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.

 

1984 is here, Democrat wants to punish incorrect thought (climate deniers)

page: 5
23
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 01:05 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Ahhh. I must have misinterpreted your post then. I sincerely apologize for getting salty with you.




posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 01:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: beezzer

Ahhh. I must have misinterpreted your post then. I sincerely apologize for getting salty with you.


*laughing*

If that was "getting salty" then you are fine.

I've had much worse. It come with "thinking differently" around here.



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 01:09 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Well, that was salty for ME.

Heh. Of course you're allowed to think how you please. Even we disagree on things, I still respect your opinion.



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 01:12 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen


The Koch Bros started one faction of "The Tea Party".

The dozens of other factions are from other groups and other people.

But the "* SCARE *" factor is universal among Progressives and other concerned opposition.


(larger image)

The first Tea Party domain and website, copyright 2002, Citizens for a Sound Economy.

From Wikipedia - Citizens for a Sound Economy:


Citizens for a Sound Economy (CSE) was established in 1984 by David H. Koch and Charles Koch of Koch Industries. Ron Paul was appointed as the first chairman of the organization. "CSE received almost $5 million from various Koch foundations between 1986 and 1990, and David Koch and several Koch Industries employees serve[d] as directors of CSE and the CSE Foundation."[1] In 1989, CSE purchased the financially troubled Tax Foundation and operated it as a subsidiary from CSE's offices until the split in 2004.[2][disputed – discuss] In 2003, Dick Armey became the chairman of CSE after retiring from Congress.[3] In 2004, Citizens for a Sound Economy split into FreedomWorks, for 501c4 advocacy activity, and Americans for Prosperity Foundation. Dick Armey stayed as chairman of FreedomWorks, while David Koch stayed as Chairman of Americans for Prosperity Foundation.


That's like saying the apostles created "one sect" of Christianity and ignoring the fact that none of the others would exist without the original.

I think the scare factor is biggest among GOP politicians who have become targets of the TP for not being insane enough.



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 01:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

That post wasn't directed at you, but to everyone who looked at ideology first.

I actually like this thread because it was very telling.

The concept of punishing different ideas apparently comes with a caveat to ideology.


I must admit, I put in the word Democrat on purpose.
It would not have been as widely read or examined without a partisan word on ATS.

If one wants their ideas examined on ATS, one must have a catchy title, that will get people involved.

I have to admit that the move toward totalitarianism has been in effect through many ongoing administrations in the past, regardless of political affiliation. But then no one would have paid attention to the thread or read it.
OR be willing to see that blindly supporting an ideology can and will lead directly to a totalitarian regime.


Of course, you saw through that, not surprisingly
and saw the meat and the purpose of the OP



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 01:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
I'd say banning the term "climate change" is very 1984 in and of itself.


I happen to agree with you here. Though I have to admit I found that quite out of character for Republicans in this country.



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 01:16 PM
link   
a reply to: grandmakdw

If see what Al Gore said as an attack on freedom, what do you say to people who tell others not to vote for candidates that support pro-choice?



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 01:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: grandmakdw
Check out these links, all I'm going to say


I don't know what you're responding to in my post. I looked at the first link and I don't know what you're trying to tell me. I'm not going to try to figure out what you're trying to say by trying to read your mind or read through a bunch of stuff that has nothing to do with Al Gore punishing anyone. If you want to tell me something, you're going to have to come right out and say it. Sorry.

This thread is hyperbole and not true. That's all that really matters to me. All this other superfluous crap is meaningless.


It is demonstrating our slow march toward totalitarianism

we are all like frogs in a pot

the pot warms up

with rhetoric demanding punishment for incorrect thought

and leads to boiling

where the frog (people and freedom of thought,speech, ideas)

die.


If you choose not to read the links, that is up to you. But then saying you don't get the point is redundant when you won't read the links, which lead up to the main point.



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 01:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: grandmakdw

If see what Al Gore said as an attack on freedom, what do you say to people who tell others not to vote for candidates that support pro-choice?


Voting ones conscience is fine, no problem

Suggesting that people should punish others for incorrect thought is an attack on freedom.
See the links I posted previously (look for a set of links with very little verbage before the links), which show a pattern of calling for punishment for incorrect thought



BTW: You choose an example that does not fit my beliefs, you made an incorrect assumption about me.



edit on 1Mon, 16 Mar 2015 13:27:46 -0500pm31603pmk161 by grandmakdw because: addition



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 01:25 PM
link   
a reply to: grandmakdw

That is a very detailed post but it fails to answer my question, How is Al Gore linked to NSA surveillance and Samsung?



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 01:26 PM
link   
a reply to: grandmakdw

I think your ideals are getting in the way of logical thought, honestly.



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 01:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie
a reply to: grandmakdw

That is a very detailed post but it fails to answer my question, How is Al Gore linked to NSA surveillance and Samsung?







If you don't get it after my detailed explanation, then you won't get it.

There is nothing else I can say that will help you to understand.



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 01:46 PM
link   
Lets put a price on carbon that will do absolutely nothing but make people like Al Gore rich. Over 7 billion people on this planet and putting a price on carbon for only 330 million of them is going do what.



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 01:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: smkymcnugget420

Yes, because reddit is the cutting edge of political discourse. *eyeroll*


no its terrible but that doesnt stop ATS from emulating them. they even stole that # alien thing as a topic icon and started doing AMA's its pathetic.

did you think my comment was supportive if Reddit? i was mocking ATS for copycatting their format. my point was good luck going on reddit and holding an opposing view on anything. 90% of the people on Reddit would have you jailed for thinking differently. and ATS is on the fast track to the same.



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: smkymcnugget420

I haven't met a single person on ATS that would want to have you jailed for having ANY opinion let alone for thinking differently than the majority. Your post reeks of hyperbole.



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 02:09 PM
link   
a reply to: grandmakdw

You are right, I don't understand- and I still haven't got an answer to my question.

The fact is that you made a tenuous link to Al Gore and a prophetic work of fiction. No one can deny that 1984 is science fiction cum science fact but I don't understand why you mentioned Al gore at all-why not mention the notorious figures that have opposed free speech like Chairman Mao, Pol Pot, etc?



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 02:10 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Hooray for the *Strong* Tea Party !!

Buckle your seat belts.




posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Thecakeisalie

Because simply put, that assertion does not support the narrative being pushed here.



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 02:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: grandmakdw
It is demonstrating our slow march toward totalitarianism


And you think I need convincing of that why?

My argument with you here is the sensationalistic, hyperbolic and untrue nature of your thread title and your accusations toward Al Gore. Not because I like or support Al Gore (I think he's a hypocrite). Just because I disagree with dishonesty does not mean I think everything is peachy-keen in the US government. That's a leap of illogical proportions that you're willing to make, but I am not.

But now that you mention it...



If you choose not to read the links, that is up to you. But then saying you don't get the point is redundant when you won't read the links, which lead up to the main point.


Al Gore's words do NOT indicate anything about a totalitarian society. He's just a guy telling people to vote for who they want... You ramble on about thoughts becoming illegal, yet provide no proof of that.

The gov't has put out guidelines forever. The existence of guidelines do NOT indicate totalitarianism or thought police.

The NSA spying on Americans has NOTHING to do with "thought control".


originally posted by: grandmakdw
Voting ones conscience is fine, no problem


That's what Al Gore did...


Suggesting that people should punish others for incorrect thought is an attack on freedom.


Even if that DID happen (which it didn't) how is making a suggestion an attack on freedom???



BTW: You choose an example that does not fit my beliefs, you made an incorrect assumption about me.


Yeah, that seems to be going around...



posted on Mar, 16 2015 @ 02:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
I'd say banning the term "climate change" is very 1984 in and of itself.

The street runs both ways.


I agree, the whole conversation was much clearer and easier to debate when it was still being called anthropomorphic global warming.

Soon, it will be called anomalous atmospheric fluctuation, who is going to challenge that I ask?




top topics



 
23
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join