States petitioning to secede from union

page: 15
31
<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Rudy2shoes
 


how bout proving it's not about a non-white in charge of this country?




posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Sink the Bismarck!
 


never gonna get and real proof
just rants



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rudy2shoes
The Indians of North America were also unable to provide proof at the time,
That The United States of America was taking away their livelihood.


got any evidence to support that claim??


'cos I'm pretty sure them getting moved from pillar to post, chucked out of reservations as they became wanted by the white men, various wars and dishonoured treaties were enough proof for them when they went to Washington to try to sort that shirt out on various occasions in the 18-20th centuries.

See this is what actual "evidence" looks like - you should try to learn more about it
edit on 13-11-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by rickm
reply to post by Rudy2shoes
 


this was the quote

The federal gov't has, or it's trying to = give the "waterways" control to the UN in the sea treaty - which would include the gulf and the Mississippi River.

it says give control.
there was nothing on that link about giving away or giving control.
i will wait for you to try to prove it


Can you handle it if I do not want to respond?

If you are going to kick the dog or abuse the family I will,
but I am growing bored with
the Lewis and Clark spreading political correctness down the water ways of America.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by rickm
reply to post by Rudy2shoes
 


how bout proving it's not about a non-white in charge of this country?


Jesus, you actually got a star for this one. It doesn't matter his skin color, he's a socialist through and through, a real threat to freedom! Get over the race card already.
edit on 13-11-2012 by Rezlooper because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rezlooper

Originally posted by rickm
reply to post by Rudy2shoes
 


how bout proving it's not about a non-white in charge of this country?


Jesus, you actually got a star for this one. It doesn't matter his skin color, he's a socialist through and through, a real threat to freedom! Get over the race card already.
edit on 13-11-2012 by Rezlooper because: (no reason given)


I know I said I would leave this thread alone, and I know this could lead to a total derail of this thread (but this thread's a stinker, so I'm not gonna feel bad about it) but...

Got any evidence there that Obama's a socialist through and through?



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by Rudy2shoes
The Indians of North America were also unable to provide proof at the time,
That The United States of America was taking away their livelihood.


got any evidence to support that claim??


'cos I'm pretty sure them getting moved from pillar to post, chucked out of reservations as they became wanted by the white men, various wars and dishonoured treaties were enough proof for them when they went to Washington to try to sort that shirt out on various occasions in the 18-20th centuries.

See this is what actual "evidence" looks like - you should try to learn more about it
edit on 13-11-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)


You kicked my butt,
and showed me.
My 13th grandmothers hat hangs in the Mayflower museum
what would I know about getting my butt kicked or kicking Indian butt.
And oh they married the long hunters, look it up when you have time.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Sink the Bismarck!
 


but but but
fox news said so



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by rickm
reply to post by Rudy2shoes
 


how bout proving it's not about a non-white in charge of this country?


When you can prove he is not half white!
For the record I have accepted that a native Hawaiian been was elected into office,
unless you can prove he was not born there?



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sink the Bismarck!

Originally posted by Rezlooper

Originally posted by rickm
reply to post by Rudy2shoes
 


how bout proving it's not about a non-white in charge of this country?


Jesus, you actually got a star for this one. It doesn't matter his skin color, he's a socialist through and through, a real threat to freedom! Get over the race card already.
edit on 13-11-2012 by Rezlooper because: (no reason given)


I know I said I would leave this thread alone, and I know this could lead to a total derail of this thread (but this thread's a stinker, so I'm not gonna feel bad about it) but...

Got any evidence there that Obama's a socialist through and through?


Team Obama socialist ideas



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Rezlooper
 



Mark Hendrickson, Contributor
I write about economics, politics, and human-interest stories.

Op/Ed

7/26/2012 @ 3:39PM |34,491 views

See that lil "Op/Ed" ? That means it's an OPINION article, not "proof" of anything....



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
reply to post by Rezlooper
 



Mark Hendrickson, Contributor
I write about economics, politics, and human-interest stories.

Op/Ed

7/26/2012 @ 3:39PM |34,491 views

See that lil "Op/Ed" ? That means it's an OPINION article, not "proof" of anything....


Yeah, he was just blowin' smoke, huh? Even though he's an economist, he doesn't know what he's talking about. All those executive orders are from fantasy land? You probably think Obama is the most democratic middle of the road president we've ever had.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 09:31 PM
link   
My uncle and his family,
abandoned their US Citizen status back in the 1970's
moved and was accepted by Canada.
In my mind when any person can just abandon the US,
why try to take the whole state with you.
I would rather be able to make up my own mind,
and not the other 51 percent of the state doing it for me.
But some of you would call that Democracy.


edit on 13-11-2012 by Rudy2shoes because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Rezlooper
 


Thanks for the vision
now I can't get that song out of my head.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Rezlooper
 


I'm sorry, but Mark Hendrickson is grasping at straws.

First off, he admits Obama is not a socialist. Apparently he's a 'Leninist-Marxist.'


Then, he claims that Obama is specifically emulating Lenin by 'striving to increase state control over...energy, healthcare, and education...' and so on. There are multiple problems with this. First, the idea that anyone who nationalizes anything is attempting to channel Lenin is absurd. Are the British emulating Lenin with their NHS? Did the New Zealand government consider Lenin when they decided to nationalize their rail system? Was Portugal being run by Lenin disciples when they decided to nationalize their banks?

The answer is of course not. And yet Hendrickson makes the claim that Obama is consciously 'mimicking Lenin's policies' by nationalizing industries. Nothing but weasel words with no substance.

Other problems (besides the fact Hendrickson seems to draw all of his 'evidence' from the articles he's written for his Center For Vision and Values think tank)? Hendrickson's evidence is flimsy, and Obama isn't even doing what Hendrickson claims he's doing. Hendrickson cites such things as raising taxes and providing energy subsidies as evidence that Obama is nationalizing the transportation and energy industries. This plain doesn't make sense. The problem is that Hendrickson's mind is already made up that Obama is a Marxist-Leninist, and he is spending the article attempting to prove this foregone conclusion via whatever connections - however tenuous - he can draw.

Next, he attempts to claim that Obama is following Karl Marx's 10 steps to socialize a country's economy. The problem here is that, once again, the connections he draws are tenuous at best, and fanciful at worst.

1. State control of productive property. Hendrickson's example is that that Obama and Congress are 'thwarting the development of domestic energy supplies' via regulations. The problem is that regulations do not equal state control. By Hendrickson's logic in this statement, any regulation on any industry is a Marxist-Leninist scheme. Also, Obama is not unique in being for stricter regulations for certain industries.

2. Progressive income taxes. First off, Obama didn't 'create' the progressive or graduated income tax in America. Does that mean that every President and Congressman since its inception has been a willing accomplice to a Leninist-Marxist takeover of America? Hendrickson cites Obama's 'obsession' (there's another weasel word) with raising the taxes on certain brackets as evidence that he's embraced Marx's 10 step plan, but this just doesn't add up.

3. Abolition of inheritance. Hendrickson claims that by supporting estate taxes, Obama is supporting this 'plank' of the plan. But how? There's a wide difference between taxing inheritances and abolishing inheritances. Obama obviously does not support abolishing inheritances, ergo, he isn't actively pursuing this 'step.'

4. Confiscation of the property of emigrants and rebels. Hendrickson uses Obama's alleged crackdown on offshore tax havens as an example of this. Flimsy. Hendrickson claims that Obama is unfairly seeking to tax multinational corporations (confiscating the property of emigrants), but what he leaves out is that those multinational corporations are being incorporated by American citizens as a way to avoid paying taxes (so they're not really emigrants after all). Not to mention I fail to see any indication, anywhere, of Obama seizing the assets of 'rebels.' Hendrickson's whole point falls apart here. He is literally doing backflips to try to come up with some scenario to make Obama's policies fit into this 'plank.'

5. Centralization of the country's financial system. He claims that Dodd-Frank is a 'step' in this direction. He has no other evidence. For those who don't know, Dodd-Frank increases government oversight in things like derivatives trading. It does nothing to nationalize banks. Once again, he's doing backflips to make his case.

6. State control of means of communication and transportation. As evidence of state control of communication, he claims that the Obama administration has 'denounced' Fox News and wants to revive the 'Fairness Doctrine' (which, even if it was brought back, would do nothing to nationalize media). That's it. I can't make this stuff up. As for transportation, he cites the auto bailout (started under Obama's predecessor, Bush), Obama's high-speed rail plans (denied funding; no chance of it actually happening), and Obama's vocal support of green transportation alternatives. So, basically, because the Obama administration dislikes Fox News and says they like bicycles, Hendrickson takes that to mean they control all communications and transportation.

Running out of characters, so remaining points will be addressed in the next post.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by rickm
 


I think you responded to the wrong person. Or you just missed my sarcasm completely.

Let's give you another swing at it.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Rudy2shoes
 


it just proves you are wrong and you will believe anything that is forked into your face



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Rezlooper
 


sorry, but the racist birthers just can't handle that he is the president
he is no socialist.
what industries has the government taken over since he came into office?
i will tell you
none.
it's just a rant from the the fascist right.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 10:22 PM
link   
7. Increased state control over the means of production. Because he can't even find a scrap of evidence that Obama is taking over the factories, Hendrickson instead claims that Obama is taking over the energy industry and thereby taking over the means of production. His examples are, once again, energy subsidies (for green initiatives) and energy regulations. As I pointed out in the last post, regulations do not a state controlled industry make.

8. Establishment of workers' armies. Here comes the anti-union rhetoric. Hendrickson seems to be using the idea of 'workers' armies' in a much different way than Marx used it. In Marx's thought, worker armies were labor reserves that would fill in wherever a shortage of workers appeared. I fail to see how that has anything to do with Obama's (questionable) support of unions or increasing the number of jobs in the public sector.

9. Control over where people live. Hendrickson admits there's no evidence for this. But he goes on to say, "But what if..." Of course, we shouldn't deal with what-ifs. Either there is evidence at the present time or there isn't. At the time, there is no evidence to suggest Obama is consciously attempting to limit where people live. Hendrickson's daydreaming of what Obama might do in the future does not count as evidence.

10. Free education. Obama supports (or at least doesn't oppose) public education. Therefore, Leninism. Once again, does this mean that every Congressman, President and other elected official who doesn't support the abolition of public education is a Leninist-Marxist? Of course not. It's absurd.

Hendrickson goes on to end his OPINION ARTICLE by citing the 'great' Ludwig von Mises (more weasel words) and characterizing Lenin as having a 'bloodthirsty malevolence.' (Not arguing that Lenin wasn't a bad guy, but the implication is to characterize Obama, by proxy, as being bloodthirsty and malevolent.)

Nothing but weasel words. Nothing but appeals to emotion.

Oh, and the real kicker at the end?

Obama is "...an interventionist, corporatist, statist, Big Government progressive, free-market-hating control freak who favors economic policies of a Marxist-Leninist flavor.”

(He doesn't even know what corporatism is. Go ahead and look it up; it doesn't mean what you think it means.)

Hendrickson is obviously on a partisan mission. Just look at the mission statement for his pet think tank. He's a biased source and shouldn't be used as an authority on Obama's supposed socialist policies. Find me impartial evidence of Obama's socialism that doesn't come from someone who's made it their mission to discredit him, no matter what logical and factual loopholes they have to jump through.
edit on 13/11/12 by Sink the Bismarck! because: Attempted to clarify #8. Not sure if successful
edit on 13/11/12 by Sink the Bismarck! because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Sink the Bismarck!
 

following with your last paragraph, perhaps you should read this ... or ... this ... or maybe you missed the big divide over the "death tax" (inheritance).





new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in

join