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.

 

Republicans continue on their quest to destroy everything the U.S. stands for.

page: 28
45
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by mastahunta
Because it is intended to represent me, in some small way, remember, I don't
have a news station, 100 lawyers and 50 lobbyist. I am not sure why the private economy and political
system should belong to the wealthy and their whims, which is what I perceive as being the
outcome of conservative policy put into practice..


So how do you change it and why should you? If you started a company and it grew to let's say 50 employees you would be one of them.




posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 01:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by poet1b

This is a blatant effort to undermine the U.S. government, in complete ignorance of the U.S. constitution. It is clear that the republicans in congress are doing everything in their power to prevent the U.S. government from doing what it is supposed to do, and that is protect the rights of U.S. citizens.



Fed government should protect our rights... not take them away and make us sheep as Obama's government would like.


Obama's government? Didn't Bush's government want the same thing?
Oh that is right, because it is not Obama's or Bush's government. It is ours. Finding ways to blame Obama for things that were born before him is blinding you to the real issues and keeping you focused on persaonally hating someone you never met. I never had the kind of disdain for Bush you people have for Obama but that is because I was not deluded enough to think just getting that one man out of office will do any good.

Please try to focus on issues and the real focus of blame.



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 01:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1

With giving you the benefit of doubt here, If you've ever taken care of either a kid or a growing parent that is socialism as you must do for them. We are not asking for Govt to hold our hands throughout all of life's ups and downs but ask Govt to be there to ensure that things like Social Security can be there for when we all need it, be there to make sure that the meds and food we give to our families is healthy and safe and will only do what the package says it will do, make sure our kids can have a spot to go to school as a basic education is a fundamental human right and is a requirement in all 1st world nations. We ask that if you have contributed to taxpaying that if you can't work because of say, a car accident or a home accident that a cheque in some amount will be at your doorstep once a week until you return to work, we ask to have sanitary and safe work conditions, safe transportation methods, to ensure that we are not being gouged and that all companies are playing fair and by the rules!


Well first I disagree with Social Security, but the rest should be controlled by basically watch dogs groups be them fed or state. If we are lacking in those area so be it and make them strong, but what you write above is not what Obama wants. The Government is bloated in ways that do nothing good. Our healthcare is bloated by Insurance companies and Government, Our schools are bloated with too many non-teaching jobs that make 2 to 3 times what a teacher makes. Too many people look for handouts without ever paying taxes or care to.

Compared to the world I don't see us bad off in these areas, but I do agree there are issues... lots.



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 01:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


Obama is guilty for screwing the American people and allowing Bush's TARP to go through.
Obama is a socialist.

One of these things contradicts the other.



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 01:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Algernonsmouse

Please try to focus on issues and the real focus of blame.


To be honest.. the 70s sucked, I did well in the 80s, I was better off in 1990 than 1999, I did tremendously well in the 2000s, but Obama just scares me with his agendas. All in all I have done much better under the Republicans than the Democrates though I'm in the middle and would vote either way or 3rd party if they were there too. Last two times I didn't vote for there was no one I wanted to vote for.



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 01:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Algernonsmouse
 


The same TARP singed into law on October 15 2008? A full 22 days before Obama was elected?



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 02:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


Notice how your income is affected positively by eras of deregulation and corporate socialism?
edit on 13-12-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 02:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Algernonsmouse
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


Obama is guilty for screwing the American people and allowing Bush's TARP to go through.
Obama is a socialist.

One of these things contradicts the other.


Not if you want to bankrupt the government and create a vacuum for a different form of government to take hold.



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 02:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


The bankrupting of The Govt began December 23 1913 when The Federal Reserve was created!

12.23.1913 - 01.01.2013!
edit on 13-12-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 02:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


One ran by the people that works for only the people is the new one that will emerge shortly!



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 04:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by mastahunta
Because it is intended to represent me, in some small way, remember, I don't
have a news station, 100 lawyers and 50 lobbyist. I am not sure why the private economy and political
system should belong to the wealthy and their whims, which is what I perceive as being the
outcome of conservative policy put into practice..


So how do you change it and why should you? If you started a company and it grew to let's say 50 employees you would be one of them.


Could you please explain what this response to that is supposed to mean? It almost sounds like there is a point there but I am missing what it is. Thank you.



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 04:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by Algernonsmouse
 


The same TARP singed into law on October 15 2008? A full 22 days before Obama was elected?


Something tells me you missed the third line in my post.

Yes, that is the one. You read what I wrote right? Do you not see righties blaming Obama for TARP? And when you point out that Bush actually signed TARP, they come back with "Obama let it pass." I was cutting them off.

Now please look at the contradictory statemenst being used as the main talking points against Obama that I posted and take note of the problem in correlating the two.
edit on 13-12-2011 by Algernonsmouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 04:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by Algernonsmouse
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


Obama is guilty for screwing the American people and allowing Bush's TARP to go through.
Obama is a socialist.

One of these things contradicts the other.


Not if you want to bankrupt the government and create a vacuum for a different form of government to take hold.


Do most of your responses resemble something making little to no sense or is it just me?
I do not get how this line is a response to my post in any way at all. I do not even understand the "Not if you want..."
What did you just read?



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 06:01 AM
link   

Republicans continue on their quest to destroy everything the U.S. stands for

More partisan blindness


The correct title should read - 'Republicans and Democrats continue on their quest to destroy everything the U.S. stands for'. There are people in both parties screwing things up and failing to uphold the Constitution. The Bush43 administration may have ushered in an era of crap, but Obama took the ball and ran with it. Obama is seriously inept, unqualified, and downright pathetic. Both parties have their recent Kings of Crap (Bush43 and Obama) and both parties have their minions who are ruining America. Bush had his ... Obama has his (Eric Holder, lil' Timmy Gietner, and an endless list of others)

To say otherwise is to blindly ignore the facts.



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 06:16 AM
link   


If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.
If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.
If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for
everyone.

If a conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how to
defeat his enemy.
A liberal wonders how to surrender gracefully and still look good.

If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.

If a black man or Hispanic are conservative, they see themselves as
independently successful.
Their liberal counterparts see themselves as victims in need of
government protection.

If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better
his situation.
A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.

If a conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches
channels.
Liberals demand that those they don't like be shut down.

If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.
A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion
silenced. (Unless it’s a foreign religion, of course!)

If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about
shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.

If a conservative slips and falls in a store, he gets up, laughs
and is embarrassed.
If a liberal slips and falls, he grabs his neck, moans like he's in
labor and then sues.

If a conservative reads this, he'll forward it so his friends can
have a good laugh.
A liberal will delete it because he's "offended".




Source



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by macman
 


No freedom is being threatened, get flipping real.

What would make me happy is for you to stop with the Anti American sentiment as it's becoming dangerous how much you hate everything this nation stands for by conceeding all your rights to the banks and Wall Street because that is whose agenda you are blindly supporting but lack the competency to actually understand this.

Copying the GOP Daily Talking points of "Nationalism is equal to socialism" for which it is not.

Would you love an American to have a job so that he can spend that money in America on American made goods or would you like to constantly send job after job overseas whereas they pay those people $100 a month?

There is no getting around it, you have an intense hatred for an American being able to have a job in America making American made goods. But that's socialism according to you which should be avoided while we plead and beg The SCUM for more money that has us beholding to them time and time again that puts us further into debt while not offering one alternative solution.

No wonder why The Battlefield Act was needed, to identify who is with The US and who is not as nothing else matters other then the recovery and restablization of the USA!
edit on 12-12-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)


Stop just because Immaculated said so?
Get real.
I do not need talking points from anyone, I need only go back and look at the definition of Nationalism (Which you ignore), review where it has been implemented and seen the failure it has caused.
I would love an America where people are free to choose their path.
You would love an America where the Govt gives people crap, and a job.
Face it, your frightened at the idea of independence of the individual. The Possibility of failure puts you sobbing in the the corner. The signs that I suggested may help though.

Being able to have a job is different from being guaranteed a job. You want people to be handed a job merely just for breathing.

And the Battle Field act created for me?
Now I really know you are the biggest joke out there.
Not a clue.



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


Because he is scared of possible bad outcomes and needs someone to hold his hand to get him from A to Z.
No independence, no free thought and no idea of blazing his own path.



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

Originally posted by Algernonsmouse

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by Algernonsmouse
 


The same TARP singed into law on October 15 2008? A full 22 days before Obama was elected?


Something tells me you missed the third line in my post.

Yes, that is the one. You read what I wrote right? Do you not see righties blaming Obama for TARP? And when you point out that Bush actually signed TARP, they come back with "Obama let it pass." I was cutting them off.

Now please look at the contradictory statemenst being used as the main talking points against Obama that I posted and take note of the problem in correlating the two.
edit on 13-12-2011 by Algernonsmouse because: (no reason given)


Well I have news for you


always enjoy it when a commentator appearing on a talk show reminds us that President Obama has become a “tool” for the Wall Street bankers. This theme is usually rebutted with the claim that the TARP bailout happened before Obama took office and that he can’t be blamed for rewarding the miscreants who destroyed our economy. Nevertheless, this claim is not entirely true. President Bush withheld distribution of one-half of the $700 billion in TARP bailout funds, deferring to his successor’s assessment of the extent to which the government should intervene in the banking crisis. As it turned out, during the final weeks of the Bush Presidency, Hank Paulson’s Treasury Department declared that there was no longer an “urgent need” for the TARP bailouts to continue. Despite that development, Obama made it clear that anyone on Capitol Hill intending to get between the banksters and that $350 billion was going to have a fight on their hands. Let’s jump into the time machine and take a look at my posting from January 19, 2009 – the day before Obama assumed office:

On January 18, Salon.com featured an article by David Sirota entitled: “Obama Sells Out to Wall Street”. Mr. Sirota expressed his concern over Obama’s accelerated push to have immediate authority to dispense the remaining $350 billion available under the TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) bailout:
Somehow, immediately releasing more bailout funds is being portrayed as a self-evident necessity, even though the New York Times reported this week that “the Treasury says there is no urgent need” for additional money. Somehow, forcing average $40,000-aires to keep giving their tax dollars to Manhattan millionaires is depicted as the only “serious” course of action. Somehow, few ask whether that money could better help the economy by being spent on healthcare or public infrastructure. Somehow, the burden of proof is on bailout opponents who make these points, not on those who want to cut another blank check.
Discomfort about another hasty dispersal of the remaining TARP funds was shared by a few prominent Democratic Senators who, on Thursday, voted against authorizing the immediate release of the remaining $350 billion. They included Senators Russ Feingold (Wisconsin), Jeanne Shaheen (New Hampshire), Evan Bayh (Indiana) and Maria Cantwell (Washington). The vote actually concerned a “resolution of disapproval” to block distribution of the TARP money, so that those voting in favor of the resolution were actually voting against releasing the funds. Earlier last week, Obama had threatened to veto this resolution if it passed. The resolution was defeated with 52 votes (contrasted with 42 votes in favor of it). At this juncture, Obama is engaged in a game of “trust me”, assuring those in doubt that the next $350 billion will not be squandered in the same undocumented manner as the first $350 billion. As Jeremy Pelofsky reported for Reuters on January 15:

www.thecenterlane.com...


Now, the interesting thing about all this is I had found something some time ago about how Obama redirected TARP funds into some of his own pet projects. I will see if I can dig up something about that.



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


The bankrupting of The Govt began December 23 1913 when The Federal Reserve was created!

12.23.1913 - 01.01.2013!
edit on 13-12-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)


But, you fawn over massive and more controlling Govt.
You, are a joke.



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Algernonsmouse
 


Oh yes, here is one about how Obama wanted to redirect the TARP money into jobs. I am assuming it was for jobs created by govt to increase the size the govt, which is totally consistent with socialist programming.


President Barack Obama announced his support for a new jobs program funded by money left over from the Wall Street bailout.
Obama on Monday said he would press Congress to pass legislation to pay for additional infrastructure works, tax breaks for small businesses and incentives for consumers who weatherize their homes.
He said the $700 billion bailout of the nation’s banks would be wound down, and that funds left over or returned to the government by financial institutions should be used to pay for new programs for Main Street.

thehill.com...


I especially like the home weatherizing project Obama found necessary to spend taxpayer money on in stead of fixing the "economic crisis". Nice touch by a fabian socialist.




top topics



 
45
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join