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.

 

If I wanted America to Fail

page: 5
12
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 02:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Evil_Santa
 


The Senate has had Democratc majority since 2006 They held a super majority right up until 2010.

edit on 26-4-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)


And?

en.wikipedia.org...



In the United States Senate, rules permit a senator, or a series of senators, to speak for as long as they wish and on any topic they choose, unless "three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn"[36] (usually 60 out of 100 senators) brings debate to a close by invoking cloture under Senate Rule XXII.


....

en.wikipedia.org...

Democratic Party 51
Republican Party 47
Independent 2

51 is apparently the new 60.

That's considering everyone ALWAYS votes according to party lines and never votes to appease the people they represent.




posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 02:25 AM
link   
reply to post by braindeadconservatives
 


Nope the economy was fair right up until the Democrats got into power

once they did everything turned to crap they manufactured the so called crisis which was a market correction so they could put their guy in office.

After all the Democrats controlled fanny and freddy with their manipulation of the morgtages and their creation of MRES.

Nice try.
edit on 26-4-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 02:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by braindeadconservatives
 


Nope the economy was fair right up until the Democrats got into power

once they did everything turned to crap but the manfucturing the call crisis which was a market correction so they could put their guy in office.

After all the Democrats controlled fanny and freddy with their manipulation of the morgtages and their creation of MRES.

Nice try.




OK

Right, not like the banks were throwing the ARM mortgages out the door 600% above Federal
quotas


The economy was fine until the banks imploded -



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 02:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by braindeadconservatives
 


Nope the economy was fair right up until the Democrats got into power

once they did everything turned to crap but the manfucturing the call crisis which was a market correction so they could put their guy in office.

After all the Democrats controlled fanny and freddy with their manipulation of the morgtages and their creation of MRES.

Nice try.


How 'bout ya do some reading.

en.wikipedia.org...

Lots of factors came into play that caused the crisis, and lots of factors are what are keeping the current economy stagnant. But stating that the economy was fair up until democrats came into power is disingenuous at best, and a blatant lie at worst.

Ya want to know one of the issues today with the stock market? It's the use of automated trading computers that automatically buy/sell stocks for penny profits. These automated systems over-react to dips and artificially inflate and deflate stock value based on nothing in reality, other than automatic rules programmed into a computer.



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 02:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by braindeadconservatives




I see that conservatives have become perverted... The last generation of my
family were conservatives, all of them, this Neo crowd has changed it and
made it a disgusting world view. I would love it if Eisenhower Republicans
would come back, now all you guys are are corporatists and servants of
the wealthy, that GROW the government.


And Liberals,are this giant solid,standalone of responsibility?

Oh My......

Are you sure your anger at conservatives,isnt based on some sort a problem,with your family? I only ask cause you are very one sided,with your views,and have NEVER put any type of blame on the Liberals. Do you know what the word hypocrisy is? I do. Here's a great example of it. I highly doubt you will understand it,or see it for what it is. Your bias has been noticed,throughout all your posts.......

Definition of political HYPOCRISY.




Barack Obama thundered about the fiscal irresponsibility of George W. Bush over running up four trillion dollars in debt in eight years! As Glenn Reynolds comments, those were the days. We’ve added $4.5 trillion in debt since Barack Obama signed the omnibus spending bill that completed the FY2009 budget in March of 2009, just three years ago. However, there is something more to this video than just the hypocrisy of Obama’s complaints about relying on the Bank of China, which has been his main funding mechanism through his entire term:

Say, whatever happened to “pay-go”?





Originally posted by braindeadconservatives
Your state has lost over 20,000 jobs in the last year, you now have the worst employment
stats in the whole country. Your state which is controlled by conservatives is doing worse
than the national average...


First,Unemployment went down,from 7.6 to 6.8,but you didn't add that "positive" nugget to your tirade.....

BTW,I thought you were tired of Negativity ?


Jim Doyle's 8 year reign screwed this state ! This was a Democrat controlled State !!! Why did people vote for a Republican? Because of those exact failures. I find it hilarious,that you Libs are willing and able to give Obama another 4 more years. I didnt even vote for Walker,but he cant go 1 year,without the liberal base crying recall. I Iove the irony of it all,actually. Walker also saved the State 1 billion dollars so far. Made tough decisions,that his predecessor had NO intention on doing. Personally,I thought he could have went about the whole Union thing differently. Unfortunately,Unions are just as cut throat,when it comes to their employees they are supposed to protect. People voted for him to not raise taxes,and save the state from going under. So there braindead,I gave you my take on it.
edit on 26-4-2012 by sonnny1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 03:10 AM
link   
reply to post by braindeadconservatives
 


I'm sorry, you are just too simplistic in your view of things. Perhaps you just believed the lies the Democrats told you about how Republicans are rich and selfish and don't care about the little people. You should really think twice about this, because Obama the Democrat Marxist got inside information obviously about the BP Oil spill and sold off his shares and stands to gain 85 million for his part in this disaster.He is a Rothschild flunky all the way and his buddies Soros and other corrupt fund managers are stealing America blind while you whine about Republicans not wanting to feed the beast of World Socialism. I am just sorry that it would be most difficult for me to truly convey to you the spiritual and moral bankruptness of World Socialism and it's proponents, but I suspect that it would be wasting my breath.



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 03:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Evil_Santa
 


Maybe you should do some reading as well. Michael Savage explains this whole episode in his book "Trickle Up Poverty." In fact I'll even tell you the page number. It's page 86.
A quote from page 86, "In fact, the May 6 drop was quite possibly the work of hedge fund traders raiding the market with the intent to send a message that they could still do whatever they wanted". This relates to the so called "uptick rule" that was put in place. Savage explains, "The 'alternative' uptick rule, just implemented , halts the trading of a stock whose price declines by 10 percent in a single day, but after 2:30 in the afternoon the rule does't apply." Savage explains that short sellers raided the market by selling off and then buying it back at lower prices before the close of the day.
Now surely you must know that Soros and his buddies and many of Obama supporters on Wall Street are responsible for this.

Oh by the way, Geithner is the fox guarding the henhouse for the administration and their cronies, and so was Barney Frank.


edit on 26-4-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-4-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-4-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 03:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Evil_Santa
 


It is simply not the job of govt to provide health care or other such services for citizens. Only a society which has grown up with the Nanny State welfare programs as a safety net has kept this Utopian fantasy alive. It was never the intent of our Founding Fathers for govt to be our caretakers cradle to grave. That which giveth can also taketh away and that is what govt is, that which pretends to give with one hand while taking away with the other. Ever seen that cartoon of the guy with the govt hand giving to him with one hand and stealing his wallet with the other? Well it's like that.
In fact, the only real service the govt under the Constitution is responsible for is our Defense. And of course the Democrats always scream about that, about how much it costs to defend our country. Every socialist will say that we should stop defending our country and spend that money on entitlements. Don't forget that they also expect us to spend it on the rest of the world too, because the rest of the world just can't take care of themselves either. And the rest of the world hates us and bites the hand that feeds.
edit on 26-4-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 03:53 AM
link   
While everyone fights about whose to blame; or which system is more evil; looking to your left and your right for the bad guys the true crooks just stroll right past you without you noticing.

Those in power seek money, so they follow behind those with the money who are seeking the power. Not the power to control you & I, just the power to get their hands on as much money as possible...The little people, the nation, the environment and the planet be damned, they want the money.

God help us.



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by sonnny1
 


Regarding: Wisconsin Saw Largest Job Losses In The Last 12 Months



hmmmm.......

Or let another Liberal like Jim Doyle run a State into the ground from 2003 – 2011 ..................


So wait, 11 months after Obama took office, Republicans began blaming ALL the countries woes on him - budget, deficits, two wars, etc. After only ELEVEN MONTHS.

But here, TWO YEARS after Walker took over Wisconsin, you went back to blame the previous administration for Wisconsin's number one rank in job losses.

Sorry, Rethuglicans, you can't blame Obama for the state of affairs 11 months into his tenure and then NOT blame Walker for the state of Wisconsin 24 months into his governorship.

The rest of the country (44 states) were adding jobs. Walker and his GOP agenda shows "trickle-down" economics are job-killers.


Between January 2011 and January 2012, while 44 states and the nation as a whole were adding jobs, Wisconsin was one of only six states to lose jobs--and Wisconsin's job loss was the worst among that handful of losers.
source



The targets of Walker's austerity budget-- infrastructure, education, and job training--are the very areas of public investment that support a strong economy and a well-paid workforce.
source



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


I don't need to go read an arguably biast book written by a conservative radio host, who's most likely pandering to his audience, about how market manipulation occurs, when I've had discussion with a buddy who's a programmer for this company: www.falcontradingsystems.com...

I'll take the word of the guy writing the programs and knows how people are requesting their systems to run, any day over someone with an agenda to sell books.

Also he doesn't explain anything, The quote you posted has the phrase "quite possibly" in it. That means he's stating an guess on the issue, not facts.

And regarding the nanny state as you put it. You're right it isn't the job of the government to provide these services to it's people. It's simply common sense that when you invest in your citizens and empower them to lead full, healthy, happy lives, then the citizens are able to give more back to their country. If i wanted to live in an impoverished, unhealthy, uneducated society - there's hundreds of other countries in the world i could move to.
edit on 26-4-2012 by Evil_Santa because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-4-2012 by Evil_Santa because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Olidha
 


You're 100% correct. The true evil in America, and it's downfall is narcissism, greed, and a system that doesn't provide monitor this.

For instance the Madoff ponzi scheme scandal. Sure Madoff was the architect of it, but he employed how many people? How many of those were complaisant in the scheme and how many of them are still free today? What about the SOX auditors that should have caught it, but instead kept giving his company a seal of approval every year? Why aren't these people in prison as well?

Because Madoff was a scapegoat.



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Evil_Santa
 


There are currently 196 countries in the world, which means it falls two countries short of "hundreds". I begin with this point to drive home the next. This notion that a government can "empower" its "citizens" ignores basic Constitutional principles. The Preamble to the Constitution for the United States of America reads:


We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


Alabama State Constitution Preamble:


WE, The People of the State of Alabama, by our Representatives in Convention assembled, in order to establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure to ourselves and to our posterity the rights of life, liberty, and property, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following constitution and form of government for the State of Alabama:


Section 3 from that same Constitution:


Section 3. That all political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit; and that, therefore, they have, at all times, an inherent right to change their form of government, in such manner as they may deem expedient.


California State Constitution; Preamble:


We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this Constitution.


Delaware State Constitution; Preamble:


Through Divine goodness, all men have by nature the rights of worshiping and serving their Creator according to the dictates of their consciences, of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring and protecting reputation and property, and in general of obtaining objects suitable to their condition, without injury by one to another; and as these rights are essential to their welfare, for due exercise thereof, power is inherent in them; and therefore all just authority in the institutions of political society is derived from the people, and established with their consent, to advance their happiness; and they may for this end, as circumstances require, from time to time, alter their Constitution of government.


Iowa State Constitution; Preamble:


Preamble. WE THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF IOWA, grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuation of those blessings, do ordain and establish a free and independent government, by the name of the State of Iowa, the boundaries whereof shall be as follows:


Article I Section 2 from that same Constitution:


Political power. SEC. 2. All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security, and benefit of the people, and they have the right, at all times, to alter or reform the same, whenever the public good may require it.


This is just a sampling of state constitutions. Every single state constitution (if I were interested in being hyperbolic I might say hundreds of state constitutions) makes undeniably clear that it is the people who hold the inherent political power and that they are the ones that empower government, not the other way around.


edit on 26-4-2012 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 10:21 AM
link   
Extremist philosophy is the problem in my opinion. The extreme right (the real extreme right aka...anarchists -no government at all...not the extreme capitalist) but also the extreme left (aka socialists/marxists) AND the extreme Capitalist...(anything for money)

Each of these groups have a philosophy and an agenda because they are so sure their way is what everyone needs or wants. They do not care if you agree or not.

What ever happened to the moderates in our country? People that realize we do have to pay some taxes to get a few things taken care of (bridges and roads, national defense) but are also for the fundamentals of a Constitution based Republic (aka the Rule of Law).

I feel that apathy and distraction through the 80's and 90's is what allowed these extremist to get a foothold. We were somewhat blinded by innocently trusting that our elected officials would never tamper with our precious experiment...our Republic of Democratically elected representatives based on personal freedom and the Rule of Law.

But boy they sure have tampered with it over the last 2 or 3 decades...and we let them because we trusted them when they said "this is for the good of the country or people"...whether it was or was not....doesn't matter.

I am a Libertarian and I still hold out hope for a return to the foundations of what made us the best place in the world...
edit on 4/26/2012 by Damrod because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Evil_Santa
 





Originally posted by xuenchenFor the most part, many fat greedy bankers are neo-con liberals.


Wait, WHAT?! "neo-con liberal". Did you actually use those two words together in the same sentence to describe an entity? Clearly you're not talking about the short-hand term neo-con in the political aspect, the term that's short for neo-CONSERVATIVE, a movement born from a Chicago professor in the 70's to combat the growing "liberal hippie culture".




There's many different meanings, depending on which "re-created" version you want to use for an agenda and for the "proletariat" to follow.

There are seven definitions here: Urban Dictionary

here's one:
Neocon

1) Neoconservative. Criminally insane spenders that believe in killing brown people for the new world order. Huge Orwellian government, unfathomable amounts of spending, bomb tens of thousands of people to death to rearrange the globe. Take the worst aspects of the liberal and conservative positions and combine them into one and you would have a NeoCon.
Neocons are the greatest threat to life, liberty and property this country has ever known.


All are actually Marxist infiltrators in disguise.



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by sonnny1


And Liberals,are this giant solid,standalone of responsibility?



First,Unemployment went down,from 7.6 to 6.8,but you didn't add that "positive" nugget to your tirade.....




And so has you bias... You actually make things up and act like they are true so that you can
stir outrage that is not based on fact.


I just got done telling you that I don't mind conservatism when it is not
practiced by extremists or idiots. It use to be about keeping a balance, and small
government did not mean letting the wealthy control the political system, or using small government
so a few companies can take advantage of individuals. But that is what is seems to be about now,
the conservative politicians say they are for small government, but they never achieve small government,
all they achieve is rigging things for the wealthy. That is not the bad part, the bad part is the denial,
in one breath uttering a pro rich agenda and in the next breath pretending that the imbalance created
from that very agenda is the fault of the unemployed people, senior citizens, students and public
servants. You guys are mad and it is what is wrong with America. Conservatives seem to be unable
to take responsability for the things they support when it comes to economic concerns. You let
the banks leverage 30/1 and they will do it, they did it, it use to be illegal but SMALL GOVERNMENT
was assigned to that to make it LEGAL. On down the line, using SMALL GOVERNMENT so a
company can pollute more... Or SMALL GOVERNMENT so a company can stick it to their customers
in the contracts they write...

How about SMALL GOVERNMENT to let PEOPLE cook food in their homes to sell it?
Or SMALL GOVERNMENT to give everyone the right to sell stuff on the streets?
Or Small government for things that promote individuals -
How about no taxes on the first $50,000 ANYONE makes? and tax above that???


NO, NO

It is small government so Company A. can stiff pensioners, small government so Company
B. can charge you a service fee for a mistake they made, small government so
Company C. can negate legitimate insurance claim easier...

That is what conservatism is now -


Guess what? If you pay people less and less, the economy will contract - exactly what is happening
in your state. Walker has systematically removed money and jobs from the economy there, which
leads to less money being spent, which leads to economic contraction.

If you let banks insure their own assets they can lend and sell FAKE MONEY that doesn't exist, SMALL GOVERNMENT in modernity.
edit on 26-4-2012 by braindeadconservatives because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by braindeadconservatives
 


I'm sorry, you are just too simplistic in your view of things. Perhaps you just believed the lies the Democrats told you about how Republicans are rich and selfish and don't care about the little people. You should really think twice about this, because Obama the Democrat Marxist got inside information obviously about the BP Oil spill and sold off his shares and stands to gain 85 million for his part in this disaster.He is a Rothschild flunky all the way and his buddies Soros and other corrupt fund managers are stealing America blind while you whine about Republicans not wanting to feed the beast of World Socialism. I am just sorry that it would be most difficult for me to truly convey to you the spiritual and moral bankruptness of World Socialism and it's proponents, but I suspect that it would be wasting my breath.


No, sorry, I see what Republicans stand for, corporate fascism, given the political system to
the rich who can buy into it, so they can use it to control the people and make a more efficient
money making machine for fewer and fewer people, the elites. You are so clueless you fail
to see that the GOP is the primary political agent for Multinational corporations and banks,
deregulating the tools of "WORLD SOCIALISM" into the US system. The banking system had
many laws in place which prevented "WORLD SOCIALISM" all torn down in the name of
free markets. Our country had a good 50 years run without these problems, but once
the free market folks came in and engineered things for the banks, you see what we have
now - So in worrying about the job creators and their ability to produce, you also set America up
with the same efforts.


You are so out of touch you cannot even recognize how the barriers have been cut down, same guys who say
they are going to help the " job creators" your buddies, your party and your ideology. Cause,
sorry to say those "job creators" the GOP seems to work for are the very institutions
of moral bankruptcy.

the desire to privatize institutions transfers to this government, that is why our country
belongs to private interests, not the people. The institutions which promote :

"WORLD SOCIALISM"

are PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS

so conservatives have a hell of a problem, because in promoting the "freedom" and
pro growth policies, they are ultimately empowering these same institutions who
privatize the governments policies, which lock out the WE THE PEOPLE. This
is what makes you guys so clueless and dangerous, this simple fact that you cannot
bridge two simple concepts. If you give people the "freedom" AKA the tool to subvert
the government or the economic system they will. If you were truly against
"WORLD SOCIALISM" you would champion laws that prevent it, that limit the banks
powers and size.
edit on 26-4-2012 by braindeadconservatives because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-4-2012 by braindeadconservatives because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by braindeadconservatives

And so has you bias... You actually make things up and act like they are true so that you can
stir outrage that is not based on fact.




I make up Obama lambasting George Bush,for creating Debt,while the hypocrite makes Bush,look like a saint?

The National Debt has risen $4.939T since Obama took office; It went up $4.899T during the eight years of the Bush presidency

But you dont want to talk about the facts. You just want to "spin" it ,into a rainbow filled,Willie Wonka World.

How is this stiring up OUTRAGE?

You are not OUTRAGED?

I am.

Thats the difference between me and you. I have NO problem blaiming those,who deserve the blame,REGARDLESS if they are Conservative,or Liberal.



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


What's curious is that each of those say something about providing welfare..



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


liberalism, consertivism, neo-con, etc, have been been terms used to describe various cultural and political views throughout history. We're discussing neo-cons as they stand today, in America - not 40 years ago, not 100 years ago. A southern democrat is vastly different from a northern democrat, and likewise a conservative in Belgium is for socialism while a Belgian liberal is for smaller government there.

oh hai mr semantics. Now that it's clear who i'm communicating with, enjoy talking to yourself.




top topics



 
12
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join