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: 12
28
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 07:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

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.


That's the beauty of the 2nd. The language is pretty plain as it is. I can't help it if you don't like it.




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

So you're not concerned with how much the "beast" is being fed, you just care who is feeding it.



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 07:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: DontTreadOnMe
STAFF NOTE



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

About The Political Mud-Pit


This thread was originally posted in another forum. US Political Madness, I think. Why wasn't it removed and the poster warned? Instead of following the guidelines posted in this thread www.abovetopsecret.com...
it was moved to a forum where those guidelines don't apply. If the moderators had intended on moving threads here, they never should have made a thread with the following statements:



This will end now. We will no longer tolerate the tactless and the rude. We will no longer allow blanket statements about whole groups of people for no other reason than they offend you.




This will apply to all corners of ATS, in all realms of discussion including race, religion, sexual identity, political affiliation, nationality, etc.


All corners of ATS huh?


ATS will always value the opinions of all members, but we insist that these opinions are presented tastefully and with respect to our community values in mind.


Tastefully unless you change your mind, is more like it.



ATS will not become a soapbox to spread any brand of hate.


Unless you decide you like that brand of hate, then you will just move it to a different area.



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 07:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

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.


Helmets aren't about keeping people from hurting themselves. Government doesn't give a damn about that, but that is what they have to say to keep people believing it. The reason there are helmet laws isn't so people don't crack their skulls open on the road. It's because when people do crack their skulls open without helmets they are rushed into emergency hospitals and have emergency medical staff on the scene and have to have surgery and all kinds of other stuff because they didn't wear a helmet. Well all that stuff costs lots of money and that money has to come from somewhere which means tax payers. So the idea was actually to save money in the long run.

You see, it's not as easy as just letting people be stupid. Because sometimes their stupid actions cost the rest of us money or time or whatever and I think you'd agree that isn't fair. Why do we all have to pay for that one guy to be stupid??? So now if he's caught being stupid he is the one who has to pay instead of everyone else. Helmet laws have saved lives, but more important especially to people like you who hate high taxes is that they save you money. Those helmet laws have saved you from getting taxed more because some moron wanted to ride without a helmet and crashed.


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.



Once again. Those laws have actually saved the states that have them billions of dollars paying for medical emergencies. That money they saved means you were saved from having to pay for it with taxes. Because Government doesn't make it's own money, it spends your money. So the less they have to spend means the less you have to give them.



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 07:35 PM
link   
a reply to: mojom

Oh, so because the rest of us are responsible for everyone else's health care ... we have to force people to take care of themselves?

Here's a thought: Why not make people responsible for their own health care AND let them decide if they want to wear helmets or not?

This is why we dislike progressives. You did this to us. Because you and your kind decided that someone else had to be responsible for our health, you then decided that someone else had to decide to make us wear helmet and seat belts too. What's next? Are you going to tell us we can't eat certain foods or only eat so much of them ... oh wait, you're already doing that in the schools.

I don't care how much it's saved us in the states. I care that you are making decisions that should be mine to make.


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



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 07:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: mojom

So you're not concerned with how much the "beast" is being fed, you just care who is feeding it.


No, I am concerned. But those are two different problems. Of course I don't want Government Bloat and waste. We can both agree that they spend our money like a bunch of A-Holes and that needs to stop. But that is a separate issue from who has to pay them.

If they started spending our money correctly tomorrow, that would be great and we'd all be taxed less. However, the fact that I'm being taxed less because Government spends their taxes correctly still doesn't excuse corps or the super wealthy from cheating on paying their share. When they cheat someone still has to pay for it.

When I say to close tax loopholes and make corps pay their share, I'm not saying "Feed the Machine" just to feed it. I'm saying "stop the cheaters". I'm not addressing what the Government is doing with the money. That is a different discussion.



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 07:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

I don't care how much it's saved us in the states. I care that you are making decisions that should be mine to make.



You didn't need those freedoms.

Government knows best!



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 07:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
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.


Now you are moving the goal posts. You said government should not be embraced. When I said that we should embrace the constitutional republic that the constitution created for us, you still disagreed. Now you have to further qualify your position by including those mentioned above.

I would agree with your statement overall. A corrupt, bloated government should not be embraced. But a properly governed constitutional republic should be. Can you agree with that? If so, does that make you a progressive as well? You did label those of us that embrace government as a progressive, did you not?

Remember, you said any government, not a bloated, corrupt government. Any government. I am interested to see your response.

a reply to: ketsuko



That's the beauty of the 2nd. The language is pretty plain as it is. I can't help it if you don't like it.


It is quite simple, isn't it? That simplicity and vagueness is what has allowed the gun-grabbers and anti-2nd amendment people to further define our right outside of the constitution. If our right was so clearly defined, how can politicians pass gun restrictions in to law?

That's would be because the 2nd amendment does not clearly define "arms" or to what extent our right extends.

But that topic is not part of this thread. Considering that I have debated this topic with even the most staunch pro-2nd amendment people on this site and have yet found a single person that could intelligently refute my position, it may be about time to create a new thread on that issue and see if what people think.

My position on the 2nd amendment infuriates both pro and anti 2nd amendment people.


(post by mojom removed for a manners violation)

posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 07:53 PM
link   
a reply to: mojom

They are being intentionally obtuse. There is no point in continuing when it appears that they know the difference, but cannot claim such because it tears their agenda-driven argument to shreds.



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 07:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Wardaddy454

That's an age old tactic, and equally as vacuous.

I'd have given you a star, but your assumption made you look like a petulant child, naturally.



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 07:54 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

My view on government, ANY GOVERNMENT, is that it is a necessary evil in the world today.

Like a prostate exam. Something you need to tolerate, but you don't look forward to seeing.

So the least amount of government is tolerable. the least.

The minimal amount of government.

So I would always look to ways to reduce, make smaller, less controlling any and every type of government.

But you can hug it for me, if you want.



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 07:56 PM
link   
WOMAN CALLS FOR RACE WAR AT SCENE OF CHURCH SHOOTING

www.breitbart.com...

youtu.be...




posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 08:00 PM
link   
a reply to: christophoros

I'm going to say having been on thr north and the South ironically the south is alot less racist them the north. Especially Michigan probably the most racist state I've ever been to. Part of that is simple in the south they have much more intermingling between races. As for right or left being racist well I see it in both just in diffrent ways. The left believes that all minorities are helpless and incapable of competing with whites . And the right believes that there is a huge backlash of reverse racism and whites are being subjugated to second class citizens.

Both these are a form of racism. And one feeds off the other in a perpetual cycle. Racism will never die as long as people make money fighting for it or against it. Most amaricans don't care about skin color only how you behave.



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 08:01 PM
link   
a reply to: christophoros

The term is "RaHoWa"/rahowa. It stands for "Racial Holy War". Many white supremacists not only know it but speak on it freely. en.wikipedia.org... and www.urbandictionary.com... There's even a white supremacist rock group that named themselves after it (nope not linking them- bleh!).

So the people in this thread that are claiming it's only the media & powerbrokers pushing racial divisions are simply wrong. Either they don't know anything about white supremacist movements, or they know but are pretending they don't.
edit on 20-6-2015 by enlightenedservant because: added an urban dictionary link. i blame ancient aliens



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 08:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: ketsuko

I don't care how much it's saved us in the states. I care that you are making decisions that should be mine to make.



You didn't need those freedoms.

Government knows best!


According to Gruber, I was too stupid to have those freedoms. It hurts me to see how many people here want to embrace that ideology and don't seem to understand they're in the "too stupid" crowd Gruber was talking about. Why they would allow themselves to be run down like that is beyond me.



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 08:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: mojom

originally posted by: ketsuko

Oh, so because the rest of us are responsible for everyone else's health care ... we have to force people to take care of themselves?

Here's a thought: Why not make people responsible for their own health care AND let them decide if they want to wear helmets or not?


I'm saying that was the reason they made the law. I didn't say I voted for it. I didn't say I like it or don't like it. I'm just telling you the reason for it and the rationale for it. It wasn't because they want people to stay safe exactly, it's because it was costing a crap load of tax payer money to treat people who were too stupid to realize that having their unprotected head hit pavement at 55 mph might cause injury.

Why not let them be responsible for themselves??? I guess because when someone is bleeding through their head on the highway and they might die it doesn't leave a lot of time to sit and wait to make sure they have medical coverage. Plus for those that don't have coverage, the idea of leaving them to die on the side of the road seemed a bit cruel.

Maybe a road with some people dying from head wounds every few miles isn't a concern but to some people that seemed like a bad idea. But that's just a guess on my part. Maybe it's because they really just figured once they got that helmet law passed that World Domination would be next.


This is why we dislike progressives. You did this to us. Because you and your kind decided that someone else had to be responsible for our health, you then decided that someone else had to decide to make us wear helmet and seat belts too. What's next? Are you going to tell us we can't eat certain foods or only eat so much of them ... oh wait, you're already doing that in the schools.

I don't care how much it's saved us in the states. I care that you are making decisions that should be mine to make.



For the last time. I didn't do anything to you or anyone else. So stop f*cking implicating me in to sh*t!!!

Did I say I voted for any of this??? Because I didn't. For years I was against it too. "Me and My Kind" are you f*cking serious???? Listen to yourself you f*cking Elitist POS!!! Don't accuse me of anything. You think you're special and different or that I owe you something.

Talk about being self Righteous. You just think you're perfect don't you. You just blame blame blame away when you don't know sh*t about what I am about. So you read a few posts on ATS and now you feel entitled to judge me. Well you can take your judgements of me and stick em up your self righteous A$$.

This conversation is over. You can't pull your head out of you own ass long enough to even have a discussion.


Yes the government seems to have a need to protect us from ourselves. We see it in everything but I'm not even going to blame the government so much as lawyers. If the government and companies don't warn people not to do stupid things they get sued.



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 08:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: mojom

originally posted by: ketsuko

Oh, so because the rest of us are responsible for everyone else's health care ... we have to force people to take care of themselves?

Here's a thought: Why not make people responsible for their own health care AND let them decide if they want to wear helmets or not?


I'm saying that was the reason they made the law. I didn't say I voted for it. I didn't say I like it or don't like it. I'm just telling you the reason for it and the rationale for it. It wasn't because they want people to stay safe exactly, it's because it was costing a crap load of tax payer money to treat people who were too stupid to realize that having their unprotected head hit pavement at 55 mph might cause injury.

Why not let them be responsible for themselves??? I guess because when someone is bleeding through their head on the highway and they might die it doesn't leave a lot of time to sit and wait to make sure they have medical coverage. Plus for those that don't have coverage, the idea of leaving them to die on the side of the road seemed a bit cruel.

Maybe a road with some people dying from head wounds every few miles isn't a concern but to some people that seemed like a bad idea. But that's just a guess on my part. Maybe it's because they really just figured once they got that helmet law passed that World Domination would be next.


This is why we dislike progressives. You did this to us. Because you and your kind decided that someone else had to be responsible for our health, you then decided that someone else had to decide to make us wear helmet and seat belts too. What's next? Are you going to tell us we can't eat certain foods or only eat so much of them ... oh wait, you're already doing that in the schools.

I don't care how much it's saved us in the states. I care that you are making decisions that should be mine to make.



For the last time. I didn't do anything to you or anyone else. So stop f*cking implicating me in to sh*t!!!

Did I say I voted for any of this??? Because I didn't. For years I was against it too. "Me and My Kind" are you f*cking serious???? Listen to yourself you f*cking Elitist POS!!! Don't accuse me of anything. You think you're special and different or that I owe you something.

Talk about being self Righteous. You just think you're perfect don't you. You just blame blame blame away when you don't know sh*t about what I am about. So you read a few posts on ATS and now you feel entitled to judge me. Well you can take your judgements of me and stick em up your self righteous A$$.

This conversation is over. You can't pull your head out of you own ass long enough to even have a discussion.


Yes the government seems to have a need to protect us from ourselves. We see it in everything but I'm not even going to blame the government so much as lawyers. If the government and companies don't warn people not to do stupid things they get sued.



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 08:05 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

The same people blaming media are the ones who say they advocate for personal responsibility.

They couldn't spell cognitive dissonance, let alone understand it.



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 08:06 PM
link   
a reply to: mojom

So, if you hate it so much, then why embrace it?

Stockholm Syndrome?




top topics



 
28
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join