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: 11
28
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 06:36 PM
link   
a reply to: mojom

I think that we can all agree on wanting an efficient government. I have a Bro-in-Law who thinks I should give up my Military pension so he can get more money off of welfare. That's flippin' infuriating and my idiot sister is lucky she is not a widow.

I run into this mindset every day, both in real life and on-line.

Now can you understand my frustration? These idiots are voting and breeding.




posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 06:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: introvert

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


Any government, whether it is small, big or just right, must be justified in some manner, correct?



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


Why shouldn't we embrace government? The republic is a great design that allows us to govern ourselves. That does not mean I embrace out-of-control government. Do you not like the government the constitution gave us?



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 06:39 PM
link   
a reply to: damwel

Every racist I have ever run into was a liberal. And yet they still voted for Obama, just because he ran as a Democrat. Talk about brainwashed!
And as far as the member identifying herself as a lesbian...who cares. Is she a good person is what i care about. But apparently in your book, she is not.

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



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 06:39 PM
link   
a reply to: mojom

Please, then educate us on how you are all different.

Don't just screech that you are. Explain how it's different.

We are telling you that to us ANYONE who advocates for larger government and more control of our lives via that same government is progressive.

So explain the differences, and then explain who you are more righteous than we are by telling us that to you, anyone who doesn't think like you can more or less be labeled as conservative. You more or less said it yourself - everyone "outside" your own ideology is conservative whether they are or not. So how again are you playing the game any differently or better than we are?



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 06:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: damwel

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.


You know for a fact that I hate her do you?

When did you get the ability to read my mind?



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 06:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: mojom
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.


I'm afraid that I cannot. From what I have read it appears that the difference between the size of government, population size and the amount of laws, regulations and such cannot be separated in to their individual sections as they need to be.

Apparently, the idea is that government size is directly related to the oppression it has on the people. Which is not true at all.

I believe the overall point that you are making is going over some heads, or they are being purposefully obtuse because they have a political ideology that must be upheld first.



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 06:44 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

You attribute Government to less Freedom. You also said that Government always restricts Freedom of the Individual and you want More Freedom. Therefore taken to it's logical end, No Government equals Total Freedom for the individual. Which is true. Government by definition restricts things. It creates boundaries and limits.

However, some boundaries and limits are helpful and good because total freedom of the individual isn't very productive. Roads and Bridges didn't come from an Individual, they came from a group of people who together gave up a little individual freedom to accomplish a goal they could all benefit from.

So you say that you don't advocate No Government. Ok, then apparently some Government is good then, right??? But that would mean smaller isn't always better. If some Government is acceptable is there some kind of Size Limit then and what is it???

It seems to me that when you say "Smaller Government" what you really mean is "Get rid of all the parts of Gov. I don't agree with". Now, it's true that would be smaller Government, but you're really just saying the same thing as I am when I say More Efficient Government. Only you attribute a better Government to it's size while I attribute it to it's Efficiency. One effects the other naturally but advocating for efficiency seems a better choice than simply advocating for size reduction.



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 06:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

Why shouldn't we embrace government? The republic is a great design that allows us to govern ourselves. That does not mean I embrace out-of-control government. Do you not like the government the constitution gave us?


The government did not give us the Constitution.

The Constitution protects us from government!



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 06:47 PM
link   
WHICH thread says they WANT one?
WHERE is this IDIOT I WOULD love to argue with him since MY ASS would be the one to have to FIGHT it?

I HOPE you don't mean ONE guy and then identify ALL of US with him that would make you ...OH ...you have,so indeed you are...

edit on 20-6-2015 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 06:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: introvert

Why shouldn't we embrace government? The republic is a great design that allows us to govern ourselves. That does not mean I embrace out-of-control government. Do you not like the government the constitution gave us?


The government did not give us the Constitution.

The Constitution protects us from government!


The constitution gave us government AND the rights to protect us from it. Shouldn't we embrace our republic, or is even the embracing of our constitutionally-created government considered progressive?
edit on 20-6-2015 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 06:50 PM
link   
a reply to: mojom

Every time you justify higher taxes, you are encouraging and siding with a bloated "less efficient" government.

So you have never endorsed higher taxes?



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 06:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: introvert

Why shouldn't we embrace government? The republic is a great design that allows us to govern ourselves. That does not mean I embrace out-of-control government. Do you not like the government the constitution gave us?


The government did not give us the Constitution.

The Constitution protects us from government!


The constitution gave us government AND the rights to protect us from it. Shouldn't we embrace our republic, or is even the embracing of our constitutionally-created government considered progressive?


By all means, embrace government. Side with the government.

I won't.



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 06:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: introvert

Why shouldn't we embrace government? The republic is a great design that allows us to govern ourselves. That does not mean I embrace out-of-control government. Do you not like the government the constitution gave us?


The government did not give us the Constitution.

The Constitution protects us from government!


The constitution gave us government AND the rights to protect us from it. Shouldn't we embrace our republic, or is even the embracing of our constitutionally-created government considered progressive?


By all means, embrace government. Side with the government.

I won't.


The constitution and the republic it created should be embraced. Yes, things have become out of control, but we have the ability to change that with the rights contained within the constitution.

If that makes myself or anyone else a progressive, that's acceptable.

It's humorous that someone whom stands for the constitution and the government it created would be labeled a progressive.



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 07:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: mojom

Please, then educate us on how you are all different.


Who are you "you all"??? I'm not speaking for any group of people.


Don't just screech that you are. Explain how it's different.

We are telling you that to us ANYONE who advocates for larger government and more control of our lives via that same government is progressive.


Well, that's your choice to define everyone who advocates for larger government as progressive but "Progressive" isn't defined as "Anyone who advocates for larger Government". Plenty of "Progressives" and "Liberals" and "Conservatives" want to have less government in certain areas. Many Progressives would like less spending on the Military. Many would like to remove Drug Laws and reduce government subsidies to big pharma, big ag and to the energy industries. Why don't you consider that to be less Government???


So explain the differences, and then explain who you are more righteous than we are by telling us that to you, anyone who doesn't think like you can more or less be labeled as conservative. You more or less said it yourself - everyone "outside" your own ideology is conservative whether they are or not. So how again are you playing the game any differently or better than we are?



I never claimed to be more "righteous" than anyone. In fact you won't hear me using that word at all in comparing myself to others so please don't imply that I am. I'm not saying I'm any better than anyone else either. If that is what you get from what I'm saying you are getting a completely opposite message than what I'm saying.

I'm also getting sick of having to defend myself from your inability to find some common ground here. You're always taking what I say as some kind of challenge or threat or that I'm against you completely. I'm not. I'm saying there is a middle ground that you're missing. No one side is correct. That's why I don't claim to be any label even though I seem to get labeled as everything under the sun depending upon who it is I'm talking to.

Even when we are in agreement you seem to tell me I'm still wrong so I don't know what to do at this point. There is just no way to discuss anything with some of you because you always think I'm against you. Made all the easier because you can simply label me a Progressive and attribute all the evils in the world to me and whoever else you choose to group in with me.



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 07:07 PM
link   
Government is made up of people


People make up government


Any government runs on an overriding philosophy: democracy, communism, oligarchy, fascism…etc


In theory the government in a democracy is by and for the people


Also, in theory, in a democracy the government protects the rights of the people


Some people have a philosophy that government is existentially evil:


The southerners adapted that after the government started to protect the rights of black people, whom they were oppressing, before that the government was all right with them


People should understand where there philosophy comes from!


Oh btw this countries democracy has been high-jacked by a small group of powerful rich people that have bought the government...

So now it is an oligarchy



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

originally posted by: introvert

It's humorous that someone whom stands for the constitution and the government it created would be labeled a progressive.


You didn't spend time trying to 'reinterpret" the 2nd amendment, by any chance, did you?



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 07:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: introvert

It's humorous that someone whom stands for the constitution and the government it created would be labeled a progressive.


You didn't spend time trying to 'reinterpret" the 2nd amendment, by any chance, did you?


Why would I? The second amendment does have to be interpreted. It needs to be clearly defined so that the gun-grabbers and the unintelligent gun nuts don't completely destroy our right to bear arms.

That's another topic all together. But I know that you're trying to be coy since you were caught with your foot in your mouth. I know from your previous posts that you are pro-constitutionalist. I just happened to catch you with you pants down when you said that government should not be embraced.



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 07:17 PM
link   
a reply to: mojom

Well for starters, an awful lot of people seem to think we need laws to protect us form ourselves. Ideally, the only laws we need are to protect our rights.

Look at motorcycle helmet laws or seatbelt laws. Sure, it's better for a person to wear a helmet or a seatbelt, but if a person chooses not to, who do they damage outside themselves? Usually, the only life on the line is their own. So, what business is it of the government's if they wear one or not? Why does it matter if a rider chooses not and splatters his gray matter all over the pavement?

Let a person be stupid and refuse to take responsibility for his own safety. Instead, we let law enforcement pull people over and penalize them with fines. Nice money for government and nice police interaction that can go horribly wrong.

Then you have progressives complaining about police brutality. Well, get rid of some of the laws that necessitate police interaction like the above mentioned helmet and seatbelt laws that only exist to fill government coffers and protect us from ourselves.

That's what we mean by smaller government.



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 07:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: mojom

Every time you justify higher taxes, you are encouraging and siding with a bloated "less efficient" government.

So you have never endorsed higher taxes?


Well, up until this post right here, not once in this discussion have I used the word "Tax or Taxes" at all. So I don't know why you bring it up as if I have been screaming "Raise Taxes".

But if you're asking me have I ever in the history of my life ever endorsed higher taxes then I'd say depends on how you look at it. I've endorsed the idea that Higher Taxes should be placed upon Wealth Income at a certain point or that Higher taxes should be placed upon Giant Corporations who pay zero or even negative tax rates. However, that doesn't mean "Higher Taxes" for all. When I endorse higher taxes on billionaires it's with the idea that it means lower taxes on everyone else because then the super rich would finally be paying their share instead of cheating the system while everyone else has to make up for it. So take that however you want.

If you're a super rich tax cheat who expects the poor and middle class to pay for you cheating the system then be offended all you want, I don't care. But if you think I encourage taxing everyone more just to feed the Government machine then I'd say you don't have any idea what I stand for or what I endorse.



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 07:17 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Nope. I'm not going to embrace a corrupt, bloated, inefficient government who would gladly see any individual liberties and freedoms destroyed.

But by all means, give 'em a hug next time they trample your rights.




top topics



 
28
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join