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.

 

Stephen King's Hypocirsy

page: 6
11
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 04:33 PM
link   
Every immigrant class is treated poorly.

That is also an American Tradition.

Mexicans seem to be holding their own.




posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 07:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: chiefsmom
a reply to: AutumnWitch657

Yep, mine too.

That came here Legally.



And if we had the same process that we did then, majority of the people that are coming now would be 'legal' too.



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 08:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

Depends on how far back you are talking.

Even early 1900s there was a process, a path to citizenship you had to follow. These days there are people who are middle aged, have lived here all their lives and cannot speak english and are not legal. That tells me there has been zero effort to blend with our society.

I lived 5 years in Costa Rica...I learned the language. I had no intentions of staying so I did not seek citizenship. If I had intended to, I would have. Legally.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 07:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80

originally posted by: chiefsmom
a reply to: AutumnWitch657

Yep, mine too.

That came here Legally.



And if we had the same process that we did then, majority of the people that are coming now would be 'legal' too.


Actually, that's not entirely true. Entry through Ellis Island was pretty strict--you had to have a sponsor, either a relative or employer waiting to certify that you had a place to stay and a job when you got in, you had to pass a medical inspection, you had to be absent disease both physical and mental, you had not to have a criminal record (to the best they could determine), and so forth. A lot of people did get turned away at Ellis island. Immigration was actually pretty tough back then.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 07:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Actually, that's not entirely true. Entry through Ellis Island was pretty strict--you had to have a sponsor, either a relative or employer waiting to certify that you had a place to stay and a job when you got in, you had to pass a medical inspection, you had to be absent disease both physical and mental, you had not to have a criminal record (to the best they could determine), and so forth. A lot of people did get turned away at Ellis island. Immigration was actually pretty tough back then.


This is accurate. My mother's side of the family came here when she was young and they needed already residing family members to sponsor them. My grandfather got work as a tailor (his profession) and my grandmother worked in a silk mill in Paterson, NJ.

I am all for letting in as many people that want to come here legally as it is good for the country.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 01:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80

originally posted by: chiefsmom
a reply to: AutumnWitch657

Yep, mine too.

That came here Legally.



And if we had the same process that we did then, majority of the people that are coming now would be 'legal' too.


Are you saying that I can have my very own Mexican for seven years? All I have to do is pay for their bus trip and provide living quarters and food and they have to follow my orders for seven years?

That's how my Irish ancestors arrived and I would agree to returning to that system.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 02:20 PM
link   
a reply to: GenerationGap

Indentured servitude....that was going on over 200 years ago as well, I believe.

edit on 25-7-2014 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 05:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: jrflipjr



What get's my goat is this asinine movement from the liberal camp suggesting that not helping the poor, downtrodden illegal aliens is hypocritical of Christians. Seriously? I thought following laws, policies and guidance is the Christian thing to do.

Isn't helping the poor one of the things Jesus preached about?

“If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition and then admit that we just don't want to do it.”
― Stephen Colbert

"We" means everyone.

Including Honduran,Costa Rican and wherever else parents and citizens.

The US cannot take in the world's needy. Who would take us in after that, when we are all broke?

Gets you to Heaven, sure. AND a helluva lot quicker too.

How many homeless people have you taken in this year? And those are citizens, right?

Don't get me wrong, I love King and always will. But I swear, some people shouldn't just tweet the first thing that comes to mind.

I'd add that Breitbart came up with a lame response. Makes about as much sense as King's tweets.

Harte



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 06:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: jrflipjr

Um Jesus didn't really follow laws..... Hence him getting crucified but sure go ahead and ignore that if it fits what you want


That's off topic, but you are wrong.

On topic, Christians are to follow the laws of the land, unless that goes against the law of God, and there is no law of God requiring any nation to feed and shelter every person that wants to be there, to the detriment of its own citizenry.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 06:52 PM
link   
The people who do not understand the Tea Party movement is frightening bizarre.Ok see Giant government and taxes coming think Giant bad government growing.The Tea Party is drawing a line in the sand sick and tired and fed up with gigantic government ruining the country.Same thing as the Boston tea Party threw over the Tea into the water when they get fed up with taxes and government ruining them.
edit on 25-7-2014 by Jobeycool because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 07:33 PM
link   
With the way things are going why even have the Immigration and Naturalization Service?

Open Borders for ALL. Lets get rid of the Dept of Homeland Security? Save 57 Billion. We could do a hell of lot more good with that money than have Homeland Security become a de facto military force.

Lets give legal status and attached social benefits to everyone in the World who wants to come to America. It's the Christian/American thing to do, right? I love how Progressives like to play the religion card.

Seriously, what is the point of legal immigration if we aren't going to apply and enforce it? Anyone who doesn't think that the rest of the world, sans Central America, looks at our current border issues and chuckles to themselves, is deluded. I take that back.....Central America is laughing too.

I'm all for LEGAL immigration. If you can't secure your borders, then you have a problem. It's pretty simple. Our Government, both under Republican and Democratic control have NEVER BEEN serious about having a secure border.

If you are going to get all softhearted and want to help the poor and downtrodden, why don't you help your fellow U.S. Citizens first? Better yet, go on a Mission and help or give away YOUR wealth.

Wealth Distribution on a Macro Scale means the overall quality of life of people in the U.S. declines.
Eventually illegal immigration will cease once America is no better than where they came from.
Welcome to the Progressive Future.


edit on 25-7-2014 by pavil because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 07:36 PM
link   
So in order to allow immigrants, you're obligated to allow them to stay in your home or on your land? That's a pretty big step from approving tax dollars to deal with a higher influx of illegal immigrants. Ask yourself why the GOP isn't letting ANY immigration reform through.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 09:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
That's off topic, but you are wrong.

On topic, Christians are to follow the laws of the land, unless that goes against the law of God, and there is no law of God requiring any nation to feed and shelter every person that wants to be there, to the detriment of its own citizenry.


Rational like this is why it was said it's easier for the rich to fit through the eye of a needle than get into heaven. The rich are the haves, they're often unwilling to part with what they have to help others, at most they spend a pittance of their overall wealth on charity.

It's no coincidence that all of the older major religions in the world have some concept of helping others and a lack of concern for your own material wealth as being the requirements to have a comfortable afterlife.



posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 07:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: grahag
So in order to allow immigrants, you're obligated to allow them to stay in your home or on your land? That's a pretty big step from approving tax dollars to deal with a higher influx of illegal immigrants. Ask yourself why the GOP isn't letting ANY immigration reform through.

It's the Democrats that aren't letting "ANY" through.

They have continued to insist on comprehensive reform, and not piecemeal.

Change a single line in the current law and the current problem is solved. Treat all illegals showing up at our borders the same as we treat Mexicans and Canadians (same way we would be treated by all these countries, by the way.)
The Republicans have passed that already.

But the Democrats won't even consider it because, while it will absolutely work, it won't provide them any leverage in the upcoming election.

Harte



posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 09:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

Yeah...a lack of concern for your own material wealth makes it easier for you to give to the church as well.

I call myself a Christian, but I have problems with the hypocrisy of the church of man. Any church, although from what I have seen it seems that Catholic Churches do more to help the community and poor (please, no molesting jokes..different subject altogether) than most other churches.

I guess you could say I am not religious since I feel that churches, in general, and televangelism are more interested in your bucks than in your soul.

While I would never open my doors to strangers in this world (too many sickos to risk my family) I feel that charity work should be the province of charities and churches and not the job of the govt.

Your remark about the rich is spot on. Specially with the Hollywood types... they are more interested in the press that comes with "charity" work than with the actual charity work. I am sure that some may be sincere, but there are too many stories and too many people holding their millions tightly to their vest, while contributing paltry sums. Or they contribute some time (a couple songs at a concert?) and no money. They expect the little people to contribute the money...same thing with their "green/carbon footprint" philosophy... it's ok for them to fly around in private jets and drive huge SUVs, while living in extravagant mansions that suck up the energy...it's us, the little people that should be making the adjustments.

Hypocrites one and all.



posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 09:44 AM
link   
a reply to: bbracken677

You just spent 2 paragraphs explaining to us the root reason why religion cannot be trusted to do the job, and then abdicate that role to them because you find the work dangerous or distasteful? The most Christian thing you can do is open your home to a stranger, and it sure as hell hasn't gotten any more dangerous to do over the past 2000 years.

The last paragraph has so many tangents, I actually thought it was an actual Stephen King quote.



posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 11:16 AM
link   
a reply to: 0zzymand0s

LOL nicely put


I also included the term charities, meaning charitable organizations not necessarily associated with churches.

My opinion regarding the hypocrisy of the "church of man" is, of course, my opinion. I recognize that not all feel as I do. I also know that many good works are performed by the churches so, my opinion may be extreme, I do not want to discourage those who are religious from doing what they think is the right thing to do...

Not sure I presented that in an understandable fashion, sometimes conveying thoughts and feelings distilled into words fails me. I have known and respected very devout people. I may not agree with their convictions, but I respect the depth of their faith.

I can certainly see your point...re-reading my post I had to agree with you regarding how it would be perceived.

I just do not believe that a bloated, wasteful, bureaucratic, corrupt govt can be all things to all people. Look at the mess they have made with education. Look at the bureaucratic mess that health care has become, and it just got started. Look at the Ponzi scheme that is social security. Govt matching funds? How many billions are lost because we are taxed by the feds and then that money is returned under the guise of "matching funds" by the govt to the states? We are, in effect, paying the feds to take our money and then send it back to be spent locally....wtf lol After the feds take their chunk to pay the bureaucratic clusterfunk designated to send it back.

Do you get the sense that I am not supporting the structure we refer to as our federal govt? lol

Oh, and regarding opening my doors...I have in the past done just that with people I knew who needed help. I will not do that with strangers... No matter how Christian the act is. My sense of .. common sense dictates that I should not knowingly risk my family to help another human being given that I know nothing about them. That's me... I am not advocating that others do so either. If I advocated that others do so (for instance, with the children coming across the border) I would not be surprised if someone pointed out the hypocrisy of my position when I failed to do so as well.

I feel the same way about the Hollywood knuckleheads that advocate we lower our carbon footprint when theirs is 10 times what mine is. I am not flying around in private jets, I am not living in a huge mansion nor am I driving a fleet of SUV's to transport my entourage around with me. When Gore lowers his carbon footprint to one similar to mine I may start to listen to him.... until then he can go shove it up that spot the sun never shines in.


edit on 26-7-2014 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 11:29 AM
link   
a reply to: bbracken677

Well, I wasn't particularly trying to bust your balls, and your clarification helps. Sheltering a stranger has never been easy or safe. That's why it was seen as so godly.

Regardless, I loathe Al Gore too, and agree -- in principle - with your complaints against carbon taxes and over-reliance on the government.

I share many of your concerns with organized religion and even charities. Frankly -- I feel like shoving the burden off on to them will only create more problems and abuse. Like you, I have no idea what the answer is, though I suspect that the truth is we are all hypocrites.



posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 07:59 PM
link   
a reply to: 0zzymand0s

According to many philosophies, you are correct (we are all hypocrites), the main differences being the extent lol

Yin and yang in eastern, in Christian all men are sinners in nature (basically the same principle as yin and yang).

There are few absolutes in nature....



posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 08:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
That's off topic, but you are wrong.

On topic, Christians are to follow the laws of the land, unless that goes against the law of God, and there is no law of God requiring any nation to feed and shelter every person that wants to be there, to the detriment of its own citizenry.


Rational like this is why it was said it's easier for the rich to fit through the eye of a needle than get into heaven. The rich are the haves, they're often unwilling to part with what they have to help others, at most they spend a pittance of their overall wealth on charity.

It's no coincidence that all of the older major religions in the world have some concept of helping others and a lack of concern for your own material wealth as being the requirements to have a comfortable afterlife.


The point on which I commented had nothing at all to do with individuals choosing to help those in need. The point I addressed was that it isn't hypocritical of Christians to follow the laws of the land in regard to illegal aliens.

As for the rest of your assumptions, you are completely off base. I am a long way from rich; heck, we aren't even comfortable at this point. Save that barb for someone to whom it applies, and stop making assumptions.




top topics



 
11
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join