy people purchase the Government, then that means that they have *BECOME* the government, and you have a plutocracy, or oligarchy.

Therefore, any recent (after 1913) claim of capitalism's failure cannot be used against capitalism, because that is not an EXAMPLE of Capitalism.


When the Federal Reserve Board took over the Issuance of Currency, you gained Plutocracy.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by shogu666
If 1% can "earn" half the world then there is something wrong with "earning" , it is that simple.


Short, sweet, to the point. Best post of the entire thread so far.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by NoHierarchy

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


www.wnd.com...


he original targets of the Ku Klux Klan were Republicans, both black and white, according to a new television program and book, which describe how the Democrats started the KKK and for decades harassed the GOP with lynchings and threats. Read more: KKK's 1st targets were Republicans


can prove it eh and want to cease and desist with tellin me what your do not the boss of me.

thought i was doing one outstanding imitations of the last potus..

edit on 12-10-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)


The originators of the KKK were indeed Democrats... but these were NOT the same as modern Democrats. In fact, they were Southern CONSERVATIVE Democrats. The parties during the 19th century were quite different from the parties now.

you sure about that??
i can name 2 originators who were definitely NOT democrats or conservatives (as you perceive)

can you?
John P Kennedy - Whig (1st generation Republicans)
J Calvin Jones - Democrat (father was mayor of Pulaski / location of KKK origin)

let us know when your familiar with some of the historical rather hysterical truths



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by NoHierarchy
 

honestly, mixing with the crowd is no place to get answers.
those who want to know truth and details, contact the media center folks (the ones running the camps)
and do you know what they LACK the most????
D E M A N D S

do ya know what those are??
and yet you wonder why soooo many ppl aren't willing to follow a blind lead.

and, for the record ... AdBusters (the "organizers" of OWS) ... is Soros funded.

But Soros’ support for the protesters goes far beyond his tepid public statements. In fact, the original call to “Occupy Wall Street” came from the magazine AdBusters, an “anti-consumerist” publication financed by, among other sources, the Soros-funded Tides Foundation.
source
edit on 12-10-2011 by Honor93 because: add link



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by Thestargateisreal
 


Maybe not luck but it wasn't hard work either.

He bought a 86-DOS license for $25,000 and Tim Parterson did the actual work of porting it to the IBM PC. He licenced the new DOS to IBM but kept the right to sell to other parties.


Didn't he totally rip off the guys who wrote netscape as well, there would have been a couple of other billionaires if it wasn't for Bill Gates shady business practices.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by NoHierarchy

Originally posted by neo96
until all pro ows start mentioning union lobbyists and special interests

i am chalking this up to stacking the deck in your favor right along with all those "demands" that wreak of left wing ideology that i have heard for the past decade.

be original for once.


Do you SERIOUSLY think union lobbyists come anywhere near the power of other lobbyists?? And even if they have HALF the amount of power of other private interests... do you SERIOUSLY think unions are trying to destroy the poor/middle-class?? They're trying to LIFT WORKERS UP, and despite any union corruption, they're a necessary lesser-evil to stand up to massive private entities which could give a rat's ass about workers, consumers or anyone/thing but themselves and stockholders.

boy those blinders sure fit you well

yes, unions are out to destroy the middle-class ... ever since daddio Hoffa ... what makes you think Junior Hoffa is any different?

so, union corruption ok ... corporate corruption ... not ok
and, union tactics ok ... corporate coercion .. not ok
and one more ... union abuse ok ... govt abuse ... not ok
gotcha

psssssst: who contributes more to charity and research ... corporations or unions ??



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by Honor93
 


There you go again. I was not blaming the republicans for the KKK.

I said Lincoln was a republican and during his government the federal government forced itself upon the southern states.

My exact words were these:


Could this have been because republicans were federalist which forced federal government upon the confederate states?


Federalist as in "in favor of the federal government" and not federalists as in members of the Federalist Party.

You say that I never used the term yet there it is three posts below Neo's. You go on to say twice that you agree that Lincoln/the Feds over stepped their authority which was the main point I was making.


edit on 12-10-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

fine ... but why then are you intentionally muddying the waters?
Federalists were a historically relevant party ... to confuse the two is foolish, especially when the Republicans were the direct opposition of the Federalists during their time.
to argue the issue with a history buff is futile.

and btw, if you wish me to look at a specific post, link it ... i followed the post links as you indicated ... i don't have time or energy or interest in surfing pages for random posts that you are too lazy to link.

in the post i linked, you did not mention it as you did laters ... that is intentionally confusing the facts.

for the record, i seldom disagree about Lincoln, except for the fact that he was a self-professed communist who was "registered" Republican.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by JustXeno

Originally posted by shogu666
If 1% can "earn" half the world then there is something wrong with "earning" , it is that simple.


Short, sweet, to the point. Best post of the entire thread so far.

perhaps ... but only if someone can name more than 6 of the 69,000,000+ 1%ers
where you see earning as the problem i see slackers as a bigger problem.

and before you go off on a tangent about those who had and lost ... i'm one of them ... i am referring to the level of educational knowledge displayed openly for the world to see ... ie ... slackers.
edit on 13-10-2011 by Honor93 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 48  49  50    52  53  54 >>

log in

join