Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 5
132
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by dadgad

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by dadgad
He is totally right. But you people here that have chosen to blame the government for everything that is evil simply won't understand this.

All you want to do is blame the people in power for you misery and recite 300 year old rhetoric.

I respect Obama for having the courage to say this. I just hope it will strike some sense into people.

The only solution to this global crisis, which is in my opinion nothing but the crisis of capitalism, can be found in more socially grounded ideologies. The times of doing whatever you please shall come to an end soon or later, it has to be reconsidered.

In a way I compare people here to the Israeli authorities denying any responsibility for the destruction of the Palestine home land. It's always someone else his fault.
edit on 7-12-2011 by dadgad because: (no reason given)



What ideology is more socially grounded? Socialism?


Not necessarily and what is socialism exactly? (according to you)


ok not necessarily socialism. Ok what's left. Communism, Sharia Mixed, oh wait we ALREADY have a mixed economy with all those components except Sharia.


There's one alternative left....the Gold Standard which we have been off for some time. We can try going back to barter too. I can trade you a sheep for a goat, or a cow for eggs.
Actually there are some barter companies in existence, but they usually want some cash.


Now what was that 300 yr old rhetoric you were talking about? Oh you mean the Constitutional Republic with all that Bill of Rights stuff? It's not quite 300 yrs yet by normal math.
edit on 7-12-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)
edit on 7-12-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)
edit on 7-12-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)
edit on 7-12-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)
edit on 7-12-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)


Did you really need 5 re-edits to write this offensive hogwash?




posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


ummm just wow! There is no discussion of "Middle Class" in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. "All men are created equal" does not mean all men get paid equal by a socialist govt which intrudes in everyone's lives. Hence(not hense) our Founding Fathers and the Constitution engendered LIMITED govt and only a few taxes(not income tax either, that came later when the Intl bankers and money changers wanted to find a way to bilk the public treasury and the public in general and they did it through govt collusion and remember who was in charge? Oh yes it was the PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRAT Wilson who let that happen. )
The Founding Fathers fought against the tyranny of a King, not corporations. However, they did oppose the Tea Act, and they opposed the monopoly of the East India co which the Britain parliament allowed.

As Europeans developed a taste for tea in the 17th century, rival companies were formed to import the product from the East Indies.[3] In England, Parliament gave the East India Company a monopoly on the importation of tea in 1698.[4] When tea became popular in the British colonies, Parliament sought to eliminate foreign competition by passing an act in 1721 that required colonists to import their tea only from Great Britain.[5] The East India Company did not export tea to the colonies; by law, the company was required to sell its tea wholesale at auctions in England. British firms bought this tea and exported it to the colonies, where they resold it to merchants in Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Charleston.[6]
.

Until 1767, the East India Company paid an ad valorem tax of about 25% on tea that it imported into Great Britain.[7] Parliament laid additional taxes on tea sold for consumption in Britain. These high taxes, combined with the fact that tea imported into Holland was not taxed by the Dutch government, meant that Britons and British Americans could buy smuggled Dutch tea at much cheaper prices.[8] The biggest market for illicit tea was England—by the 1760s the East India Company was losing £400,000 per year to smugglers in Great Britain[9]—but Dutch tea was also smuggled into British America in significant quantities.[10]

en.wikipedia.org...
Furthermore, boycotts against corporations or companies or product were for the purpose of boycotting taxes levied, not against the companies themselves for labor practices, as the Socialist Unions do today. Adbusters organized OWS as a protest against corporations, not excessive taxation. See the difference?

So you see even back then they had a better understanding of competition in the market and the effects of monopolies. Our Founding Fathers were against monopolistic companies, not corporations in general, and certainly not "Capitalism".
This is where socialists and Marxist professors and OWS students get all mixed up.
edit on 7-12-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)
edit on 7-12-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 07:09 PM
link   
Ladies and gentlemen our president really is a moron. Can't see how he got awarded a peace prize let alone a gold star in kindergarten.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by dadgad
 


I always edit my work. Too bad I'm not like Mozart who wrote everything down one time.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 07:11 PM
link   
Is America the country you need it to be. Being the President of any country gives you a very different perspective than what any other citizen can have. Try not to be too quick to judge a person as wrong until you can see what they percieve from thier perspective.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by dadgad
 


What was offensive to you about my post? It's not like I called you names, or resorted to ridicule or anything. You just come out of Alinsky Rules for Radicals class?



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 07:16 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by subtopia
Is America the country you need it to be. Being the President of any country gives you a very different perspective than what any other citizen can have. Try not to be too quick to judge a person as wrong until you can see what they percieve from thier perspective.



Is three years really too quick to judge a President's performance, or do you subscribe to that whole "we need another 4 years to turn this around" stuff?



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


Occupy was never against capitalism. They are against corporatism as we all should be.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by dadgad
 


What was offensive to you about my post? It's not like I called you names, or resorted to ridicule or anything. You just come out of Alinsky Rules for Radicals class?


Your strain of thought was offensive to me, to my intellect. Jumping from socialism to communism to sharia law and throwing it all one one heap is offensive. To then move to the gold standard as the solution to a problem we had not even yet defined, but as a substitute for socialism (whatever that is in your context) is even more offensive.

But then again, it doesn't come as a great surprise as I'm getting used to Americans knowing nothing except liberal capitalism. There really is only one ideology in America it seems, left doesn't exist.
edit on 7-12-2011 by dadgad because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by dadgad

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by dadgad
 


What was offensive to you about my post? It's not like I called you names, or resorted to ridicule or anything. You just come out of Alinsky Rules for Radicals class?


Your strain of thought was offensive to me, to my intellect.



I could say something here but I will leave it to everyone's imagination. LOLOLOL



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


FYI the founders are racist pigs. They were not great people. Get that through your fat head. America sucks...The flag sucks...Those serving in the military are nothing but a bunch of dumb sheep herded into the cage for Satans wars.

Honest Abe was a bigot. He got what he deserved. Get over it. America is a stupid war obsessed nation.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


Occupy was never against capitalism. They are against corporatism as we all should be.



Oh cmon Vicypoo! You know better than that. I specifically heard two different people within 10 minutes on the Livestream mic talk about getting rid of Capitalism. That was their own livestream not the news. And I just happened to have been sitting one night watching the Oakland stream, and voila! There it was. Plus there were all those signs saying, "End Capitalism"!



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by RightWingAvenger
reply to post by Misoir
 


FYI the founders are racist pigs. They were not great people. Get that through your fat head. America sucks...The flag sucks...Those serving in the military are nothing but a bunch of dumb sheep herded into the cage for Satans wars.

Honest Abe was a bigot. He got what he deserved. Get over it. America is a stupid war obsessed nation.


haha, you're gonna get nailed for that one.
edit on 7-12-2011 by dadgad because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 07:26 PM
link   
I dont know if you have noticed but it really doesnt matter who the American President the very nature of your politics diminishes their capacity to bring change and without change control is allowed to continually esculate.

Control is intolerant of short term loss and change is by its nature needs to engage short term loss so the long term gain can be sustainable. America as a Nation is intolerant of short term loss so it is continually forced upon it so your fical position can at least provide the illusion that it is sustainable for another 12mths.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by dadgad

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by dadgad
 


What was offensive to you about my post? It's not like I called you names, or resorted to ridicule or anything. You just come out of Alinsky Rules for Radicals class?


Your strain of thought was offensive to me, to my intellect. Jumping from socialism to communism to sharia law and throwing it all one one heap is offensive. To then move to the gold standard as the solution to a problem we had not even yet defined, but as a substitute for socialism (whatever that is in your context) is even more offensive.

But then again, it doesn't come as a great surprise as I'm getting used to Americans knowing nothing except liberal capitalism. There really is only one ideology in America it seems, left doesn't exist
edit on 7-12-2011 by dadgad because: (no reason given)


I asked you what other ideologies besides Capitalism you were advocating.


What do you mean by liberal Capitalism? You mean Classical Liberalism and Free Enterprise?

You obviously were not aware of President Reagan's commission on balancing the budget and the Gold Standard in the 80's. But seeing you are not American I won't hold it against you.

Ever read Antony Sutton's book "The War on Gold"?

Anyway, even Marx taught that socialism was just a bridge to communism. After all, he did write the Communist Manifesto.
Also the Communist Manifesto advocates against bourgeois private property. The stated goal of communism is the abolition of private property, and socialism redistributes property. Both systems have no respect for individuals or property or the fruits of one's own labor. The individual is sacrificed for the collective in both systems.
Now, would you like to look further like someone who needs econ 101, or even a history lesson?



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


I guess he had to do this on Tuesday because he was busy giving a speech to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor, oh wait...he didn't say a word about it today so far as I heard.

But don't blame Obama too badly, after all he's not an American anyway. And no, I am not talking about the Birth Certificate thing. He just simply is not an American period.
edit on 7-12-2011 by Ahabstar because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by dadgad

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by dadgad
 


What was offensive to you about my post? It's not like I called you names, or resorted to ridicule or anything. You just come out of Alinsky Rules for Radicals class?


Your strain of thought was offensive to me, to my intellect. Jumping from socialism to communism to sharia law and throwing it all one one heap is offensive. To then move to the gold standard as the solution to a problem we had not even yet defined, but as a substitute for socialism (whatever that is in your context) is even more offensive.

But then again, it doesn't come as a great surprise as I'm getting used to Americans knowing nothing except liberal capitalism. There really is only one ideology in America it seems, left doesn't exist
edit on 7-12-2011 by dadgad because: (no reason given)


I asked you what other ideologies besides Capitalism you were advocating.


What do you mean by liberal Capitalism? You mean Classical Liberalism and Free Enterprise?

You obviously were not aware of President Reagan's commission on balancing the budget and the Gold Standard in the 80's. But seeing you are not American I won't hold it against you.

Ever read Antony Sutton's book "The War on Gold"?

Anyway, even Marx taught that socialism was just a bridge to communism. After all, he did write the Communist Manifesto.
Also the Communist Manifesto advocates against bourgeois private property. The stated goal of communism is the abolition of private property, and socialism redistributes property. Both systems have no respect for individuals or property or the fruits of one's own labor. The individual is sacrificed for the collective in both systems.
Now, would you like to look further like someone who needs econ 101, or even a history lesson?



I am well aware that 20th century communism was a complete catastrophe in every way imaginable. Yet capitalism is just as great a disaster in my opinion. It has had the illusion of functioning during this century for the west could profit endlessly from brutal exploitation. As I see it now, the system is simply eating itself up.

Do I have a solid, clear, definite substitute or solution? No I don't. And I don't expect myself too. I recognize we have arrived at a point in history of ideological near-death. However, if we can find a solution, a better system, one that can eliminate the evils as to say that result from private property and the mechanisms of capitalism, it should be found in socially grounded ideology. That's all. Not more capitalism, not more liberalization, but something entirely different, focused on the needs of the common (man).

But I don't hold much hope. Capitalism is very powerful and flexible. It won't just dissolve. I think the world must end up in some kind of a post-apocalyptic state before any alterations will be even suggested.
edit on 7-12-2011 by dadgad because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by dadgad
 


Man, the Leftist radicals are out in numberless numbers tonight.

In any case, the Gold Standard HAS been discussed as an alternative

books.google.com... ig=2suosZwT_rOMR5hoWwB9SsZ6JOc&hl=en&ei=RhTgTuTXGs6ftwfD2_zABQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEQQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q&f=false

Unfortunately this guy talks about a one world currency but he wants it to be gold standard.

www.thegoldstandardnow.org...


A more Tea Party approach, and oh wow.....Ron Paul!!!!!

nationalinterest.org...

I refuse to post Rothbard's horrid statements on Reagan


and just plain old conservative WND, with a quote from Keynes even

www.wnd.com...



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by dadgad
 


Capitalism is not equal to free enterprise and the free market economy, but monopolism and corporatism is an abuse of Capitalism.


And you expose your leftist socialist ideology when you talk about the evils of private property. Socialism and communism are what opposed private property. You are obviously a collectivist and I do not trust you when you say that communism has problems. Perhaps you think that it just hasn't been implemented right, or by the right people? hmmm?
edit on 7-12-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
132
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join