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

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

America is not a monarchy so what's your problem? Didn't we stop that in 1776?

Where did I say america was a monarchy? I was simply stating it was extreme right politics. And the queen of england still has lots of influence on america, just like she has on canada, australia, south africa and new zealand.

I guarantee there are more leftist anarchist than there are on the right, but both extremes are available. Noam Chomsky is a self described anarcho socialist. Explain away that one please.
The OWS is constantly stoking up trouble with the police and authorities. That is anarcho stuff and you know it.

edit on 13-12-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

Socialism and anarchism don't mix. Anarcho-socialism is a misnomer for people who do not understand political science. OWS protesting has zero to do with anarchism and it has everything to do with its stated principles.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


It's obvious that you don't have a friggin clue.

Big government only means more control of the people, which gives them the ability to do more of whatever they want. You seem to be under the misguided impression that government wants to look out for the little guy....

That is the most naive idiocy, I have ever seen.

Yes, voting in neocon republicans will be bad, they have been taking actions that strip more of our liberties, but guess what, that comes from a BIGGER govt. not a smaller one.

As to the OP. The constitution specifically lays out what rights the federal govt. has and if we don't go back to it, we are in DEEP trouble.

We have to limit the federal govt. to their constitutional powers and then force them to work within those powers and use them how they are supposed to.

We need to start by eliminating all political contributions from groups, be it corps, unions etc... individual contributions only.

Then we need to create watchdog groups that are manned by every day citizens that make sure they are being followed.

We need to make congress use their power to implement import tariffs against countries that pay the equivalent of slave labor wages, so that our manufacturing will come back bringing us back jobs.

But most important of all, we have to stop class warfare. If there is going to be an income tax, it has to be an equal percentage to everyone. No one gets a free ride, period.

Stop or severely limit these entitlement programs.

If you want an entitlement, move to a socialist country in Europe (you can see how well it's worked out for them), don't step on my liberty and our constitution to do it.

God, people like you make me sick. You come from a well meaning place, but have the brain capacity of a tamarind monkey.

Jaden

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by macman

 

Talking points is all you bring, nothing of any real importance and substance or pertinence to the topic at hand. Answer it, how does a new regulation on a corporation hinder your personal liberty? Stop running around in circles, stop skirting around the topic and finally answer the damn q!

Already been covered.
reply to post by macman

 

I covered my Backyard With Bull Sheet yesterday, but covering ATS with it doesn't do
much good. I want you to answer that question too, he has a damn good point.

reply to post by poet1b


I recently found this site and have really enjoyed the commentary and banter. THIS though is exactly what I hoped not to find here. Very disappointed...

Originally posted by mastahunta


Do I have a choice

Not sure if you should have a choice...

Who is talking Communism? Show me where I mentioned the use of communism as a cure-all...

Just an example of what looks good on paper but is bad in practice all due to human nature.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

So you are saying we should pollute as much as posible? What kind of joke is that?

All the nations except china, india and the usa agree to the kyoto protocol. So is it more likely that the vast majority is wrong and the small minority is correct or vice versa? I know the answer......

Agenda 21 has no direct influence on global warming. It has to do with sustainable growth of nations and their economies.

I never said that, but of course to make a point you have to do the knee jerk exaggeration bit. That shows a bit of extremism if you ask me. What I did say is that co2 is not a poison, that plants thrive on it. There is no scientific consensus on Co2 and the UN IPCC got in hot water when some scientists didn't like them using their material the way the UN did.
We know also that proponents of the global warming theory admittedly will use the theory as a way to control people and to institute a global tax. Do the research, find out what Maurice Strong and Gorbachev said about it.

Here's an article updated 18 hours ago
abcasiapacificnews.com...

China is the world's biggest emitter of carbon
Canada's historic decision to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol has provoked heavy criticism from China.
Canada on Monday became the first country to formally withdraw from the protocol, saying the pact on cutting carbon emissions was preventing the world from effectively tackling climate change.
The move is "against the efforts of the international community and is regrettable," Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Liu Weimin told a regular media briefing.
China is the world's biggest emitter of carbon but has always insisted that as a developing country it should be exempt from binding obligations on emissions.
Beijing believes that developed nations, with their long history of industrialisation, should take responsibility for climate change and has called for more funding to help poorer nations cope with its impact on them.

That should explain a few things for you. China feels it should be exempt from the stringent restrictions yet expects more developed nations to pick up the tab for poorer nations.
We should tell them that if they want us to pay for poorer nations then they should forgive our debts to them....

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


The OWS protesters are protesting wealth inequality and corporate greed, so Corporations and their friends in the Government acted quickly to crush their dissent.

The Tea Party wants more freedom for those poor oppressed rich people. Therefore, it is in the interest of large Corporations to support this conservative/libertarian vision of Utopia.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


Please include Queen Beatriz of the Netherlands as she attends Bilderberg meetings where the big dogs discuss ways of implementing a World Tax.

And maybe you could write a letter to Noam Chomsky with that bit of information, as he would likely disagree with you.
Anarchism can be on the extreme left or the extreme right. Apparently some socialists like the anarchist model, and I suspect it is merely because anarchism is a tool for revolution.
As I have said before, Marx and Lenin both admitted that a revolution of the proletariat is a necessary intermediary action from Capitalism to Communism, and they both admit that there is some elite at the top, creating a new ruling bourgeoisie.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Marx did not say such a thing. Dictatorship of the proletariat refers to a condition where the working class control the means of production. The term "dictatorship", in this case does not have the traditional meaning of a state governed by a small group without democratic process.

Please stop using the word "bourgeoisie" if you don't know what it means. Communism is a classless society.

Lenin, on the other hand, revised Marx and advocated A Vanguard Party, which in practice did indeed become a kind of new ruling class.

reply to post by Xtrozero

Just an example of what looks good on paper but is bad in practice all due to human nature.

Yepper, and the same goes for the whole free market concept. Looks good, until you realize it will never work, for the same reasons communism fails. People always find a way to cheat the system. The crooks will always take advantage the first opportunity, and that is what have seen over the last decade, and in the 1980ties as well.

That is why I created the thread, because Republicans efforts, call a free market, is nothing but a sneaky form of communism, and all their efforts to put in place this communist con job of the free market is destroying everything the U.S. stands for.

Government is not evil per say, but those in charge (no matter what party) have agendas that do not normally align with the average citizen. The president and every congressman has agendas that typically border on personal ones. Corporations, Unions, billionaires, groups etc all have agendas that mean little to the common person. YOU ALL have agendas that are not always the same as what is best for the majority. Since I'm in the upper income group I'm sure my agendas do not match those in the lower 60% income or more group.

Because of this it is hard for me a debate one over the other, but one thing I do know is Government is inherently wasteful and inefficient. Government also breeds more and more inefficient branches that are at first created to fix those other inefficient areas, but just add to more and more waste. We see this all the time, we never see the Government downsize, do away with areas not needed...there are 1000s that want to keep their Government jobs now they got them, but the fact that Government screws up whatever it touches might as well be a truism.

Corporations also need to be in check, as do Unions and many other groups that have the powers to go unchecked in seeking their agendas. Insurance companies are in bed with the Government in setting cost. Other countries where free market rules medical cost is affordable WITHOUT insurance. Have any of you ever went to a clinic that does not take insurance? In and out quickly with a 20 buck payment in cash.... Doctor office would be 600 and a long wait. There is smarter ways to do all this with just the right amount of oversight from the Government and just because what we have now doesn't do the job right only means we need to change it to do it right and not just keep growing with more and more of the same inefficiencies.

reply to post by Masterjaden

Yes, voting in neocon republicans will be bad, they have been taking actions that strip more of our liberties, but guess what, that comes from a BIGGER govt. not a smaller one.

If you are paying attention, then you should notice that those republicans who talk about smaller government do just the opposite, they expand government.

Ah, but the free market preaching republicans expand the Fed Res even more than they expand government. A great many people pay more in interest payments these days than they do in taxes.

I want smaller government, I think average Americans pay way more in taxes than they get back from the federal government. I want our borders guarded, and illegal immigration shut down. I want limited welfare, which should only go to people down on their luck.

If you want to get rid of some worthless bureaucracies, we should start with the DEA and the Homeland security. The constitution directs government to protect our liberties, these two agencies are the biggest violators of our liberties doing things that are not in the constitution.

As pointed out in the OP, the primary purpose of the Fed Gov is to protect our liberties, and Departments like the Consumer Protection agency and the Department of Labor do just that.

I am not the sucker buying into republican lies, and ignoring what they actually do when they get to Washington DC, you are.

reply to post by yamammasamonkey


It is a conspiracy site, and that is what this thread is all about.

Under the con of the free market, republicans are pretending to support representative government and the market system, but what they are really doing is trying to turn the U.S. into a new form of communist state.

I am just trying to wake people up to the reality.

Do you want to be a sucker all your life?

Originally posted by lrak2
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

Marx did not say such a thing. Dictatorship of the proletariat refers to a condition where the working class control the means of production. The term "dictatorship", in this case does not have the traditional meaning of a state governed by a small group without democratic process.

Please stop using the word "bourgeoisie" if you don't know what it means. Communism is a classless society.

Lenin, on the other hand, revised Marx and advocated A Vanguard Party, which in practice did indeed become a kind of new ruling class.

Yes, I know what bourgeoisie is. It really is the petty business merchants. Think about it, if the proletariat believe the business owners to be a dictatorship, and they wish to own the means of production, then yes, by default they will become a dictatorship. This was deemed a necessary step in the evolution, in the revolution. But Lenin admits that there will be elites at the top.
What part of that don't you understand?

You cannot cherry pick this stuff or you lose the real meaning.

In Marxist socio-political thought, the dictatorship of the proletariat refers to a socialist state in which the proletariat, or the working class, have control of political power. The term, coined by Joseph Weydemeyer, was adopted by the founders of Marxism, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, in the 19th century. The use of the term "dictatorship" is controversial, and does not refer to the Classical Roman concept of the dictatura (the governance of a state by a small group with no democratic process), but instead to the Marxist concept of dictatorship (that an entire societal class holds political and economic control, within a democratic system[citation needed]).
Following on from the theories of Marx and Engels, Marxists believe that such a socialist state is an inevitable step in the evolution of human society. They argue that it is a transitional phase that emerges out of the "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie", or capitalist society, in which the wealthy classes own the means of production and exploit the working classes for the generation of private profit, and that it will itself eventually come to be replaced by an entirely classless, stateless form of society known as pure communism.
Both Marx and Engels argued that the short-lived Paris Commune, which ran the French capital for three months before being repressed, was an example of the dictatorship of the proletariat. In the 20th century, revolutionary socialist governments took power in a number of nations, such as the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China, and claimed to have created socialist states that were dictatorships of the proletariat.[citation needed]

en.wikipedia.org...


Now, tell me, when in the evolution of China's Communist Revolution did the elites at the top ever give up control and just let the proletariat do what they like?

reply to post by Xtrozero


I think Insurance companies are mostly a scam, but

Other countries where free market rules medical cost is affordable WITHOUT insurance.

And what countries would those be?

This next statement I agree with.

There is smarter ways to do all this with just the right amount of oversight from the Government and just because what we have now doesn't do the job right only means we need to change it to do it right and not just keep growing with more and more of the same inefficiencies.

In my opinion both parties work together to make things dysfunctional, but the republicans are far worse.

This is a good example of where government should be protecting our rights, in this case our right to property.

news.yahoo.com...

However, TCF sent him a letter on Oct. 12 informing him that it had charged him a $9.95 monthly maintenance fee six days earlier because the account had a low balance. That led to an overdrawn account by $5.10, which then led to a $28-a-day overdraft fee. The account was 10 cents over the $5 threshold for which the daily fee kicks in. Young Ganziano's account was now overdrawn by $33.10.
Ganziano, who works in the nonprofit sector, and her son went to the bank that weekend to close his account, the Tribune reported. But they first had to pay the accumulated fees, which totaled $229.10.

The bank should have their charter pulled, and the execs thrown in jail for fraud. Sad thing is that banks everywhere pull this scam all of the time.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Xtrozero

 

Just an example of what looks good on paper but is bad in practice all due to human nature.

Yepper, and the same goes for the whole free market concept. Looks good, until you realize it will never work, for the same reasons communism fails. People always find a way to cheat the system. The crooks will always take advantage the first opportunity, and that is what have seen over the last decade, and in the 1980ties as well.

That is why I created the thread, because Republicans efforts, call a free market, is nothing but a sneaky form of communism, and all their efforts to put in place this communist con job of the free market is destroying everything the U.S. stands for.

Interesting Poet... If you look at what Republicans defend to the teeth, you will see that they are nothing
but collectives (corporations) chartered by the government of all things.

reply to post by macman

The way I see it, the Corp is the vehicle, The Govt is the drunkard driving the vehicle that runs over the citizen.

It is the corp execs who are the drunkards running people down. The government is supposed to be the cop who throws the corp exec in jail when they act so foolishly with all the power they get from corporate wealth.

The problem is that the repubs constantly push for free markets where the corp execs are allowed to drive drunk and run people down at will.

See story on bank above.

reply to post by macman

By that logic then, the Corp wields a mighty sword of wealth.
They bride the Govt official to do this or do that.
The Govt official is still the one creating the law, enforcing it or interpreting it. Not the Corp.

By bribing the gov official, the corporation is breaking the law.

The answer is to eliminate giant corporations, only then can we begin to shrink government.

reply to post by macman

No, the only function of a Corporation is to make money, since we are operating under the "Corps aren't people".

Phhhhewwww, yeah right.

And if your right to property, life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness gets in the way of their profits, they will run you down, and the only thing that might stop them is government.

To pretend differently is to deny reality.