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.

 

Right wing nutters and their fantasy of a race war

page: 10
28
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 05:39 PM
link   
Here we go again. You have to understand that it is in the best interest of government and their ilk to keep white, black and everyone else at odds so they can further their agenda. A race war? Who would that benefit? The government would declare martial law, they would confiscate guns, take power from the states and declare a king.

We are pawns in the game and we are too stupid to realize we are pawns. It is time to take our country back...all of us legal American citizens. Now...with that said, how many people are willing to give up their "Obama phones", EBT cards and allowances to obtain freedom? Anyone?

Yeah...didn't think so.




posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 05:43 PM
link   
a reply to: mojom

I like how you try to isolate each one to a certain construct. But it is not that simple unless the party, identifies themselves and their goals by name. There is no Conservative party, only those who identify themselves as conservatives. However, there are plenty of people and examples even within todays Government who do Identify themselves as Progressives and make their goals known. It's not that hard to see the truth in this case.



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 05:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: mojom

originally posted by: beezzer

And this is why I would consider you a progressive.


And that is why I put zero value on the things you consider.


Fair enough. But while you endorse government growth and expansion or even justify it's size, there will be a reason why I consider your ideology 'progressive' and why I consider all the candidates progressive.

Not asking for your blessing or permission.

I just expanded on my reply to you.



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 05:54 PM
link   
a reply to: TDawgRex

They are all still just labels.

You just don't want to join Conservatives with Republicans. But you don't have any problem linking all Liberals with Democrats, all Democrats with Progressives or even Republicans with Progressives.

Basically, you just join everyone you don't agree with as Progressive and then link Progressives with "Everything that is wrong in the world". That may be very nice and organized in your mind but that doesn't reflect reality.

I don't know what you label yourself, but you seem to group anything you don't agree with as "Progressive" and then just link "Progressive" with anything bad and the source of all the negative things you see around you.

That just isn't accurate no matter how nicely organized it may seem to you.



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 05:54 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer



And this is why I would consider you a progressive.


Why would you consider their statement being indicative of progressivism? I would say, when looking at it without a political blinder, it is spot-on. It's common sense that a government would grow or shrink in proportion to it's population size.

Currently, our government is too large. It needs to be put back in to it's proper proportion, but politicians from both sides do not want that and the people that call for smaller government, in general, do not have any decent ideas on where to make the cuts.

Most smaller government proponents think we should cut welfare and other social services, but they happily overlook how those programs are a drop in the bucket compared to defense and security spending, corporate waivers and such.

It is my personal opinion that most of the smaller government proponents do not have a clue what they are talking about and fall short in the debate because they cannot articulate a common sense plan of action that it would take to achieve smaller government.



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 05:58 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

If you want to justify the size of government, that is fine by me.

I just happen to disagree and will label those that embrace government accordingly.



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 06:01 PM
link   
a reply to: mojom

Your words. Not mine. But I'm fine with your opinion of my thought processes as I know your wrong in oh, so many ways. I don't lump labels, but apparently you do. I identify people based upon their actions first, and words second.

It's actually pretty easy. You should try it. It's a common sense approach and takes no prisoners.

edit on 20-6-2015 by TDawgRex because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 06:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
Fair enough. But while you endorse government growth and expansion or even justify it's size, there will be a reason why I consider your ideology 'progressive' and why I consider all the candidates progressive.

Not asking for your blessing or permission.

I just expanded on my reply to you.


But I didn't just endorse Bigger Government. I didn't endorse any size of Government at all. If the Size of Government is what mattered and Smaller is always better then if we removed all Government we'd have a perfect society, right??? Is that what you're saying???

If it's the size that matters rather than the efficiency then let's remove the Executive Branch, Dept. of Education and National Defense. Now, Government is smaller than before. But did that result in improving anything or did that make things worse???

Just saying "Smaller Government" isn't an answer??? Lot's of other countries have smaller Governments than we do, does that automatically mean they are better and more efficient than ours???

If smaller is better then why isn't it better to cut our military in half??? Maybe we should cut all institutions in half also if smaller is better.



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 06:04 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Bingo was his name-o!!!

You get it. Please help me explain it because I don't seem to be able to explain it myself.



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 06:07 PM
link   
a reply to: mojom

Hyperbolic responses to cutting government.

Government size is in direct relation to the laws and regulations that it produces.

It's talk like this that calls for higher taxes to feed the ever increasing growth of government.

I could think of dozens of programs and cuts.

I could give dozens of validations for the cuts.

As I'm sure the violins and harps would come out defending every reason for it's growth.

You want to justify it?

I don't really care.

I will label those who DO justify it accordingly and always support and be a proponent for reductions in growth, taxation and size of government.



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 06:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: TDawgRex
a reply to: mojom

Your words. Not mine. But I'm fine with your opinion of my thought processes as I know your wrong in oh, so many ways. I don't lump labels, but apparently you do. I identify people based upon their actions first, and words second.

It's actually pretty easy. You should try it. It's a common sense approach and takes no prisoners.


Really??? So when you make comments like,



Proggies want to tell us what to eat, how much we should make, that we can't own firearms for our own good and the list goes on. They want total control.


you're looking at them objectively and without lumping them all together, is that right???



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 06:14 PM
link   
STAFF NOTE



For those not familiar with the Mud Pit, slightly different guidelines apply, so please read the following

About The Political Mud-Pit

edit on Sat Jun 20 2015 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 06:16 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Beez, I'm not saying Government shouldn't be smaller than it is now. It probably should as it's overloaded and bloated and corrupt.

However, I don't attribute Government Inefficiency to be the result of it being too big. I attribute it being too big because it's inefficient. If it operated the way it should it would naturally result in cutting away all the BS that is dragging it down now. One does effect the other. However, just making it smaller won't automatically make it more efficient but making it more efficient would automatically change it's size. In our case, it would make it smaller.

I agree that it's too big now. But just saying make it smaller isn't any kind of solution. If you made it operate correctly it would by it's very nature cut the bloat in the process thereby making it smaller. The size is in relation to how efficient it is, not the other way around.

But according to you, No Government is the ultimate Freedom. In a way you're correct. You would then be free to eek out your survival as an individual against the hordes of others who trampled you as their society grew on top of your individual paradise.



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 06:16 PM
link   
a reply to: mojom

I'm looking at the Party, not the people when I say that. The leaders who spout their views. And if the people follow those views, then yes, I lump them in as well. It's only fair as far as I am concerned. I like the idea of a clear and well defined enemy. It makes it so much easier to fight without collateral damage. LOL

People who follow the progressive ideology are as much a scourge upon humanity as is ISIS I think. There is no place for either. They're both a cancer that must be cut out.



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 06:19 PM
link   
a reply to: mojom

No, I've never advocated for no government.

But please provide for me an example where a growth in government, a growth in laws, regulations, bills, executive actions, rules. . . . has led to more freedom, more liberty, more room for individuality.

If you can show me that, then perhaps I could endorse bigger government.



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 06:28 PM
link   
a reply to: mojom

Every time an individual or politician or party begs for an increase in taxes, it is not for just a necessary program, it is feeding a bloated, overfed beast.

Every time that another law is passed or another department created, it is justifying more money from the tax payer to feed the bloated beast.

In order to even start decreasing government waste and inefficiency, you have to put it on a diet.

Fighting any tax increase is just a start. It forces government to actually work within its means and becomes, by default, less inefficient.



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 06:28 PM
link   
a reply to: mojom

Gimme a break. Hillary, Soros, Obama, Valerie, etal, have all said they know better than me on how I should live my life. THEY are the ones who are trying to reduce my freedoms.

I do look at them objectively and expect the same in return, but am met with nothing but hate. Just because I think different than them. Well, what goes around, comes around.

Not all liberals or Democrats are Progressives. I understand that. But I can see a Progressive when they present themselves. I can smell the arrogance a mile away.



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 06:30 PM
link   
a reply to: TDawgRex

Ok, well that is exactly what I was saying earlier. I said that there are the Official Organizational Policies and they hardly represented the majority of it's members.

So whatever the Progressive Party Organizers are saying I highly doubt it represents what the people who call themselves Progressives believe.

Most progressives by today's meaning usually just means some kind of liberal minded person. Basically what I said in my first post. That most of them have a Liberal Social mindset, they want efficient Gov., social justice and equality and welcome progress and change. They don't all have some text book ideology or agenda that can be applied equally to them all.



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 06:33 PM
link   
a reply to: mojom

Now that's where you're wrong and you identify yourself as a liberal.

You assume because we want to cut government that we want NO government. That's the typical, knee-jerk liberal response. It's hyperbole, and it gets used because usually the one side does not want to cut the size and scope of government at all, not even to streamline it.



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 06:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Khaleesi
a reply to: christophoros

I am a white (with Native American background) conservative lesbian southern Christian (yes we do exist). This youngster does not represent me nor does he represent most of the people I know. I resent the association you have drawn to all southern white conservative Christians. Yes I said ALL because you used a broad brush. You did not say 'some' or 'most' or 'a few'. Your rant was all inclusive and it is insulting.



No offense but I think "conservative lesbian" is an oxymoron. The conservatives do absolutely nothing for you. They hate you and would lock you up and throw away the key if they could. How can you back something that is completely against you? Of course, that nut kid doesn't represent all conservatives by any means. However when you find a dyed in the wool racist, guess what? He will be a conservative and probably a tea partier.

And Ketso, I'm a liberal progressive and I am absolutely for cutting the size of government.
edit on Sat June 20th, 2015 by damwel because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
28
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join