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.
Originally posted by freedomSlave
Or ya know people could vote for some one different there might of been a chance with Ron Paul . Whatever as I have said before the majority of people are happy with how things are the way they are in your country and mine some people are afraid of change afraid of the unknown and will always want things to stay the same and seem content with subtle change that they don't really notice.
Until there is a tipping point where the majority want change or what ever we will still be seen as the dude holding a sign on the street corner ranting about the end of the world
Originally posted by freedomSlave
I used to think like that too until I have had a family to support ya know mouths to feed , shelter to provide , electricity to cook and to heat our place in the winter .Diapers, formula . what about clean drinking water , who will man the water treatment centers . I hope you do see the flaw in this idea of yours ? I hope ... As Des had said what about logistics , your Idea who cause more death and famine that what these greedy executives could ever achieve by low balling minimum wage
Originally posted by Destinyone
reply to post by mrdeadfolx
I applaud your enthusiasm...but, it wouldn't be all Unicorns and Rainbows like you envision. I hope you are ready for all out civil war...because that is what you are looking at, with your scenario.
Des
Originally posted by mrdeadfolx
Originally posted by Destinyone
reply to post by mrdeadfolx
I applaud your enthusiasm...but, it wouldn't be all Unicorns and Rainbows like you envision. I hope you are ready for all out civil war...because that is what you are looking at, with your scenario.
Des
But isn't that what we're looking at regardless? Whether we do nothing or do something, our government is preparing for civil unrest. Honestly? We have nothing to lose. It's just going to make the inevitable happen sooner
Originally posted by MildCat
The US won't go on strike, just like my England wont go on strike, or any other nation. The people have been so dumbed down, things that would have seemed horiffic 30 years ago are just accepted as a normality.
Over here, we have lost more than the US could ever imagine, arguably, we have more to strike over, but we wont. It is so very painful for me to watch
Originally posted by TDawgRex
Just a couple of problems with this. After a period of time, what would we eat. The average American grocery store has only three days of food on the shelves. What about those in need of medical care, who'll take care of them? A strike would take a lot more than days...it would have to be a long term thing to actually have a impact.
I think it would get violent quickly. Those in charge would just sit back and watch us destroy each other.edit on 6-3-2013 by TDawgRex because: spelling
Originally posted by mrdeadfolx
Three days is plenty. Again, this isn't going to be longterm by any means. The logistics on how quickly corporations would lose money in a single day because no one was working, is mind-boggling. And everyone on here knows that most if not all major corporations are in bed with the government. That's how we'd have their attention. But again, I cannot stress this enough.. the strike has to be very fast and decisive. Like a sucker punch out of nowhere. The only thing in offices across the world is fluttering paper in empty cubicles. Otherwise we're all going to just fall flat on our face.
There is NO evidence that DHS has 2,700 tanks.
The people have been so dumbed down, things that would have seemed horiffic 30 years ago are just accepted as a normality.
Meanwhile, in September 1901, an anarchist shot President McKinley, and Vice President Theodore Roosevelt assumed the presidency. The United States now entered the 20th century and an era of reform.
PROGRESSIVISM AND REFORM
The growth of industry and cities created problems. A small number of people held a large proportion of the nation’s wealth while others fell into poverty. Workers faced long hours, dangerous conditions, poor pay, and an uncertain future. Big business became closely allied with government, and political machines, which offered services in return for votes, controlled some city governments. As the United States entered the 20th century, demand arose to combat these ills.
Progressive reformers sought to remedy the problems created by industrialization and urbanization. To progressives, economic privilege and corrupt politics threatened democracy. Never a cohesive movement, progressivism embraced many types of reform. Progressives strove, variously, to curb corporate power, to end business monopolies, and to wipe out political corruption. They also wanted to democratize electoral procedures, protect working people, and bridge the gap between social classes. Progressives turned to government to achieve their goals. National in scope, progressivism included both Democrats and Republicans. From the 1890s to the 1910s, progressive efforts affected local, state, and national politics. They also left a mark on journalism, academic life, cultural life, and social justice movements.
(Theodore) Roosevelt made intervention America’s new global policy. He provoked Panama into war of independence from Colombia with the intention of building an American canal that would link the Atlantic to the Pacific. He would flex his muscles in the Caribbean by forcing Haiti to clear itself of European debt (in fear of Europe taking action for such debt) and he would send troops to occupy Cuba, among other things.
Roosevelt’s big stick diplomacy was arrogant and entirely fitting of its phallic name. No other president since Teddy Roosevelt has practiced power politics so overtly nor has any president since. He believed so strongly it was America’s duty to intervene, despite clear warning from the founders. Surely he was a realist; an international Darwinian. He wanted America to play a large, international, hegemonic role, no matter the burdens; no matter the costs.
Originally posted by Redfreak
reply to post by freedomSlave
Lol, another reason to buy weapons. Need to survive by fending off animals of all sorts!
I for one like meat in my diet too.