It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by MystikMushroom
reply to post by hanyak69
How does being a veteran make you better at deciding a president than say, me or perhaps a professor of economics?
Does me being an Eagle Scout make me more capable of deciding an election?
When did Americans create a class of people that are better than the average citizen?
We haven't had a draft in decades, anyone that signed up did so on their own accord.
edit on 2-11-2012 by MystikMushroom because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by PvtHudson
You're fine with the government being in your body under the guise of "free healthcare" too.
Originally posted by PvtHudson
I love how left wingers/Democrats always talk about 'control of our body", yet they're perfectly willing to depend on government, grow government and basically take away all self reliance. You're fine with the government being in your body under the guise of "free healthcare" too.
Originally posted by elitegamer23
reply to post by Tazkven
lets just hope most americans are smart enough to remember where our country was after 8 years of GOP leadership.
you can count me i.
im voting for OBAMA in IOWA tuesday!
I saw jobs booming before I got in and from '91 on slowly over the years jobs where growing scarce. Up until 4 years ago where all the trades seemed to be taking hard hits. Three years ago because of the employment climate, No jobs, I lost everything and ended up at a homeless shelter desperately trying to regain my footing. Slowly I started rebuilding my life. Two years ago, Using my Millwright background I got on Maintenance at General Electric. Since that time I have seen around 2500 people hired here. If you know anything about Appliance Park in Louisville, Ky that has not happened since the 80's. Even the Ford plant here has hired about a thousand people,
Originally posted by cornucopia
sharing is caring, this is the time to share....out of control egos and greed will fade away as we pass the end of 2012...
ask any real pyschic
For today's generation, Hitler is the most hated man in history, and his regime the archetype of political evil. This view does not extend to his economic policies, however. Far from it. They are embraced by governments all around the world. The Glenview State Bank of Chicago, for example, recently praised Hitler's economics in its monthly newsletter. In doing so, the bank discovered the hazards of praising Keynesian policies in the wrong context.
The issue of the newsletter (July 2003) is not online, but the content can be discerned via the letter of protest from the Anti-Defamation League. "Regardless of the economic arguments" the letter said, "Hitler's economic policies cannot be divorced from his great policies of virulent anti-Semitism, racism and genocide…. Analyzing his actions through any other lens severely misses the point."
The same could be said about all forms of central planning. It is wrong to attempt to examine the economic policies of any leviathan state apart from the political violence that characterizes all central planning, whether in Germany, the Soviet Union, or the United States. The controversy highlights the ways in which the connection between violence and central planning is still not understood, not even by the ADL. The tendency of economists to admire Hitler's economic program is a case in point.
In the 1930s, Hitler was widely viewed as just another protectionist central planner who recognized the supposed failure of the free market and the need for nationally guided economic development. Proto-Keynesian socialist economist Joan Robinson wrote that "Hitler found a cure against unemployment before Keynes was finished explaining it."
What were those economic policies? He suspended the gold standard, embarked on huge public works programs like Autobahns, protected industry from foreign competition, expanded credit, instituted jobs programs, bullied the private sector on prices and production decisions, vastly expanded the military, enforced capital controls, instituted family planning, penalized smoking, brought about national healthcare and unemployment insurance, imposed education standards, and eventually ran huge deficits. The Nazi interventionist program was essential to the regime's rejection of the market economy and its embrace of socialism in one country.
On September 30, 2011, in a northern province of Yemen, Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen and a senior figure in Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, finished his breakfast and walked with several companions to vehicles parked nearby. Before he could drive away, a missile fired from a drone operated by the Central Intelligence Agency struck the group and killed Awlaki, as well as a second American citizen, of Pakistani origin, whom the drone operators did not realize was present.
President Barack Obama had personally authorized the killing. “I want Awlaki,” he is said to have told his advisers at one point. “Don’t let up on him.” The President’s bracing words about a fellow American are reported in “Kill or Capture,” a recent and important book on the Obama Administration’s detention and targeted-killing programs, by Daniel Klaidman, a former deputy editor of Newsweek.
With those words attributed to Obama, Klaidman has reported what would appear to be the first instance in American history of a sitting President speaking of his intent to kill a particular U.S. citizen without that citizen having been charged formally with a crime or convicted at trial.
Anti-individualistic, the Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State, which stands for the conscience and the universal, will of man as a historic entity (11). It is opposed to classical liberalism which arose as a reaction to absolutism and exhausted its historical function when the State became the expression of the conscience and will of the people. Liberalism denied the State in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts
Grouped according to their several interests, individuals form classes; they form trade-unions when organized according to their several economic activities; but first and foremost they form the State, which is no mere matter of numbers, the suns of the individuals forming the majority. Fascism is therefore opposed to that form of democracy which equates a nation to the majority, lowering it to the level of the largest number (17); but it is the purest form of democracy if the nation be considered as it should be from the point of view of quality rather than quantity, as an idea, the mightiest because the most ethical, the most coherent, the truest, expressing itself in a people as the conscience and will of the few, if not, indeed, of one, and ending to express itself in the conscience and the will of the mass, of the whole group ethnically molded by natural and historical conditions into a nation, advancing, as one conscience and one will, along the self same line of development and spiritual formation (18). Not a race, nor a geographically defined region, but a people, historically perpetuating itself; a multitude unified by an idea and imbued with the will to live, the will to power, self-consciousness, personality (19).
Obama and the Democrats are wedded to the idea of mandatory service. In December 2007, Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd proposed making community service mandatory for all high school students and proposed “encouraging service by adults by offering tax credits to employers who give workers paid time off to volunteer and $1,000 grants for seniors who help out in schools,”MSNBC reported.
In 2006, Rahm Emanuel, now Obama’s chief of staff, published a book entitled “The Plan.” In the book Emanuel argues for universal service for all “Americans between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five [who] will be asked to serve their country by going through three months of basic training, civil defense preparation and community service.”
Democrats love the idea of involuntary servitude. “For America now, service is not just an option, but an obligation of citizenship,” said John Kerry during the 2004 election. In the 110th congress Charles Rangel introduced the Universal National Service Act H.R.393, a bill that would have required all persons in the United States between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform national service, either as a member of the uniformed services or in civilian service for a period of two years.
National service is feel-good code for slavery. It is prohibited by the 13th amendment.
In March, both the House and Senate passed a bill tripling the AmeriCorps program. Called the Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act, or GIVE Act, the law “encourages” Americans to “give back to their communities,” Fox News reported. Republicans attempted to attach an amendment to the bill prohibiting for-profit political and labor groups that engage in legislative advocacy from receiving “assistance” under the plan, but the amendment was tabled.
We need your service, right now,” Obama declared as he signed the bill. “I’m asking you to stand up and play your part. I’m asking you to help change history’s course… and if you do, I promise you, your life will be richer.”
Obama and Congress will eventually do more than merely ask “you to stand up and play your part” — they will legislate it. In March, H.R. 1444 was introduced in the House by a gaggle of Democrats. The bill will “establish the Congressional Commission on Civic Service to study methods of improving and promoting volunteerism and national service, and for other purposes.”
H.R. 1444 is sponsored by Rep. Jim McDermott, a Washington state Democrat, and is assigned to the House Committee on Labor and Education. It reintroduces language calling for universal servitude stripped from H.R. 1388, the so-called GIVE (to government) bill.
In Section 4. of the proposed bill, entitled “Duties,” we find the following: “The effect on the Nation, on those who serve, and on the families of those who serve, if all individuals in the United States were expected to perform national service or were required to perform a certain amount of national service.” (Emphasis added.) A “workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement” is proposed “for all able young people.”
(6) Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds.