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.

 

If Obama got his way. . .

page: 4
23
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2014 @ 11:38 AM
link   
Well, I see that this thread gives us an excellent example of what people here think about Obama. I don't see many facts, but boy oh boy what a load of hatred.




posted on May, 29 2014 @ 11:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sparky63
My paltry wealth that I have worked so hard for over the years would be given to his supporters to ensure their perpetual support, and I would be labeled a "racist" for complaining about it.


Hey wait.

That's not a nightmare.

It's already happening !!

Yikes !!



posted on May, 29 2014 @ 11:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
Well, I see that this thread gives us an excellent example of what people here think about Obama. I don't see many facts, but boy oh boy what a load of hatred.


Then this is a perfect oppourtunity for you to show us differently.



posted on May, 29 2014 @ 11:57 AM
link   
I also think there is a misconception that some of us hate The President.

It's not true. As a man he seems like a great dad. Seems like a nice person.

If I were to meet him as an average person. I would think he is great.

There were impossible expectations put on the guy. Save the World type thinking.

Turns out he is a human being. Seems there is just a regular guy behind the curtain.

But to say we harbor some sort of personal hatred for the man.

That is just dishonest.



posted on May, 29 2014 @ 12:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
I consider him a progressive. Someone who dislikes The Bill of Rights and US Constitution because it impedes his true goals.

Where does this definition of "progressive" come from? I consider myself a progressive, and I'd define that as someone who believes in the foundational ideas of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Your premise seems to me to be absurd, and it explains your unfounded fear of losing your rights.

In my opinion, we'd wake up in a pretty similar world to the one we went to sleep in. We'd move more quickly towards equal freedoms for all in terms of marriage, access to health care, minimum wage, religious expression, and a host of other freedoms. We'd still be seeing freedoms denied, in the form of surveillance, drone activity, government secrecy, etc. I guess I think he's mostly getting what he wants now.

But I definitely think it's not accurate to assume that "progressive" = "opposed to the Constitution/Bill of Rights." If you're assuming he's a Socialist, the definition would fit better (although then you'd be wrong, IMO).

Thanks--



posted on May, 29 2014 @ 12:18 PM
link   
Hmmmm. Is it a week day or the weekend? I mean, if it's like a Saturday morning, I might not even hear about it until Monday morning, what with the weekend and living life and the like. But if was, say a Wednesday, I'd surely know by lunch time, when I drop by ATS for some entertainment with my food.



posted on May, 29 2014 @ 12:28 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

I take great exception to the statement that a progressive is someone who feels the US Constitution and Bill of Rights stands in the way of progress. That's nonsense! I don't know a single progressive or liberal who believes such a thing. Part of the problem we are facing is that the extremists on both sides (ultra-right and ultra-left) characterize each other as the bane of society and the cause of all problems. They also insist that they alone are 100% right 100% of the time, that the other side is 100% wrong 100% of the time, thereby eliminating all ability to compromise and meet in the middle. I firmly believe this comes from the Evangelical influence on the Republican Party which caused them to become less flexible over the years. In other words, it came from the religious notion of right/wrong moral/immoral and got mixed with politics. Then, an ultra-left formed to counteract the influence. This point of view can be easily demonstrated by several scholarly works that have been published over the past thirty years. Now, with the influence of corporate money in the political process our country is going to pot and quickly. We must remember that BOTH SIDES want to support the Constitution and BOTH SIDES support the Bill of Rights; it is merely a matter of BOTH SIDES disagreeing how to interpret them. We must return to the time when people understand the difference between preference and principle and not consider every damned issue to be one of principle because if you think every issue is an urgent matter of principle then you will never budge and never compromise. This is the heart of the problem. We need to stop this 'us versus them' mentality, and go back to understanding that life is NOT all black or all white, it is MOSTLY gray. Debate is a good thing; a healthy thing. But it should never become so acrimonious that no progress can be made. That is where we are today and that is why Congress is not working.



posted on May, 29 2014 @ 12:35 PM
link   
a reply to: dovdov

a reply to: magicrat


Since you both consider yourself progressives, then please share your interpretation of freedom, The Constitution, The Bill of Rights.



posted on May, 29 2014 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: dovdov

Very well said.

I, too, believe that the mixture of faith in to the Republican ideology has become it's crutch...and it's biggest weakness.

ETA: In regards to Beezzer's point in the OP, I believe we would wake up with less freedoms. But I think the same would be the case if it were Romney, Hillary, Rubio or any of the other big names in politics.

Were screwed no matter what.
edit on 5/29/2014 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)

edit on 5/29/2014 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2014 @ 12:46 PM
link   
a reply to: magicrat

I think it has to do with 40-50 years or so of cold war propaganda. (with help by big business/corporate interests of course) tellling us that "socialism or communism == brutal maoist/stalinist regime"..



posted on May, 29 2014 @ 12:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: sheepslayer247
a reply to: dovdov

Very well said.

I, too, believe that the mixture of faith in to the Republican ideology has become it's crutch...and it's biggest weakness.

ETA: In regards to Beezzer's point in the OP, I believe we would wake up with lass freedoms. But I think the same would be the case if it were Romney, Hillary, Rubio or any of the other big names in politics.

Were screwed no matter what.


Then what do the Obama fans support?

Less freedom?

Would the same go for Romney, Clinton, Rubio?

What person as president WOULD give us more freedom?



posted on May, 29 2014 @ 12:54 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

The term "progressive" has changed over the years. Today it is used by conservatives and libertarians as an epithet, but its actual meaning relates to a person who believes that our society is inherently unfair and that because we are a nation under the rule of law certain laws are necessary to ensure justice, freedom and fairness for ALL people, not just the rich or privileged. A progressive believes that corporations have too much power and that their influence is ruining this country. They should not be given free rein and should have stiff regulations put in place to ensure they don't control our country. Unfortunately, we live in a unique time in history when psychological tactics and behavior modification techniques are used in advertising and propaganda and because of the massive influx of corporate money it doesn't hurt anyone's pocketbook to manipulate the public. Freedom must never be confused with license. Freedom DOES NOT mean you can do anything you want anytime you want. There are limits to freedom and this has been expressed in numerous Supreme Court decisions over the past 200 years, as well as excellent treatises by former Presidents, Congressmen, et.al. Extreme capitalism is just as dangerous as extreme communism (not to be confused with socialism, as most people do). Human selfishness, greed, power, and love of money destroy good government, and harm the people. I do believe that our government has become corrupt - by by "our government" I do not merely mean Obama, but the entire system under every President and every congress person. The EPA does not restrict freedom. Gun laws do not restrict freedom. Providing healthcare for every American does not restrict freedom; unless of course you consider freedom to be the right to do anything any way you want without restriction. I don't know any founding father of this nation or any Supreme Court decision that has defined our freedom that way.



posted on May, 29 2014 @ 12:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: sheepslayer247
a reply to: dovdov

Very well said.

I, too, believe that the mixture of faith in to the Republican ideology has become it's crutch...and it's biggest weakness.

ETA: In regards to Beezzer's point in the OP, I believe we would wake up with lass freedoms. But I think the same would be the case if it were Romney, Hillary, Rubio or any of the other big names in politics.

Were screwed no matter what.


Then what do the Obama fans support?

Less freedom?

Would the same go for Romney, Clinton, Rubio?

What person as president WOULD give us more freedom?



That's a trick question beez.
I have lost faith in both parties and I truly believe that no matter who gets elected we will never gain freedom. Slowly our freedoms will be removed at a pace that the average person wouldn't know until it's too late.


Sigh,
I miss America



posted on May, 29 2014 @ 12:57 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

freedom; an abstract concept that generally means unrestricted, a double edged sword when used broadly and without context.

the constitution; assuming you mean the US Constitution, a legal document setting some of the basic framework of the United states federal government.

The bill of rights is a series of 10 additions/amendments to the US constitution, these amendments were added as to give peace of mind to anti-federalists by securing various rights, both individual and collective, for the states to decide upon. Interpretation of these rights, and the extent of what falls under them has varied through out US history.



posted on May, 29 2014 @ 01:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: dovdov
a reply to: beezzer

The term "progressive" has changed over the years. Today it is used by conservatives and libertarians as an epithet, but its actual meaning relates to a person who believes that our society is inherently unfair and that because we are a nation under the rule of law certain laws are necessary to ensure justice, freedom and fairness for ALL people, not just the rich or privileged. A progressive believes that corporations have too much power and that their influence is ruining this country. They should not be given free rein and should have stiff regulations put in place to ensure they don't control our country. Unfortunately, we live in a unique time in history when psychological tactics and behavior modification techniques are used in advertising and propaganda and because of the massive influx of corporate money it doesn't hurt anyone's pocketbook to manipulate the public.


relates to a person who believes that our society is inherently unfair

I think this is where I would have the most issue. I believe our society is basically fair. Our outcomes are not. But we all have an equal starting point. I believe that progressives want an equal or "fair" outcome. And that isn't possible.

Some will always want more.
Some will always achieve more.
Some will always DO more.

And progressives don't like that. (in my humble. . . )




Freedom must never be confused with license. Freedom DOES NOT mean you can do anything you want anytime you want. There are limits to freedom and this has been expressed in numerous Supreme Court decisions over the past 200 years, as well as excellent treatises by former Presidents, Congressmen, et.al. Extreme capitalism is just as dangerous as extreme communism (not to be confused with socialism, as most people do). Human selfishness, greed, power, and love of money destroy good government, and harm the people. I do believe that our government has become corrupt - by by "our government" I do not merely mean Obama, but the entire system under every President and every congress person. The EPA does not restrict freedom. Gun laws do not restrict freedom. Providing healthcare for every American does not restrict freedom; unless of course you consider freedom to be the right to do anything any way you want without restriction. I don't know any founding father of this nation or any Supreme Court decision that has defined our freedom that way.


You confuse freedom with privilege.

Freedom is doing what you want, how you want, when you want to do it.

Privilege means that the controlling central authority allows a certain type of behavior. To me, that speaks of less freedoms.


I do appreciate you taking the time to provide some insight, however.



posted on May, 29 2014 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

It's my opinion that most of his fans wholeheartedly supported hope and change. They knew something was wrong in America and something needed to change.

Too bad we didn't get that.

As for fans of Romney, Rubio and such, I would be willing to say that they support pretty much the same thing. Hope and change. They just happen to vote Republican.

The only person I think would give us more freedom would be a Ron Paul-type of candidate. But we aren't ready for that. We're still stuck on Left vs. Right and we fail to notice that there is an alternative.



posted on May, 29 2014 @ 01:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: NonsensicalUserName
a reply to: beezzer

freedom; an abstract concept that generally means unrestricted, a double edged sword when used broadly and without context.


Freedom is a double-edged sword. It doesn't just mean that good will result, but bad sometimes happens as well.


the constitution; assuming you mean the US Constitution, a legal document setting some of the basic framework of the United states federal government.


I'd put it as setting limitations on what government can do.


The bill of rights is a series of 10 additions/amendments to the US constitution, these amendments were added as to give peace of mind to anti-federalists by securing various rights, both individual and collective, for the states to decide upon. Interpretation of these rights, and the extent of what falls under them has varied through out US history.


Interpretations do vary. But only for political gain, in my humble opinion.



posted on May, 29 2014 @ 01:21 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Numerous studies have been published over the years showing that our society IS NOT inherently fair. Institutional racism and privilege still exist. This means many people do not have an equal start. Sure, of course it is impossible to ensure perfect outcomes every time, but we as human being should seek to do the best we can to help each other. One of the founding principles of this nation, even before our rights were codified, is "I am my brother's keeper," in other words that we as human beings have a responsibility to help each other when we're down, lift each other up, and ensure fairness to all. Government is a good method for doing that. No government is perfect because people aren't perfect. But to say that everyone has an equal start is completely wrong, not just as a matter of opinion but as a matter of fact.

From a strict definition you are right that freedom is the ability to do what you want, how you want when you want, but that is not the freedom we have in America - and never have. We do not, for example, have the freedom to scream "fire!" in a crowded theater when there is no fire. We do not have the freedom to stab a person who looks at us funny. This idea can be used in other areas, such as we should not have the freedom to use our advantage to harm another person, or to make profit at the expense of others if it means we are rewarded but others harmed. There should never be the notion of "it's not personal, it's only business." In broad terms the belief that we can do anything we want without restriction has been called license. Freedom in America has been widely debated, but what has remained consistent for most of our history - up until the last quarter of the 20th century - is that freedom means we have the right to live without fear, without interference from government in our daily lives to express ourselves, or make decisions. However, this does not mean that there cannot or should not be laws restricting decisions and expression. There are, for example, laws against antisemitism and hate speech. There are laws against corporate monopolies. There are laws that are meant to ensure we do not harm others, even unintentionally. Why? Because people, although good intentioned most of the time, do not always do the right thing. We are a nation under the rule of law because we need laws, rules and regulations to lay out proper and improper behavior, with just and fair penalties for breaking them. Restricting corporations from, say, dumping chemicals into water sources or polluting the air is not a removal of freedom, it is ensuring that human and global health trump the 'freedom' to make money and do what you want. Stricter gun laws would not eliminate freedom, they would help bring about a better sense of personal responsibility. Without certain laws we would become a nation of rogues, anarchists and opportunists.



posted on May, 29 2014 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

I just found the following on a website, and I think it's a good way to illustrate part of my answer to you. It is a website meant to help children in the learning process, but it puts the argument in a way that I think is simple enough to understand, yet still respectful enough for a mature person to appreciate:

"Freedom: Having the opportunity to decide to go from building a marble run, eating a snack, skipping rope, and then drawing. The consequences are skill building, socializing, fine motor skills, nutrition, artistic expression, and joy.

License: Leaving the marble run pieces on the floor when you are done with them, throwing your crackers across the room, swinging the rope around too close to other people, and breaking colored pencils in half. The consequences are endangering others, destroying materials, attracting bugs, and creating messes for other people to clean up and resent you for.

So maybe the differences between freedom and license have to do with the nature of the consequences. We support one another to enjoy the actions that do not violate the rights or others. We intervene when the actions have negative effects on the rights of others. We also intervene because everybody needs to test and feel the limits of what is okay with other people in order to know how to behave. Not knowing how to behave is very scary for people, especially young people."

Our freedom only goes to a certain limit. When our decision of personal freedom infringes on the freedom and rights of others that is where laws must stop it.
edit on 29-5-2014 by dovdov because: clarification



posted on May, 29 2014 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: dovdov

I wrote this about 2 years ago.

I'll post a link to it (ATS forum) at the bottom of the page.

We've had a week of tragedy, sorrow, heated rhetoric, and talk. I've ranted, politicians have ranted, people here have ranted, media pundits have ranted. Now is the time to take a deep breath and speak about the issues in a calm and reasoned manner. Americans shouldn't take their freedoms for granted. Yes, a horrible event recently occurred. Tomorrow, another may happen. It's what happens when you have freedom. Freedom to be who you want to be is a great thing.
But what many fail to understand is that freedom carries with it a price. In that there might be people who want to be free to hurt or harm others. We can't just allow freedoms to exist that are going to be used for the betterment of people. Because then it stops being a freedom and instead, becomes an allowance. Personal responsibility for ones actions are paramount in any truly free society. Some haven't, some won't take that responsibility. So do we deny freedoms for everyone based on the irresponsibility on a few? Do we deny intrinsic freedoms for everyone because some may not handle their own in a manner that is acceptable?
What we have to ask ourselves is how much freedom are we willing to sacrifice in order to have a safe society. Some here argue that America has too many freedoms. That we squandered our freedoms on things that have no value. But isn't that the very definition of freedom? Don't we have that inalienable right to "spend" our freedoms how we see fit? In order to hold onto our freedoms we must accept the fact that horrible tragedies will occur. There will be more shootings. There will be more useless deaths. That is a fact. Some people will always use their freedoms to act horribly. We must embrace the survivors, remember and honour the lost lives. But we must also embrace and hold onto our freedoms and our rights. Eliminating all driving would certainly end all traffic accidents. All traffic-related deaths. But is the sacrifice worth the value of freedoms lost? I leave it to you, society, to decide which is more important. The freedom to reach for the stars always carries with it the risk of falling. But nothing of any value doesn't carry with it, an element of risk.
Thank you for reading. beez - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 29-5-2014 by beezzer because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
23
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join