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.

 

Ideals are more important than ideas.

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 01:58 AM
link   
Hello ats! I feel I am stating something rather obvious here but because it's something I've recently learned myself, I would like to share.

I've been talking to a lot of people about politics lately, some people more enjoyable than others but what I noticed is I found myself agreeing with people identified as Democrats, people identified as reps, as libertarians. While I did not always agree with there particular methods, I could not deny I agreed with the result of their methods, which leads me to my point.

Many of us want the same thing, regardless of political affiliation.

We want more freedom.
We want government to be less corrupt.
We want people to have every chance at equality.
We want the Constitution to be upheld and honored.

These are points taken directly from my discussions with various people, the only difference was the way they believed those goals could be achieved. Overall I would desire any individual with altruistic ideals in mind to be our president, regardless of political party.

I am guilty of it myself, and have seen many others attack another for their political affiliation, and I've just learned there's no grounds for this. Attack someone for corrupt ideals ( most these people are in DC) , but not for believing in a different path, when it's the same goal. Coming to understand where others are coming from, why they believe in the path they do, and discussing opens up entirely new doors and allows for true learning and understanding of fellow humans. I believe this to be important regardless of the state of our government, as we the people are likely the only ones that can create change.

Keep being true to yourself, fellow ats members. I look forward to learning more from you

-Deadlyhope




posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 02:30 AM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope

this is exactly why I believe representative democracy can never work, we are electing small groups of people and expect them to express the diversity of their constituencies

unless I represent my own ideas, no one will EVER match my own feelings and thoughts.

party politics divides us and keeps us enslaved.
while they raid the cookie jar.



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 02:41 AM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope

The party system only creates divisiveness. It does nothing but creates animosity, conflicts, and stagnates progress in government. It's branding and labeling which voters affiliate themselves with as if they're defending their favorite football team. Their party can do no wrong. We see it here on ATS all the time.



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 02:44 AM
link   
In reply to okamitengu:

Are you suggesting a true direct democracy, with a focus on more state power and state diversity?

I've thought about that prospect before, sure would be interesting.
edit on 23-4-2014 by 1Providence1 because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-4-2014 by 1Providence1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 02:57 AM
link   
a reply to: 1Providence1

When you say "state" power - are you saying individual states - or federal gov't?

I would say individual states - and the need to recognize that laws that govern large, metropolitan areas are/should be very different than laws that govern large rural/farm areas.

There should be no way that the three large cities in the US makes laws that the rest of us "in the rural country" should be forced to live under - it's just plain stupid.

We should all learn about "Agenda 21" and what the federal gov't is attempting to do to our country, right now.



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 03:10 AM
link   
I'd agree with you but the fact that:
"We want more freedom"

America has become a PC nightmare, meaning that you only should speak out when the majority agrees with it.

Whatever happened to "I don't agree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it."
Any time freedom of speech is reprimanded or suppressed is an assault on human liberties.
edit on 23-4-2014 by rockintitz because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-4-2014 by rockintitz because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 03:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Happy1
a reply to: 1Providence1

When you say "state" power - are you saying individual states - or federal gov't?

I would say individual states - and the need to recognize that laws that govern large, metropolitan areas are/should be very different than laws that govern large rural/farm areas.

There should be no way that the three large cities in the US makes laws that the rest of us "in the rural country" should be forced to live under - it's just plain stupid.

We should all learn about "Agenda 21" and what the federal gov't is attempting to do to our country, right now.



I was referring to precisely what you described. I agree actually.

I am neither Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, or otherwise. I am an American citizen, and a proud Californian. Not only this, I am a proud human being of this lovely gem of a planet.

That said, in terms of governance, I do believe that individual states in the U.S. should be granted more leniency to free up the respective economies. Honestly, I think it would be more profitable. Not only that, but I feel people, what with state being more local, would actually give a hoot about the elections if it was their own state, and the state election was more highly revered, respected.



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 03:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: rockintitz
I'd agree with you but the fact that:
"We want more freedom"

America has become a PC nightmare, meaning that you only should speak out when the majority agrees with it.

Whatever happened to "I don't agree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it."
Any time freedom of speech is reprimanded or suppressed is an assault on human liberties.



I precisely agree with this.

I must confess, however, that certain things said, within a respective context, must be taken into consideration and sometimes acted upon, sometimes involving violence, unfortunately.

Nevertheless, the general "sense" about people these days, when it comes to talking about anything even remotely "Taboo" has become, how shall I put it, passively cowardice. Even in some of the most outspoken "liberal" places, a lot of the folks will weird out when you bring up a multitude of completely legitimate, yet "Startling" topics.



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 03:36 AM
link   
a reply to: 1Providence1
Prime example, a gay coworker started talking to me about how a man on the bus ridiculed him for holding hands with his boyfriend on the bus. Another manager started to say how that kind of speech is hateful, and should be banned. I spoke up with disgust and told them point blank, no it shouldn't, and they looked at me like I was crazy.
I told them how fifty years ago, the rest of the bus would have been clapping and agreeing with the homophobe. Nowadays people will go out of there way to clap with you. It's a great societal leap.

He seemed reassured after realizing what I said was true. So then I asked him, how would you feel if your voice was outlawed years ago?

Long story short he then understood the value of free speech.


edit on 23-4-2014 by rockintitz because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 03:43 AM
link   
a reply to: 1Providence1

I live in Wisconsin - people need to realize that their state elections are SO important. We recently had a republican governor - Walker - recalled by a bunch of state employees (I am a RN working for the state) - and the, in my opinion, the state liberal wackoos who have been stealing from the state taxpayers - with things like working overtime pay when they called in sick for their "scheduled" shift and worked the overtime shift for time and a half pay - consistently -

were surprised to find that the republican Walker was re-elected by a far wider margin when (even the state prison-officers) realized that the democrat would get rid of their gun rights (in accordance with the democrat party's war on the 2nd amendment) -

Every house in Wisconsin has at least one gun - probably more than 5 guns - because we are mostly rural - we hunt - animals - not humans - not like the criminal thugs in Milwaukee do.

A gun is a tool - and needs to be used responsibly, just like a hammer, or a knife, or a chainsaw ------

Laws for the rural population need to be different than for the urban population ---

Wisconsin is just an example -



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 09:02 PM
link   
a reply to: 1Providence1


i am doing more than suggesting it, I'm actively working towards developing it.
direct democratic republic

if I design it, its only mine, I am trying to get as many people on-board to help shape what comes out.

i prefer a local autonomous sovereign city states as opposed to nation states. they are another form of separation used to corral us into a divided mindset.

i also favour use of a secondary internet designed from the ground up for political interaction with others for direct democracy.

pm me if you want to discuss this more.. !




top topics



 
2

log in

join