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.

 

Obama: Limited Gov't That Preserves Free Markets 'Doesn't Work. It Has Never Worked

page: 12
132
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 03:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by bjarneorn
Another ignorant dude ...


Provide a reliable, scholarly historic source for that list. This is an exercise in due diligence for you.

Meanwhile, you're welcome to reconcile the Paultard talking point that the FED is a private bank with your talking point that Karl Marx, according to your unsourced list, wanted a national bank.

Nationalized.... privatized. Do you understand the difference?

Now get me that reliable source. Reliable sources are explained here:

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources

Just to teach you some research decorum. Good luck buddy!




posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 03:07 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 03:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by bjarneorn

Originally posted by snowcrash911

Yeah, it was Karl Marx in a banker disguise.




Another ignorant dude ...

"Karl Marx was born in 1818 and died in 1893. Marx was a German Jew. His father was a lawyer. When Marx was six years of age, his family became Christian but religion never appealed spiritually to Marx who later referred to it as “the opium of the people”."

Here is the list of Karl Marx's points of view, and what he wanted: Now YOU READ POINT 5, you IGNORANT #¤%#¤%.

1) The abolition of the property/ownership of land.

2) Income tax to be graded to income – the more an individual earned, the more they paid. The less you earned, the less you paid.

3) Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4) The confiscation of all property of immigrants and rebels.

5) The centralisation of all credit into the hands of the state by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive economy.

6) Centralisation of all means of communication and transport into the hands of the state.

7) The extension of factories and the instrument of production owned by the state. Bringing into cultivation all land not being used that could be and an improvement in the fertility of the soil.

8) The equal obligation of all to work and the establishment of an industrial and agricultural armies.

9) The combination of agriculture and manufacturing industries with the gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by the more equable distribution of the population over the country.

10) Free education for all children in public schools. The abolition of child labour in factories; an educated child would be better for society in the long term, than a child not educated.



It is you who is ignorant. Have you read the Communist Manifesto? Ever think it is alot like "the book" from 1984??? Central Banks????? Not only did Marx fool a bunch of stupid commies,he fooled alot of stupid capitalists too. You are ignorant,you just havent realised yet.

edit on 8-12-2011 by theovermensch because: typo



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 03:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by bjarneorn

Originally posted by snowcrash911

Read carefully rightist, I said "one of the reasons."



Your just an ignorant baffoon ... who is living in a hipe, that you are a "good man" because you are a "leftist". You don't even have a moderate understanding of what "leftist" is referring to. Do you?

No you dont ... you claim that it is "capitalism" ... that is another ignorant crap from a moron, who hasn't even read a single thing about what communism is.

As I said earlier, move your butt to China ... because maybe you'll learn something by seeing how a "real communist" country is run. Maybe it will educate you to see people dying on the streets ...

the ONLY thing, and I mean THE ONLY THING, you can take from Karl Marx's theories is this:

"10) Free education for all children in public schools. The abolition of child labour in factories; an educated child would be better for society in the long term, than a child not educated."

It's the only thing he was right about. But 90% of western societies have long since gone the socialist ways ... the US and China, Russia are not the enemies you think they are.

"5) The centralisation of all credit into the hands of the state by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive economy."

This is the "federal reserve", run by Jews and the idea was invented by a German Jew called Karl Marx. A communist. This isn't capitalism ... IT'S COMMUNISM YOU IGNORAMUS.




Your brain farts are an insult. Is it so difficult to write in a respectful manner? I know I just insulted you, so who's talking.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 03:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by theovermensch
reply to post by snowcrash911
 





Text Correct. Not only is it a contextomy, along the lines of Hannity and Breitbart, it further reinforces the relentless propaganda meme that Obama is somehow anti-capitalist.


I had to look up the word contextomy


I agree with you.To imply that Obama is anti-capitalist is absurd.


Disturbing, but I'd argue this has been one of the greatest successes of Obama's own propaganda machine. Leftists are supposed to look to Obama as their man. This spin has two intended objectives: (1) Paint the extreme right as moderate (2) Paint Obama as a leftist.

Meanwhile, Obama is a rightist, his "adversaries" aren't "moderate", they're total fascists and corporatist, Christian dominionist whack jobs, and the ruling class wring their hands in content as the lower class and middle (Obama's suppose demography) keep bending over to "pick up the soap".

Were Teatards beaten and molested when they were demonstrating? No? Paultards? No?

Why, you'd almost think the Teatards and the Paultards do not scare the moneyed establishment and the gangsters running the police and military. Why is that? Because the totalitarians who run the United States are essentially okay with any "anti-socialist" ideology.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 03:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by snowcrash911

Originally posted by theovermensch
reply to post by snowcrash911
 





Text Correct. Not only is it a contextomy, along the lines of Hannity and Breitbart, it further reinforces the relentless propaganda meme that Obama is somehow anti-capitalist.


I had to look up the word contextomy


I agree with you.To imply that Obama is anti-capitalist is absurd.


Disturbing, but I'd argue this has been one of the greatest successes of Obama's own propaganda machine. Leftists are supposed to look to Obama as their man. This spin has two intended objectives: (1) Paint the extreme right as moderate (2) Paint Obama as a leftist.

Meanwhile, Obama is a rightist, his "adversaries" aren't "moderate", they're total fascists and corporatist, Christian dominionist whack jobs, and the ruling class wring their hands in content as the lower class and middle (Obama's suppose demography) keep bending over to "pick up the soap".

Were Teatards beaten and molested when they were demonstrating? No? Paultards? No?

Why, you'd almost think the Teatards and the Paultards do not scare the moneyed establishment and the gangsters running the police and military. Why is that? Because the totalitarians who run the United States are essentially okay with any "anti-socialist" ideology.


I agree with every word.
We need to smash the duopoly. We should not accept 'the lesser of two evils' any longer. The funny thing with a capitalist 'democracy' is that they would not under any circumstances allow a truly socialist leader to come to power. They would murder them before they let that happen..

edit on 8-12-2011 by theovermensch because: typo



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 03:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by bjarneorn
Your just an ignorant baffoon [sic] ... who is living in a hipe [sic], that you are a "good man" because you are a "leftist". You don't even have a moderate understanding of what "leftist" is referring to. Do you?


Are you an American? I'm not. But apparently, I know how to spell "buffoon" and "hype", and you don't. That tells me you aren't highly educated. Yes, I believe leftism is "good" and rightism is "bad". I in fact believe the labels "left" and "right" are chosen deliberately to lend credence to the notion that amoral and unethical policies are somehow the product of a "fair choice", between two "rivaling political factions". Nothing could be further from the truth.

At its core, leftism is about caring about somebody else, that is, acknowledging you live in a group of human beings, some of which need support and help from others, versus the social Darwinism you champion, which is somewhat of a misnomer, because Darwinism actually predicts survivability on several indicators, one of which is the ability to adapt and cooperate.

I am a true leftist, I believe in nationalization. I believe in human rights. I believe in regulation. I believe in government run health care. I am anti-racism, anti-sexism, I embrace the scientific method, that is, evolution, anthropogenic global warming and I reject the Bible, the Qur'an or the Torah. I believe in a salary cap and a minimum wage. I believe in unions. I believe in internationalism over nationalism. I believe in sustainable energy. I believe in honesty, integrity and I believe all men are fundamentally equal and valuable, and that any societal model should reflect this fact, differentiating only on the basis of meritocracy. I believe the market, to the extent it should even exist, should favor the rights of the consumer, not the producer, proportional to the size of the economic entities involved. I believe in freedom of speech. I renounce censorship. I believe in privacy, and I believe in human dignity. And so on and so forth.

Eat me, "baffoon".with your talk of "hipe". Next time you throw feeble-minded insults around and then sprinkle around ridiculous tidbits of factual incorrectness which painfully demonstrate your boorish ignorance, try learning to speak your own language properly first. Your rantings and ravings are the product of relentless propaganda brainwashing and historical revision (e.g. Jonah Goldberg, Glenn Beck), and it's actually pretty depressing to see.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 03:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


Limited government only works when citizens are self-disciplined. America's people and its businesses have proven time and time again that they cannot govern themselves. Whether big or small, a democratic government is a reprsentation of its people. If your government is immoral and corrupt, blame yourselves.

edit on 8-12-2011 by MaryStillToe because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 03:35 AM
link   
about time somebody said it.

What is it about the founding fathers and their constitution that is so completely infallible?

Should we run our affairs based on a 200 year old document for the rest of time? Seems counter-intuative, to me.

As the times change, so too should the constitution. Not that it should be a document open to relentless tampering by special interest groups and persons with political agendas.

Unfortunately, it seems like the old American constitution is beyond saving.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 03:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by snowcrash911

Originally posted by bjarneorn
Your just an ignorant baffoon [sic] ... who is living in a hipe [sic], that you are a "good man" because you are a "leftist". You don't even have a moderate understanding of what "leftist" is referring to. Do you?


Are you an American? I'm not. But apparently, I know how to spell "buffoon" and "hype", and you don't. That tells me you aren't highly educated. Yes, I believe leftism is "good" and rightism is "bad". I in fact believe the labels "left" and "right" are chosen deliberately to lend credence to the notion that amoral and unethical policies are somehow the product of a "fair choice", between two "rivaling political factions". Nothing could be further from the truth.

At its core, leftism is about caring about somebody else, that is, acknowledging you live in a group of human beings, some of which need support and help from others, versus the social Darwinism you champion, which is somewhat of a misnomer, because Darwinism actually predicts survivability on several indicators, one of which is the ability to adapt and cooperate.

I am a true leftist, I believe in nationalization. I believe in human rights. I believe in regulation. I believe in government run health care. I am anti-racism, anti-sexism, I embrace the scientific method, that is, evolution, anthropogenic global warming and I reject the Bible, the Qur'an or the Torah. I believe in a salary cap and a minimum wage. I believe in unions. I believe in internationalism over nationalism. I believe in sustainable energy. I believe in honesty, integrity and I believe all men are fundamentally equal and valuable, and that any societal model should reflect this fact, differentiating only on the basis of meritocracy. I believe the market, to the extent it should even exist, should favor the rights of the consumer, not the producer, proportional to the size of the economic entities involved. I believe in freedom of speech. I renounce censorship. I believe in privacy, and I believe in human dignity. And so on and so forth.

Eat me, "baffoon".with your talk of "hipe". Next time you throw feeble-minded insults around and then sprinkle around ridiculous tidbits of factual incorrectness which painfully demonstrate your boorish ignorance, try learning to speak your own language properly first. Your rantings and ravings are the product of relentless propaganda brainwashing and historical revision (e.g. Jonah Goldberg, Glenn Beck), and it's actually pretty depressing to see.


booyah!
edit on 8-12-2011 by theovermensch because: typo



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 03:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by snowcrash911

Provide a reliable, scholarly historic source for that list. This is an exercise in due diligence for you.



It's known as the "communist manifesto", for your "education".



according to your unsourced list, wanted a national bank.


For your "education", the word federal

1. Of, relating to, or being a form of government in which a union of states recognizes the sovereignty of a central authority while retaining certain residual powers of government.

Since the United States, is a Union of States and not a "nation" as such. The word "federal" is the central, on top of, layer ... and has the same "meaning" as a "national" would concerning a "nation".

The word "monopoly of", means that only this bank can print money ... and in the case of the US, it can counterfit money as it sees fit.

So, this is referring to ... and means ... "the federal reserve". Which is a "communist ideology".



Nationalized.... privatized. Do you understand the difference?


Do you?

Historical lesson for your "education".

Throughout the centuries, people in Europe lived in enormous poverty. Hunger was common. It was the "industrialisation" and private enterprise that brought food to the table, for the masses. This privatisation, began with just a few people getting to gether and forming a company. They did this, by protruting "capital" into a single buffer, where this capital could only be used for the use of company in question (hence forth known as capitalism), and could not be absorbed individually. An example of such an endevour is "Husqvarna".




Now get me that reliable source. Reliable sources are explained here:



You should have learned about the communist manifesto in 10th grade ... wanting "reliable" sources only serves to confirm your ignorance.

And to "educate" you further. The word "left" is used in conjunction with the British house of commons. In this house, they were divided into two sides. The left side, and the right side. On one side, the "lords" for situated. And on the other " the commons". But the word "leftist" is even older than this. Because during the "kings" rules, it was equally divided, and on one side you had "the court" and on the other "the lords". Now, seen from the "kings" position, the "lords" were on the left side. When the house of commons was introduced, and the "king" was only in the house of lords, and the house of commons had a "speaker", who was positioned in the same spot as the king in previous centuries.

Now, being a "leftist" means you are on the lords side. Although it was often used, that it meant "the commoners" in the house of commons. Since they were on the left side, seen from the speakers chair.

But here is the tricky part, if you look into the house of the commons, the "government" is on the left side.

So, in reality ... unless you are "the speaker" ... in which case, it means you are "part of the kings court", then being a "leftist" means you are on the government side.

So, being a rightist ... is being on the right side.

edit on 8-12-2011 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 03:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by snowcrash911

I in fact believe the labels "left" and "right" are chosen deliberately to lend credence to the notion that amoral and unethical policies are somehow the product of a "fair choice", between two "rivaling political factions". Nothing could be further from the truth.



Truth? Your truth?

You don't even know what left and right is ... "I'm a leftist" ... yeah, an ignorant "BAFFOON", who selects words that have "dubious" meaning, and who didn't even read the manifesto of his beliefs.

Take your "truth" back home to China. Ah, wait a minute ... I think the chinese may kick that "truth" out of there one of these days.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 04:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX
The Commerce Clause is an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." Courts and commentators


This seems like the one part of government they do not actually want to interfere in, they would prefer open borders free-trade instead of protecting the American workforce and our industry. (D & Rs alike)


The middle class is an abomination, it is not a natural force in a capitalistic society...it is a socialist theory that strikes against the very nature of economics


Wow you could not be more wrong if you tried. The middle class or, Bourgeois, was a class created during the days of mercantilism mostly by the merchants. These people were already agitating against being subordinate to the aristocrats, nobility, and royalty because they believed money (merit) should define your role in society not blood. They were the proponents of revolutions during the 18th and 19th centuries, the advocates for a Liberal-Nationalist policy. Karl Marx wrote strongly against the bourgeois in favor of the proletariat, i.e. the landless working class.


it is also a good thing...and the founding fathers seen that..hense why they gave the federal government the ability to regulate commerce in order to keep a middle class verses the natural course of free market capitalism..aka, corporatism have and have nots.


The founders mostly used that for import/export relations so that they could gather taxes and safeguard domestic industry by implementing a protecting tariff on all goods. We should have that today but our government only seems concerned with taxing what is here while opening the door for them to leave.


Oh Misoir, they truely did brainwash you into putting false words into mouths in order to serve corporatism. What your waving the flag for has absolutely nothing to do with "founding fathers" retoric, it has everything to do with protecting the lesser person from the giants and their tendency to thump and destroy economys.


First of all corporatism is its own ideology which really has nothing to do with giant corporations, what you are thinking of is plutocrats and plutocracy. My opinion is that our founders were right about being skeptical of government and in supporting many aspects of rugged individualism (I think they may have went too far), the whole thing about free-markets well that does not bother me too much it does bother the Libertarians here a lot though.


The corporatists are in full swing to gain back (they never lost anything, lets be honest...rather to push forward) their stranglehold on all the wealth. Keep letting the programming seduce you..its easier to jump for nonsense propaganda with false points and envoking the "founding fathers" for whatever corporate slant your trying to make. Simply put...your wrong, and either your being intentionally dishonest, or have truely become blind to your own supposed newfound populist illusion (brought to you by Goldline).

btw, they hiring?


You cannot assume I have the same agenda as everyone who posted in my thread, because you of all people should know that is not true. I have said it on here before and will say it again, I am not a Libertarianwhodislikesallgovernment. Libertarians are my friends here because we have a lot in common but in my opinion they have fallen off an intellectual cliff, as Russell Kirk said they are “chirping sectarians breaking down further and further into new groups”. Capitalism and Socialism to me are two sides of the same coin, both are materialist ideologies created out of class war rhetoric (bourgeois vs. aristocrats, proletariat vs. bourgeois).

I am a Conservative, not a Ronald Reagan conservative, but more of a G.K. Chesterton Conservative.

Please, check it out to learn the difference



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 04:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by kauskau
btw i studied law for 7 years..and i am glad to live in germany..i guess with my education i would be in debt (maybe 100 000 Dollars ) in america..here: i did not have to pay for my studies.

So please define: what is the "Euro socialism" you are afraid of?


Awesome! Now can we have our Trillions back we gave you to prop up your failed Euro?
I didn't think so.............



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 04:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by j2000

Originally posted by kauskau
btw i studied law for 7 years..and i am glad to live in germany..i guess with my education i would be in debt (maybe 100 000 Dollars ) in america..here: i did not have to pay for my studies.

So please define: what is the "Euro socialism" you are afraid of?


Awesome! Now can we have our Trillions back we gave you to prop up your failed Euro?
I didn't think so.............


The US dollar has failed. That is the problem with the Imperial Empire. You cant blame Germany or the euro.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 04:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by bjarneorn

And to "educate" you further. The word "left" is used in conjunction with the British house of commons.


Your post is so blatantly full of crap that I'll just debunk the stinkiest turd of yours (see supra). Here you go :


Left : In politics, the portion of the political spectrum associated in general with egalitarianism and popular or state control of the major institutions of political and economic life. The term dates from the 1790s, when in the French revolutionary parliament the socialist representatives sat to the presiding officer’s left.


(Reliable) source : Encyclopædia Britannica



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 04:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by bjarneorn
It's known as the "communist manifesto", for your "education".


Fail noted. I wanted a reliable source, which means I want the link to the loony rightist blog you plucked this crippled interpretation of Karl Marx from. You haven't read the book, you're an exotic bird: you just parrot. Why do you think I ask for a source in the first place? I know you are spreading falsehoods, and I want to expose that for all to see. Refusal to provide a literal source is an admission of guilt. You know you should be ashamed of your source, which is why you're not showing it. Thank you, now let's move on.


Originally posted by bjarneorn
For your "education", the word federal

1. Of, relating to, or being a form of government in which a union of states recognizes the sovereignty of a central authority while retaining certain residual powers of government.

Since the United States, is a Union of States and not a "nation" as such. The word "federal" is the central, on top of, layer ... and has the same "meaning" as a "national" would concerning a "nation".

The word "monopoly of", means that only this bank can print money ... and in the case of the US, it can counterfit money as it sees fit.

So, this is referring to ... and means ... "the federal reserve". Which is a "communist ideology".


My question was: how do you reconcile the Paultardian notion of a privately owned FED with the Paultardian/Teatardian notion of Marx wanting a nationalized bank and not a privatized bank?

You ignored the question. A private bank is the complete antithesis of communism, which is NOT socialism and which, mind you, denies all forms of private property under the "dictatorship of the proletariat". The 1913 Fed Law was constructed, conceived and shrewdly executed by.... capitalist bankers. I shouldn't have to tell you this, but you're speaking like a true Paultardian zombie with a whole erector set of warped, offensive, cretinous and utterly counterfactual beliefs. Are you an Alex Jones fan too?


Originally posted by bjarneorn
Historical lesson for your "education".

Throughout the centuries, people in Europe lived in enormous poverty. Hunger was common. It was the "industrialisation" [sic] and private enterprise that brought food to the table, for the masses. This privatisation, [sic] began with just a few people getting to gether [sic] and forming a company. They did this, by protruting [sic] "capital" into a single buffer, where this capital could only be used for the use of company in question (hence forth known as capitalism), and could not be absorbed individually. An example of such an endevour [sic] is "Husqvarna".


What industrialization (that's the correct spelling b.t.w.) achieved is widespread pollution, squalor, a population explosion in metropolitan areas, the introduction of "division of labor" dreamed up by Charles Babbage, which reduces a worker to a cog in the wheel and essentially a serf of the all-powerful factory director.

The notion that "private enterprise" brought food to the table is complete nonsense. Lots of food was still grown locally or extracted from livestock. Much longer ago.. America didn't even exist. YOU BORROWED your language, your traditions, your principles of republic, democracy, science, reason, politics and economy from Europe. Republic means "res publica" which is Latin for "public affair". Democracy is derived from the Greek words "Δημος" and "Κρατία" which mean "common people" and "strength/rule".

A corporation? Derived from the Latin word "corpus", meaning "body". It used to be a temporary construct of people to gather to achieve a specific end, wherein the participants worked together on equal terms.Wall Street is named after the red light district in Amsterdam, "De Wallen". Amsterdam is the place where the stock market was invented.


Originally posted by bjarneorn
You should have learned about the communist manifesto in 10th grade ... wanting "reliable" sources only serves to confirm your ignorance.


No, it's proper research decorum, and the entirety of Wikipedia abides by it.

Wikipedia: Reliable sources

To claim this is a "confirmation of ignorance" is ... a real thigh slapper. Reliable sources are requested when talking to unreliable people.

Anyways, you don't acknowledge such trivial matters as the journalistic, historiographic and scientific method. You don't factor in such things as "credibility", "scholarship", "reliability" and "trustworthiness". You are fully accustomed to pulling things straight out of your rear end. It's tragic. Every keystroke I type is a bad investment. Like a capitalist, I'm going to spend my resources somewhere useful, rather than investing into a mind without any growth potential. ;-)



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 05:01 AM
link   
this is all a distraction. the fact is the country was built on lies and corruption. in order to rebuild a new system, this one must be destroyed. the fact is colombus didnt discover america it was already set up prior to columbus coming over here. the people that argue america dont even know its true history. it was called the americas until tptb took over and turned it into the corporation of the united states. indians mexicans and blacks were already here. until the european came and took over. great idea but we can do even better. end poverty war and love everyone no matter what race or religion. the Creator Loves You All!!!!



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 05:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Misoir
 


Not only is Obama a jackass, but he is an arrogant radical jackass.

I plead again, will they just impeach this radical arrogant jackass already?
How much more crap and illegal actions are needed before he is held accountable?


A jackass doesn't know what he is doing. Obama knows what he is doing! Which is definitely worse!



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 05:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by theovermensch

Originally posted by j2000

Originally posted by kauskau
btw i studied law for 7 years..and i am glad to live in germany..i guess with my education i would be in debt (maybe 100 000 Dollars ) in america..here: i did not have to pay for my studies.

So please define: what is the "Euro socialism" you are afraid of?


Awesome! Now can we have our Trillions back we gave you to prop up your failed Euro?
I didn't think so.............


The US dollar has failed. That is the problem with the Imperial Empire. You cant blame Germany or the euro.

The only thing saving the Dollar is the Euro is worse and only makes the Dollar look good.



new topics

top topics



 
132
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join