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.
So, 27 registration forms out of 40,000, justifies disenfranchising 39,976 voters?
and you just quoted from Alex Jones' site, and expect to be taken seriously by anyone anywhere?
originally posted by: Onslaught2996
a reply to: OccamsRazor04
See here is the thing I could never understand why Liberals were against ID laws and Conservatives for.
I always thought both sides were racist to assume that voters who could not afford ID's were poor and minority.
Now I am seeing why they want ID's..they can put a face to the name now. They can now target people by race because an ID card would not lie.
Of course it is hypothetical...but I would not put anything past a republican...
In closing I just wanted to tell you, real quick, after we get through this runoff, you know the Democrats are working hard, and all these stories about them, you know, registering all these minority voters that are out there and others that are sitting on the sidelines, if they can do that, they can win these elections in November.
This morning, we told you of an audio clip provided to us by Better Georgia, the Democratic-leaning group, of remarks made by Secretary of State Brian Kemp to a group of Gwinnett Republicans in July.
Yes, the secretary of state raised the specter of ACORN, and, yes, the speech was a partisan one. But Kemp wasn’t saying what Better Georgia wanted us to think he was saying.
I'm not surprised that you absorbed those, er, theories whole-cloth though
originally posted by: Gryphon66
So, to you, the phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat" means installing a despot? Have you read the works of Marx? I would agree with you in regard to the way Lenin and certainly Stalin interpreted the phrase, but neither is what Marx meant if you read it in context ... but I just bet I'm barking in the wind on that one.
Marx stated that in a proletarian-run society, the state should control the "proceeds of labour" (i.e. all the food and products produced), and take from them that which was "an economic necessity", namely enough to replace "the means of production used up", an "additional portion for expansion of production" and "insurance funds" to be used in emergencies such as natural disasters. Furthermore, he believed that the state should then take enough to cover administrative costs, funds for the running of public services, and funds for those who were physically incapable of working. Once enough to cover all of these things had been taken out of the "proceeds of labour", Marx believed that what was left should then be shared out amongst the workers, with each individual getting goods to the equivalent value of how much labour they had invested.[11] In this manner, those workers who put in more labour and worked harder would get more of the proceeds of the collective labour than someone who had not worked as hard.
Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing, but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.—Critique of the Gotha Program (1875)
The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution.—Manifesto of the Communist Party[2]
"just know" I haven't read any of that material, and that you offer it in such a condescending way. But if you got the same tone back, hoo-boy, you're just being attacked.
originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
Squabbles between D and R on voter fraud are simply more conflict created by elites. Does it really matter that Gore lost and Bush won ultimately? Does it matter that Bush won in 04 and his fellow Bonesman John Kerry lost? Probably not a whole lot considering the control the elites have over both parties.
Whole cloth? How the he&& do you know how I have absorbed these theories? Especially when you have not even read them yourself?
originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: Gryphon66
"just know" I haven't read any of that material, and that you offer it in such a condescending way. But if you got the same tone back, hoo-boy, you're just being attacked.
Mostly because you seem to be unable to argue a point without resorting to personal attacks. Is there any way at all to get you to stop that and just debate civilly? And also you do this to others you disagree with, so I know it's not just me.
Well, have you read ANY of it EVER? Just tell me now if you have read even a portion of Creature From Jekyll Island, or if you've even heard of it.
Something tells me that if you had read anything of Antony Sutton, you would not have had to make silly remarks about the Alex Jones website, because you would have understood the points therein.