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.

 

Romney takes hit over Palestine gaffe

page: 2
13
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 10:03 PM
link   
so every single palestinian, who by the way were living in peace together with jews before the british got involved, want every israeli dead and destroyed.

there is not one that wants to be free, left alone and not pass several armed israeli soldiers on the way to the market or work.

who want to be able to live free of fear, of an israeli airstrike or drone missile or of an israeli soldier.

is mitt romney human? or an imbecile.




posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Tranny
reply to post by Tw0Sides
 


Logic 101….
Corporations are comprised of groups of people.
Those groups of people have a right to speak individually, or as a group.
Those people have a right to speak as individuals, or as a group.
If the group speaks, then they speak through the corporation.
If a person does not like what the group is saying, then he can leave that group.
There is nothing forcing him to be part of it.

Just because you join into a group, does not mean you loose your right to speak.
So the corporation has the same freedom of speech as a person does.

So, yes, corporations are people…. groups of people.
They have a right to speak.
If you don’t like the freedom of speech, then pound sand.
Keep your sand, Corporations are Companies.

Let me talk to COKE please, I want to ask about the whole New Coke thing.


People (wait for it) ..... are People.
Logic



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Tranny
reply to post by Tw0Sides
 


Logic 101….
Corporations are comprised of groups of people.
Those groups of people have a right to speak individually, or as a group.
Those people have a right to speak as individuals, or as a group.
If the group speaks, then they speak through the corporation.
If a person does not like what the group is saying, then he can leave that group.
There is nothing forcing him to be part of it.

Just because you join into a group, does not mean you loose your right to speak.
So the corporation has the same freedom of speech as a person does.

So, yes, corporations are people…. groups of people.
They have a right to speak.
If you don’t like the freedom of speech, then pound sand.


Logic 102.

1. Corporations CAN'T be people because they can't vote or be prosecuted criminally.
2. If corporations are people, then there can be no Corporate Veil and the sum total of all US property laws must be re-written.
3. The US Constitution only extends the Bill of Rights to individuals...not to groups.
4. If corporations are people...then corporations must ALSO be bound to the campaign contribution limits of individuals.
5. People are "free to leave" the company they work for in the same way that companies are "free to ignore" environmental regulations. In both cases, no criminal penalty can be levied...but there ARE some pretty harsh economic repercussions. Thus...since both are completely "free" to do whatever they wish...we must also stop whining about how oppressive governmental regulations are.



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Alxandro
 


Ooh, you may want to reconsider your avatar - you're sending out mixed messages...

www.latimes.com...



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by randomname
so every single palestinian, who by the way were living in peace together with jews before the british got involved, want every israeli dead and destroyed.

there is not one that wants to be free, left alone and not pass several armed israeli soldiers on the way to the market or work.

who want to be able to live free of fear, of an israeli airstrike or drone missile or of an israeli soldier.

is mitt romney human? or an imbecile.


Worse. He's a Mormon.



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 10:16 PM
link   
Didn’t I hear somewhere about Romney talking about 47% of people than’t would vote for obama no mater what?


I wonder where I could possibly find some of those people….. Hmm I think I seen someone around here that may fit that description.


I often wonder why I feel like I am in the “land of the lost” when I am on this forum.
And they always talk about how much “hate” the right wing has. Only question I have to ask them is … “Do you project much?”



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by milominderbinder

Originally posted by randomname
so every single palestinian, who by the way were living in peace together with jews before the british got involved, want every israeli dead and destroyed.

there is not one that wants to be free, left alone and not pass several armed israeli soldiers on the way to the market or work.

who want to be able to live free of fear, of an israeli airstrike or drone missile or of an israeli soldier.

is mitt romney human? or an imbecile.


Worse. He's a Mormon.



So now you've proven yourself an antisemite from what I've read in other threads as well as now a religious bigot. Boy you're on fire tonight.



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by milominderbinder
Logic 102.

1. Corporations CAN'T be people because they can't vote or be prosecuted criminally.
2. If corporations are people, then there can be no Corporate Veil and the sum total of all US property laws must be re-written.
3. The US Constitution only extends the Bill of Rights to individuals...not to groups.
4. If corporations are people...then corporations must ALSO be bound to the campaign contribution limits of individuals.
5. People are "free to leave" the company they work for in the same way that companies are "free to ignore" environmental regulations. In both cases, no criminal penalty can be levied...but there ARE some pretty harsh economic repercussions. Thus...since both are completely "free" to do whatever they wish...we must also stop whining about how oppressive governmental regulations are.


Sentence comprehension 101.

Saying “corporations are people”, is not saying “a corporation is a person”.

A corporation is people. The “people” is the people that own and work for the corporation.
Multiple corporations are still people. A certain number of people belonging to each corporation.

It’s like saying “The competitors are people too.” It is not saying that each of the competing positions is a person. It is saying that the people that fill those positions are people.


No, to get real here. I am pretty sure you are smart enough to understand that differentiation. So your statements to the contrary are most likely designed to be intentionally misleading and deceitful. All to support your side, whether it’s right or wrong.

So, just cut the bull crap.



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11235813213455

Originally posted by milominderbinder

Originally posted by randomname
so every single palestinian, who by the way were living in peace together with jews before the british got involved, want every israeli dead and destroyed.

there is not one that wants to be free, left alone and not pass several armed israeli soldiers on the way to the market or work.

who want to be able to live free of fear, of an israeli airstrike or drone missile or of an israeli soldier.

is mitt romney human? or an imbecile.


Worse. He's a Mormon.



So now you've proven yourself an antisemite from what I've read in other threads as well as now a religious bigot. Boy you're on fire tonight.


Wrong again. I have nothing against the Semetic peoples...especially the Palestinians...but also those of Jewish descent. However...Israel is a government...not an ethnic group.

As for religion...I'm perfectly equal opportunity. I think ALL religions are more or less equally nutty and are the bane of human existence.



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Tranny

Originally posted by milominderbinder
Logic 102.

1. Corporations CAN'T be people because they can't vote or be prosecuted criminally.
2. If corporations are people, then there can be no Corporate Veil and the sum total of all US property laws must be re-written.
3. The US Constitution only extends the Bill of Rights to individuals...not to groups.
4. If corporations are people...then corporations must ALSO be bound to the campaign contribution limits of individuals.
5. People are "free to leave" the company they work for in the same way that companies are "free to ignore" environmental regulations. In both cases, no criminal penalty can be levied...but there ARE some pretty harsh economic repercussions. Thus...since both are completely "free" to do whatever they wish...we must also stop whining about how oppressive governmental regulations are.


Sentence comprehension 101.

Saying “corporations are people”, is not saying “a corporation is a person”.

A corporation is people. The “people” is the people that own and work for the corporation.
Multiple corporations are still people. A certain number of people belonging to each corporation.

It’s like saying “The competitors are people too.” It is not saying that each of the competing positions is a person. It is saying that the people that fill those positions are people.


No, to get real here. I am pretty sure you are smart enough to understand that differentiation. So your statements to the contrary are most likely designed to be intentionally misleading and deceitful. All to support your side, whether it’s right or wrong.

So, just cut the bull crap.


Context 411: Advanced Studies in Comprehension.

Yes...and I'm sure nobody would really get that worked up if it was ONLY an issue of grammatical semantics. Unfortunately, the "corporations are people" argument is utilized to bribe politicians, circumvent criminal liability, and extend the Bill of Rights to parties that were not granted those rights thereby circumventing the US Constitution itself.

Thus, irrespective of the correct verb "are" being used in it's correct conjugative form in respect to the pluralized form of the noun "person"... the statement itself carries far more meaning and affects our civilization in a severely detrimental manner....and that's why it's an idiotic statement.

You might also want to sit on some of my classes that I teach to my grad students such as "Corruption 622: Politicians Think You are Too Dumb to Understand How You Are Being Screwed...And In Many Cases They Are Right".

I think it would be a real eye opener for you.



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 10:53 PM
link   
Romney's remarks are pessimistic, but are they necessarily wrong. Every president for the last few decades has tried to do something about the Middle East problem and they have not accomplished much. Maybe we should commend Romney for knowing his limitations and the limitations of the office and recognizing that the President of the US should be working on problems he might have a chance of resolving.



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint Maybe we should commend Romney for knowing his limitations and the limitations of the office and recognizing that the President of the US should be working on problems he might have a chance of resolving.
Your Post would be Valid if Mitt hasn't declared that an Attack on Iran , in that very same Middle East, would be top on his Agenda upon receiving POTUS status.



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by milominderbinder
Context 411: Advanced Studies in Comprehension.

Yes...and I'm sure nobody would really get that worked up if it was ONLY an issue of grammatical semantics. Unfortunately, the "corporations are people" argument is utilized to bribe politicians, circumvent criminal liability, and extend the Bill of Rights to parties that were not granted those rights thereby circumventing the US Constitution itself.

Thus, irrespective of the correct verb "are" being used in it's correct conjugative form in respect to the pluralized form of the noun "person"... the statement itself carries far more meaning and affects our civilization in a severely detrimental manner....and that's why it's an idiotic statement.

You might also want to sit on some of my classes that I teach to my grad students such as "Corruption 622: Politicians Think You are Too Dumb to Understand How You Are Being Screwed...And In Many Cases They Are Right".

I think it would be a real eye opener for you.


Lets go over this again.
The judges did not give the corporations the right to speak because they are individual people. The corporation it's self, doesn’t have a right to speak. The people in the corporations have a right to speak through the corporation.

The people are still the ones who have a right to speak. But they can speak through any means they want to. If they want to organize into a corporation to speak as a group, then they have that right to do so. If the people that are already organized in a corporation want to speak, then they can. It is their right.

If you restrict the right of the corporation to speak, then you restrict the right of the people in those corporation to speak as a group.

Remember, we have a right to peaceably assemble, and voice our opinions. The constitution doesn’t dictate which ways we may assemble. We can do it as a crowd in the street. We can do it as a non for profit organization. We can do it as a corporation.

No mater how we assemble, we still have the right to assemble as a group and to voice our opinion as a group, when we are in that group.

When I pointed that out last time, you came back with the statement that he was calling the corporation it’s self a person. When I pointed out that he was not, then you went back to saying the government is giving entities the right to free speech that the constitution never intended for them to have. Then I once again point out that they are not giving the corporation the right to speak, but they are making sure the “right to speak” of the people in that corporation are protected when they speak as a group, “through the corporation”.

Once again, I am sure you understand that, but you will continue to pick nits that don’t exist, to try to prove a point that doesn’t exist. All in an effort to push your agenda.
edit on 18-9-2012 by Mr Tranny because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by daaskapital



Displaying little nuance about the attitude of different factions in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, he showed disdain for the Palestinian cause and indicated he would not make a serious Middle East peace bid as president.



"I look at the Palestinians not wanting to see peace anyway, for political purposes, committed to the destruction and elimination of Israel, and these thorny issues, and I say there's just no way," Mr Romney said.


Well, what have we here? Another video leaked of Romney, this time stating that there is not point in pursuing Middle East Peace. Furthermore, he is still displaying his wholehearted support for Israel.

This is a serious question. After these videos (which prove Romney will be destructive as POTUS) why would anyone still vote for him?

I'm expecting the knockout punch to come soon


[url=http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/us-election/romney-takes-hit-over-palestine-gaffe/story-fn95xh4y-1226476997131]www.theaustralian.com.au[ /url]
(visit the link for the full news article)


My question, is he wrong? I think this is exactly what we need. Someone who says listen, you guys refuse to come to the table with clean hands. When you are ready to talk, we'll talk. Until then I have better things to do. Romney, once again, is completely right. You seem to be saying you don't want a politician who speaks his mind and tells the truth, you want someone to lie to you and tell you there are rainbows just up ahead.



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11235813213455
This the world that we live in.

Telling the truth is no longer a virtue.... It's a gaffe.


Perfectly said.



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by daaskapital

Originally posted by 11235813213455
This the world that we live in.

Telling the truth is no longer a virtue.... It's a gaffe.


It is a gaffe, because the video was not meant to be made public. So your saying that Romney is telling the truth when he states that the US shouldn't be pursuing Middle Eastern peace? Yes, what he is saying about Israel may be true (the patrolling off the borders and general controlling off the independent nation). It is what Israel does, they tend to be an arrogant and controlling nation.

Still, what President states that they wouldn't try and pursue ME peace? I mean, if he wins, he will hav a crap load to deal with over there...


The one who actually WANTS peace will say that. It's time to make the Palestinians choose. Do you want peace or not. If you don't, I am not wasting my time. The REAL problem here is why we want our politicians to lie to us. I would love for a President to say exactly what Romney said, BECAUSE IT'S TRUE. If you want rainbows shining out your ass vote Obama. If you want truth that can actually maybe make a difference, Romney appears to be the only one saying the things that NEED to be said.



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tw0Sides

Originally posted by Alxandro
Example, once again Romney tells it like it is and people freak out.
Here's Mitt , telling it like it is


"Corporations are people, my friend" Mitt Romney


The highest court in the land agrees with him. Your point?



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by randomname
so every single palestinian, who by the way were living in peace together with jews before the british got involved, want every israeli dead and destroyed.

there is not one that wants to be free, left alone and not pass several armed israeli soldiers on the way to the market or work.

who want to be able to live free of fear, of an israeli airstrike or drone missile or of an israeli soldier.

is mitt romney human? or an imbecile.


Maybe they should stand up for peace then. Maybe they should elect leaders who wont attack and sabotage peace. Until then, as a group they do not want freedom, they want victory. If you have peace you can not have victory.



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
Romney's remarks are pessimistic, but are they necessarily wrong. Every president for the last few decades has tried to do something about the Middle East problem and they have not accomplished much. Maybe we should commend Romney for knowing his limitations and the limitations of the office and recognizing that the President of the US should be working on problems he might have a chance of resolving.


Ding Ding Ding. We have a winner. Everything that has happened in the past 20 years proves Romney right. But hey, he's a Mormom so we have to bash him right? The hatred is strong here.



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


Must be hard for you trying to defend a Meathead like Mitt.

You know he will say something equally stupid tomorrow.

And you have to deflect and defend statements that even you know are stupid.

I'm part of the 53% so work for me, I'm out.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join