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.

 

Training evangelical pastors to be politicians

page: 10
19
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

So you DON'T want the voters to decide an election?

Um, okay.




posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 01:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
that last dominist administration in the white house was bush II and well, sorry, I don't see using lies as a justification to bomb innocent countries and talking over them as being that christian!
the idea that the end justifies the means no matter how immoral those means are, well, sorry but that's a very bad example of christianity.



I agree with you. I really got into political discussion a year prior to the Bush/Gore fiasco.

I learned about the PNAC and who was involved. Planned dominance for sure, using Christianity.



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 01:17 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I still have the same freedoms that I've always had. Government can never take away something that wasn't theirs to give to begin with. It's just that the government enforces restrictions on those freedoms.

Free speech zones, gun privileges instead of gun rights are the first 2 that come to mind.



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 01:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Gryphon66

So you DON'T want the voters to decide an election?

Um, okay.



You're already that desperate ... and we're only a few hours into the afternoon?
edit on 13Sat, 11 Jul 2015 13:19:25 -050015p012015766 by Gryphon66 because: Deleted last snark



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 01:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Do you want the voters, the common folks to have the ability to determine an election outcome through voting?

(this isn't rocket science)



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

You seem to be speaking freely enough - and -----
I thought you said you didn't have guns!!!



Gah! Okay. Whatever.

edit on 7/11/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 01:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Gryphon66

Do you want the voters, the common folks to have the ability to determine an election outcome through voting?

(this isn't rocket science)


I do, as I said, I support the Constitution.

The Dominionists don't.

You support the Dominionists.

You don't support the Constitution.

Simple logic.



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 01:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Gryphon66



Name them. Who are the Republican Progressives?

Also, define what you mean by Progressive.

I'd like to see his responses to those questions, too.


Here's some links to see.

Not all necessarily accurate, and there's some references to the topic.

Factions in the Republican Party (United States)

What is a progressive Republican?

and an odd one....
Progressive Republicans



The term "neoconservative" refers to those who made the ideological journey from the anti-Stalinist left to the camp of American conservatism.

Neoconservatism





posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Links but no answers.

Holding with Alinsky it is then.




posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 01:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I'm for letting the voters decide, as I've previously stated.

It appears that you have little faith in the common folk.



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 01:29 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen
From your link:

Progressive Republicans
See also: Progressive Era
During the 1910s and 1920s, progressives formed a faction in the Republican Party.

They typically held center-left views on most issues, supporting broad government involvement in business, particularly breaking 'trusts' and limiting the size of corporations, reforms in government, income taxes, universal health care, social security for the elderly, and other forms of 'social justice'.

This faction gradually shrank, with many joining the Democratic Party as it shifted to the left in the 1930s. Prominent progressive Republicans included Theodore Roosevelt, Hiram Johnson, and Robert La Follette.


Yeah - that was 100 years ago. And at that time, the parties were opposite of what they are today.

NOW, those same folks would be considered Leftists, and Democrats, and PROGRESSIVES.

The definition of "progressive" has never changed. The party platforms have, though.

EDIT: Yeah, and those other links??? They are malware, blocked by my anti-virus firewall.


Now - can you name any current Republican legislators that are Progressives?





edit on 7/11/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)

edit on 7/11/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 01:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee
ya the great compassionate conservative christian that dragged the US through the mud in the eyes of the world be allowing prisoners of war (along with just innocent civilians and children) to be tortured!
they will use these hot button social issues that really don't matter much at all when looking at the big picture, like gay marriage, abortion, welfare, ect, to get their votes but once they get in, hey...
their true colors come out and we find out that not only aren't they compassionate, they don't even fit the bill of an uncompassionate christian!

nope, don't see nothing whatsoever with allowing them to get control of our government again. what the heck, we can launch a few more unjustified wars running up billions of dollars in debt as we do it and well, send letters to the parents of our vets encouraging to have fundraisers so their kids can have the equipment they need to be safe because, well, the compassionate conservatives can't seem to muster up the integrity to make their safety a worthy enough issue to spend a little more money on them!



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 01:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs

NOW, those same folks would be considered Leftists, and Democrats, and PROGRESSIVES.

The definition of "progressive" has never changed. The party platforms have, though.



As those like me say: I didn't leave the Republican party - - - it left me.



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 01:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: derfreebie

Not to butt in ...

The provision of mandatory enrollment (a right-wing idea) in the ACA was established under the Congress' ability to Tax.

The SCOTUS had to point that fact out.

Are you saying that Congress is "legislating from the bench" cause if so, they ain't doin' a very good job of it.


Not at all with the Congress, that's their enumerated power and duty.
What I was referring to was the SCOTUS in a tip over decision calling
the "penalty" a tax; as well as their decision to to infer that enrollment
mandatory, as in being forced to purchase a private product without
consent. If it's a tax and it's unapportioned, it's supposed to be voluntary.

Like I'd volunteer my vote for Mike Huckabee if he quit playing bass. He
really should get some new chops...



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Lot's of current politicians listed.

Many Republicans detested by the Left Wing are actually in their camps !!

They have "Authoritarianism" in common.



Gotta luv it.



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 01:52 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs


EDIT: Yeah, and those other links??? They are malware, blocked by my anti-virus firewall.

No malware on those sites Buzzy. You might need to loosen the reigns a little on that A/V program.

As to the dominionists. I think the problem in the little debate over the last few pages has been one of convolution and extreme examples. The issue at hand isn't necessarily the shredding of the constitution, so much as the influence dominionists could exercise from small towns to big cities, to state and federal governments, given time and numbers. Any solid movement needs to start at the grass roots level to work up the support for higher levels. The danger really is infiltration and incrementalism toward a much larger goal.



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 01:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs

EDIT: Yeah, and those other links??? They are malware, blocked by my anti-virus firewall.



wikipedia and answers-com have malware?




posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 02:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Klassified
The danger really is infiltration and incrementalism toward a much larger goal.



Yes. Complacency opens doors.

Hopefully, educated informed voters remain diligent.

The concerns of voters who fall for "Carnival Barkers" is real.



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 02:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Gryphon66

I'm for letting the voters decide, as I've previously stated.

It appears that you have little faith in the common folk.


Yep... The common folk are ignorant and will follow blindly.

“Any formal attack on ignorance is bound to fail because the masses are always ready to defend their most precious possession – their ignorance.” – Hendrik Willem van Loon

The politicians have chosen comforting ignorance over disconcerting knowledge, purposefully ignore facts and truth because their wealth and power are dependent upon them not understanding what they clearly have the knowledge to understand. In the mean time the underclass "common folk" wallow in their ignorance of their life choices, lack of interest in educating themselves, and hiding behind the cross of victimhood and blaming others for their own failings. America’s cult of ignorance coupled with religion and politics is a disaster and you don't need to look far back into history to see what this deadly combo creates in societies.



Our culture of ignorance will lead to the destruction of our culture and the ignorant masses will wonder what happened.



posted on Jul, 11 2015 @ 03:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: NihilistSanta
Because infiltration is dishonest by its very nature. If someone lies about their lifestyle to get into a position of power in order to influence it that is dishonest.


And just how is this about homosexuals? I thought it was about 'Christian infliltration' and manipulation which we see in the material added is actually a deliverate and covert action of big business co-opting the evangelicals into proclaiming the divine right of capital.

Now that is a conspiracy - that's infiltration - that's covert (non-transparent and dishonest intent) - that's evil.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join