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.

 

Feel the Bern-ie Sanders

page: 8
20
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 10:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: BubbaJoe
a reply to: ketsuko

So it is a one issue fight for you? Had my birth control taken care of 27 years ago by getting snipped in the military, whoops, guess you paid for that too.

'

Why do you assume it's a one issue fight for me ... because I only gave one example? There are others, but I only gave one. Every time we are forced to collectivize something, everyone else's business becomes ours and vice versa. At that point, your business is everyone else's. Look at the mass data collection for another example. What's yours is mine and what's mine becomes yours and nobody has anything that is just theirs ... at that point, it becomes impossible to just live your own life becomes that isn't yours anymore, either.

Look at the rhetoric we get: You didn't build that. No one did it one their own. And so on and so forth.


No one has done it on their own, they have relied on others, roads, bridges, railroads, I don't have the cash to build those on my own. My healthcare is provided by the VA, because I gave seven years of my life to protect you, but you and your spawn would say I am part of the entitlement problem. If you are so worried about the government being in your business, why are you worried about gay marriage, why are you worried about birth control, why are you worried about abortion? Those are all very personal decisions and deserve no government involvement at all.




posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 10:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: BubbaJoe

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: BubbaJoe

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: BubbaJoe

Actually both sides were racist. Even the abolitionists were racist, they were against slavery, not racism. Slavery was legal in New Jersey until 1865. Slaves were used in Rhode Island to build the navy ships that the blockaded the South until 1842.

The Confederate Flag represented self government. Nothing else.





The flag you are so quick to support was never the confederate flag. It was a banner used on the battlefield. Slavery was legal in most of the states until 1865, even in Missouri where I live. I might add, it was legal to kill Mormons here in Missouri until 1976.


I didn't know that about Mormons.

A battlefield flag, which people are dying under, is less likely to represent something denounced by all as immoral, as slavery was, than it is to represent something to die for, like self government.

It should be self evident that the soldiers of the South were not dying for slavery.


You need to seriously go read some history, the flag was developed so that the confederates could identify each other on the battlefield, am sorry, late at nite so am not going to search for links. The man that designed the flag was an out and out racist, and if you google his meaning for the flag, you might not be so proud, but then again you might.


As you say, that flag was about the technicalities of battle, not about slavery.

Beyond that, why would men die for other men's slaves? It makes no sense. The war was about self government.

Late for me too. tomorrow.

edit on 22-7-2015 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-7-2015 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 10:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: BubbaJoe

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: BubbaJoe

You seem to equate volunteer with hired to perform.

I don't see how a volunteer fire department compares to a business with a reputation to protect and contractual obligation to fulfil.






So now you want to privatize fire and police protection, and make them for profit businesses, and you see no issues with this scenario?

Gee Dave, revenues are down this month.
Dave: well I will go set this place on fire

Seriously, WTF?



Well the government system did not work, how can you say its better?

At least a private system, with competition always keeping the providers competent, has a legal and commercial recourse. The company can be sued for breach of contract or what ever -- negligence, arson ??, and customers would switch to a better service provider.

Your argument is-- this system doesn't work, therefore no system will work so lets keep paying taxes for nothing. Sounds like slavery.





Seriously you are supporting privatized fire and police protection? In my town these systems work very well now that they are PUBLICALLY funded. What part about there was no government solution do you not understand, a volunteer fire department let something burn to the ground because the family did not make their donation. We pay taxes for a lot of things, and I pay more than a lot, but police and fire protection I will pay for as long as I can pick up the phone and call 911. Not that some one breaking into my house is going to live long enough for them to get here.



posted on Jul, 22 2015 @ 11:24 PM
link   
For the love of God/Whomever, people.

Can't you see that this is the very f'n problem that faces us?

Your the bad guy. No, you are. Am not... Are, too... Am not... Are, too.



DON'T YOU EVER GET TIRED OF IT??????????


E V E R???


Realize this people, it's time you got over this bull# partisan crap. The Dems aren't going to save us. The Reps aren't going to save us. Liberals? Nope. Conservatives? Nope.

It comes down to growing the Hell up and stop acting like a bunch of six year olds arguing over a damned toy.

...and yes, I include myself in this.



posted on Jul, 23 2015 @ 05:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

It probably would be best to continue this discussion in another thread, to clear up your misconceptions here would take already off topic posts to hijacking the thread completely.



posted on Jul, 23 2015 @ 05:54 AM
link   
a reply to: seagull

It really isn't about good guy vs bad guy. There are too many ways in which compromise cannot be reached because it means compromising on something highly valued on one side or the other. It's not childish, it's reality. Now what do we do?



posted on Jul, 23 2015 @ 06:09 AM
link   
a reply to: BubbaJoe

And yet ... for all you claim they are personal decisions, the government has its fingerprints all over them.


No one has done it on their own, they have relied on others, roads, bridges, railroads, I don't have the cash to build those on my own.


See? Even you have bought into this idea that you can't do anything on your own. Roads, bridges, railroads ... Those do not cause you to decide to make something of yourself. They do not create the businesses that make the country thrive. Individuals taking the initiative ON THEIR OWN do that. Without those very personal decisions and that very personal risk, it doesn't matter how much infrastructure or how many teachers or anything else we have ... nothing gets done because no one steps up to the plate ON THEIR OWN and does it.

Did having a teacher suddenly make the education you possess materialize inside your head or did you have to make the effort to get ON YOUR OWN?

Do you get your VA service because you simply exist or because you made the decision to serve and put in those seven years ON YOUR OWN? Last I checked, military service in this country was voluntary unless you were on of those who was drafted during the Vietnam years like my father-in-law.

Success and prosperity are not passive things. They are active. You have to go out and work for them ON YOUR OWN. They do not just fall in your lap and happen because we have a government, roads, bridges and schools and all the other collectivist things.



posted on Jul, 23 2015 @ 06:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: seagull

It really isn't about good guy vs bad guy. There are too many ways in which compromise cannot be reached because it means compromising on something highly valued on one side or the other. It's not childish, it's reality. Now what do we do?


Again, as has been mentioned, when this country was originally conceived and founded, it was foreseen that different people would have different ideas about how they wanted to live and govern themselves. This country was set up to be a Republic of states with the separate state governments doing most of the heavy lifting where major governance is concerned and the Federal Government only really making sure that there was no war between the states and between the overall Republic and the rest of the world.

If you read the COTUS in its plain text and the Federalist Papers, the intent is pretty clear. The government in Washington has way overstepped itself in so many areas it isn't even funny.

The advantage to the Republic system as envisioned is that you could go live in State A where things are governed more to your liking because people who want to live more like you do tend to gather there, and I could go live in State B where things are governed more to my liking because I'm living with people who think more like me. Then it doesn't matter if we like each other or the way our states do things or not.



posted on Jul, 23 2015 @ 06:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
For the love of God/Whomever, people.

Can't you see that this is the very f'n problem that faces us?

Your the bad guy. No, you are. Am not... Are, too... Am not... Are, too.



DON'T YOU EVER GET TIRED OF IT??????????


E V E R???


Realize this people, it's time you got over this bull# partisan crap. The Dems aren't going to save us. The Reps aren't going to save us. Liberals? Nope. Conservatives? Nope.

It comes down to growing the Hell up and stop acting like a bunch of six year olds arguing over a damned toy.

...and yes, I include myself in this.


Enlightenment cannot be given.

Sometimes they have to learn it on their own.



posted on Jul, 23 2015 @ 06:42 AM
link   
a reply to: seagull

So again, how do we get past it?

People are so entrenched in the idea that the Other is evil and all their ideas are without merit and nothing they say could possibly have any relevance that no one listens.

I can make an argument against abortion that has NOTHING to do with religion, and it gets trashed as being religiously based every time.

I can state until I'm blue in the face that I don't care what gays do that I don't want them to not have legal recognition or even a ceremony to formalize their unions, but I personally don't believe it's a marriage and shouldn't be forced to call it one or participate ... and that translates to me being against gay marriage in all ways, shapes and forms.

There is no middle ground. It's all or nothing and there is no possibility of reasonable disagreement.

Hell, I don't even own a gun, but I believe a person should have the right if they want it. And it translates to me overcompensating for something?



posted on Jul, 23 2015 @ 06:43 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

For me, I can't answer for anyone else, it comes with a healthy dose of cynicism.



posted on Jul, 23 2015 @ 06:47 AM
link   
Oh, yes, and I forgot another one: If I disagree with anything to do with current social safety net, I am a hard-hearted cruel individual who wants babies to die and must secretly enjoy kicking fluffy puppies and kittens.



posted on Jul, 23 2015 @ 06:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
The man continues to poll 40-50 percentage points behind Hillary Clinton in every poll.
www.realclearpolitics.com...

Don't take this the wrong way, but he looks a lot like the Democrat's version of Ron Paul... oodles of rabid support within very finely defined segments of the party, but next to zero mass appeal to the majority of the registered voters.


This pretty much nails it on the head.



posted on Jul, 23 2015 @ 06:58 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I've read the Federalist Papers, I've read the Constitution. Yet, my take on them is probably much different than yours. I believe our Forefathers, though flawed in their perception of who qualified for inalienable rights, had a damn good perception of what inalienable rights are. They also had the foresight to allow for new ideas to be included and best of all that religion should play no part in government.

Selective application of the Constitution is one way we get into the mess of the federal government being invited in to State affairs.



posted on Jul, 23 2015 @ 06:59 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Welp, there goes rational discussion. Bring on the hyperbole!



posted on Jul, 23 2015 @ 07:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: seagull

So again, how do we get past it?

People are so entrenched in the idea that the Other is evil and all their ideas are without merit and nothing they say could possibly have any relevance that no one listens.


Believe it or not, I try to consider all sides of an argument equally. That is why I come off as so contrary all the time. Many times I also decouple my personal beliefs from the argument I'm making so I can understand it better. Though people usually just decide that I support it anyways.


I can make an argument against abortion that has NOTHING to do with religion, and it gets trashed as being religiously based every time.


The problem is that, I can make many MORE secular arguments for abortion being legal than you can make against it. The secular reasons for abortion to be legal far outweigh the reasons for it to be illegal. That is why many just assume that you are making a religious argument. There is no other way to fluff your point and make it valid comparatively.


I can state until I'm blue in the face that I don't care what gays do that I don't want them to not have legal recognition or even a ceremony to formalize their unions, but I personally don't believe it's a marriage and shouldn't be forced to call it one or participate ... and that translates to me being against gay marriage in all ways, shapes and forms.


You realize that you are just pitching Segregation 2.0 when you say that gays shouldn't be able to call what they are doing "marriage" right? Separate but equal, remember that? How did that turn out last time?


There is no middle ground. It's all or nothing and there is no possibility of reasonable disagreement.


The right has to be willing to give to the left too. Many times I see the right just being contrary JUST because the left supports something even IF the idea is a really good one. So it's a two way street, don't complain about the left's lack of giving any ground without also looking at your own side. Y'all are just as guilty of doing the same things as you are decrying the left about.


Hell, I don't even own a gun, but I believe a person should have the right if they want it. And it translates to me overcompensating for something?


I fully support the Second Amendment. The only reason I DON'T currently own a gun is because I haven't put the funds aside yet to go buy one, but I have a list of weapons in increasing firepower that I want to obtain.
edit on 23-7-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2015 @ 08:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: ketsuko

Welp, there goes rational discussion. Bring on the hyperbole!


I'm only repeating what I've been called as a response when I try to discuss. And now you shut it down.

Do you deny you do this?

What do you consider rational discussion to be? Because if you automatically default to certain arguments only being based in and on certain positions, then you are guilty of it.

I do my best not to do it, but no one is free of bias, not you, not me. Understanding you have that problem is the first step.

Dismissing my statements out of hand is denial which is the first sign you haven't gotten there yet.



posted on Jul, 23 2015 @ 08:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

OK, so show me a really good idea and explain why it's a really good idea.

Too often, the left has a "really good idea," they expect me to swallow just on the merit of "it's a really good idea" as if saying so is all the justification I should need.

That's how Obamacare was sold. Is it truly a "really good idea?"



posted on Jul, 23 2015 @ 09:12 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

That depends on how much evidence you are willing to accept to support my idea. I try to base my ideas on scientific evidence and trends developed from proper statistical analysis, but many on the right seem to think that those things aren't to be trusted. I just authored a thread about an idea I just pitched that would drastically alter society. Let's start there.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jul, 23 2015 @ 09:13 AM
link   

The problem is that, I can make many MORE secular arguments for abortion being legal than you can make against it. The secular reasons for abortion to be legal far outweigh the reasons for it to be illegal. That is why many just assume that you are making a religious argument. There is no other way to fluff your point and make it valid comparatively.


Here's the thing. You can come up with all sorts of good reasons why an inalienable right should be abridged or oppressed, but in the end, an inalienable right CANNOT be taken away arbitrarily by you, me or the state for reasons of convenience or else our individual lives at any stage mean nothing.

A baby is a human being, and at some point, there is a baby in the womb. Are you going to argue that the premie in the NICU is not human? If you aren't, then the same baby at the same point of life still inside the womb must likewise be human. There is not some bit of "magic" that occurs between the birth canal and the outside air that changes a child's status to make it go from "tissue" to human. If you believe that, it's magical thinking, not logic.

So good reason to allow an abortion or not, what you are really doing at that point is depriving another human being of his or her basic, inalienable right to life guaranteed to him or her in the Founding Documents. Now, while I can't say that every instance of abortion should be outlawed, if you're going to execute someone, you ought to have a darn good reason ... much better than Oops! I didn't really want to be pregnant.



You realize that you are just pitching Segregation 2.0 when you say that gays shouldn't be able to call what they are doing "marriage" right? Separate but equal, remember that? How did that turn out last time?



Ah, but that's not at all what I said. You need to read more closely. I said they can do what they liked. I only asked to have the right to be left out of it and not be forced to participate if I didn't wish to. I never said I wanted to compel then NOT to call what they have marriage, and I've also made that plain all over the place here. They can call it what they like and have their ceremony. I use those terms because I don't consider it marriage, but they can and so can others. That's liberty at work.

And in public and in person, I'm not going to say "No you're not married," same as I don't tell my sister and brother-in-law they aren't married ... because they aren't. They only have a civil union.


The right has to be willing to give to the left too. Many times I see the right just being contrary JUST because the left supports something even IF the idea is a really good one. So it's a two way street, don't complain about the left's lack of giving any ground without also looking at your own side. Y'all are just as guilty of doing the same things as you are decrying the left about.


Well, I've been around a few years and watched Washington work. In Washington, compromise seems to consist of one side getting pretty much all of what it wants NOW while the other side gets a pretty promise to do what it wants ... maybe ten years down the road. The dirty trick is that future congresses cannot be held to the promises of present ones, so that means one side will really get nothing. Take the border fence for an example. That was what the right was supposed to get in the last border security "compromise."

We can see how well that worked out.







 
20
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join