It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Obama supports UN global gun ban less than 24 hours after reelection

page: 24
<< 21  22  23   >>

log in


posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 06:07 PM
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

Gonna do this just for you but just this one time. I hope you understand the clear differentiation.

Crony Capitalism:

Crony capitalism is a term describing an economy in which success in business depends on close relationships between business people and government officials. It may be exhibited by favoritism in the distribution of legal permits, government grants, special tax breaks, or other forms of dirigisme[1] Crony capitalism is believed to arise when political cronyism spills over into the business world; self-serving friendships and family ties between businessmen and the government influence the economy and society to the extent that it corrupts public-serving economic and political ideals.

Laissez-Faire Capitalism

Laissez-faire (i/ˌlɛseɪˈfɛər-/, French: [lɛsefɛʁ] ( listen)) is an economic environment in which transactions between private parties are free from tariffs, government subsidies, and enforced monopolies, with only enough government regulations sufficient to protect property rights against theft and aggression.

posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 06:23 PM
reply to post by eLPresidente

I acknoledge the difference between the two, but workers get screwed either way. Croney capitalism is NOT socialism. Socialism is public ownership of the means of production. Pretty soon I am going to get the anarchists on my butt claiming "nationalisation" is not socialism.

posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 06:30 PM

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by eLPresidente

I acknoledge the difference between the two, but workers get screwed either way. Croney capitalism is NOT socialism. Socialism is public ownership of the means of production. Pretty soon I am going to get the anarchists on my butt claiming "nationalisation" is not socialism.

I'm glad you see the difference now.

How do workers get screwed either way? I don't get what you mean.

Thats where we disagree, I don't think production should be owned by the public. State-sponsored corporate entities are so susceptible to corruption and money laundering, its not even funny. Of course, some major corporations in the US get caught doing the same things but you'll start to see the major corporations that gamble the most and are most corrupt are the ones that are most intertwined with the government.

Competition is always a good thing and that is why all of the socialist and or communist societies always end up going towards capitalism, they like commerce and the wealth that commerce provides. Efficiency, privacy, and competition...nothing wrong with them.

posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 06:47 PM
reply to post by eLPresidente

There is nothing wrong with state-sponsored enterprise. Notice I did not use "corporation". The problem is that most countries are not soveriegn to begin with, and have to implement socialism within capitalism. As thatcher said you can't borrow to implement policies and run programs. The central banks are private which creates cronyism/favoratism with the bilderbergers. Perhaps north korea and cuba are soveriegn but no nation dares trade with them because of united "rothschild" nations. It is called an embargo and has been happening for many decades.

Likewise laissez faire capitalism stands no chance. Cronyism is dictated by the billionares and trilionares, which people like you tolerate. Sorry if I am harsh here, but this is the truth and it needs to be said!

posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 04:08 PM
Obama has openly said he wants to ban assault rifles and any semi auto firearms. How do you guys think the government would put this plan into action. Would the make a mandatory turn in? I know I will never give mine up.

posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 03:46 PM

Originally posted by UltraMarine
reply to post by jjkenobi

The criminals will always have guns because they DON'T OBEY THE LAWS. That's why they are criminals. It just means the rest of us will be defenseless

We Civilians shouldn't possess guns . There are cops to protect us from Criminals . We cannot take law into our own hand .

It is just that kind of of abdication of responsibility and desire to be molly coddled that got us into this mess. I can't say how furious such stupid comments make me.

Of COURSE we can take justice and law into our own hands, it has ALWAYS belonged only to us - the law belongs to the people - to hand it over to a violent cartel is to ensure your own slavery.

Everyone should wear a gun, at all times - and nobody has any more right to enforce law than anyone else.

This idea that the law doesn't belong to the people, and you have no right to enforce it is pure brainwashing. You have every right, if you see something wrong - it is your RESPONSIBILITY to enforce the law - and you will probably need a gun to do it.

posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 05:10 PM
reply to post by ConspiraCity

Obama is just doing what he is told to do by his Puppet Masters . His goal is to suck up the glory of the job .

posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 10:17 AM
I wonder what the author of this is thinking now that he is wrong?

Lets check Fact Check (written in 2009)

This was written back in 2009 lets grab some quotes shall we...

As for this particular treaty: First of all, it doesn’t yet exist. What is true is that the Obama administration, reversing the line taken by the Bush White House, has voted to support a process that could, in 2012 at the earliest, result in a treaty.

John Bolton, former ambassador to the UN under the George W. Bush administration, recently told the NRANews:
Bolton, Nov. 6: The administration is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there’s no doubt – as was the case back over a decade ago – that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control. After the treaty is approved and it comes into force, you will find out that it … requires the Congress to adopt some measure that restricts ownership of firearms. The administration knows it cannot obtain this kind of legislation purely in a domestic context. … They will use an international agreement as an excuse to get domestically what they couldn’t otherwise.

Pushes him off as a loon

Then goes on to reassure people that no treaty will happen unless the US agrees and Obama is just not going to do it.

Welp he did.

new topics

top topics

<< 21  22  23   >>

log in