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.

 

Which Side Are You On?

page: 4
22
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 05:30 AM
link   
When you take sides you divide.
When you divide, you're destined to fall.

We need solutions that include EVERY AMERICAN.




posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 08:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Bone75

Oh, so you are for a robot world where the robots are our slaves. That way we don't have to pay them.

You do realize, don't you, a little hard work never hurt anybody? Some people actually like to work and have a job to go to, because to them, work is fulfilling. Now I, on the other hand, worked many years before a chronic illness took away from me the ability to go to work, and I am grateful for the social program that I paid into.

At the time I was working, I was paying also for those people who refused to work, those who went to social services and pretended to have some type of illness until those people who were multi-generational lazy had so many children and grandchildren that there were no daddies in the home, but mommy had a lot of kids and turned them over to grandma because grandma had social security and then got social security for the kids, because they needed a legal guardian, then mommy lived with them, working at a small part time job to make more money than she declared to social services. And if that wasn't enough, they had to get these kids diagnosed with some condition, so they take the kid to the doctor that they begged him, usually he was a multi-generational doctor also willing to make prescriptions for meds so they could go out and sell them, to give those kids a fake diagnosis or expound a condition that the rest of the population has been able to work while having.

See, the other guy on the thread here, said he makes $20k a year, by working. He also has children that he is taking care of. That means the other guy has a right to benefit from his labor and we should not be here with our hands out begging for the "fair share" if we aren't also willing to do our fair share of work also.

I believe in equal pay for equal work. That means that men and women who do the same work should be equally paid. That means gays and straights who do the same work get equal pay. That means blacks and whites who do equal work get equal pay.

I do not believe that it means that the convenience store worker gets more pay than a fireman, because the work is not equal.

My whole childhood was framed by my father who always told us to vote Democrat, yet he only worked a few times. My mother's side were Republican, and they were all farmers. You know why he told us to vote Democrat? Because he was mad at the "elites". Why? He didn't want to work. He was jealous of people that had money, not the people who worked. So this whole "elitist" argument is something I heard every day of my childhood and I am middle-aged now. But at 18 years-old, I walked into my first job and went to college full time. Ever since that day I saw the value of going to a job to earn money that was mine. See, a job was valuable and had meaning to me, which I am sure that perhaps you would too if you had a little more pride in yourself and the other humans around you.

Pride, isn't just for gays.

Now, I cannot work like that but if someone said to me tomorrow that they have a job for someone with Multiple Sclerosis and in a wheel chair and would accommodate me for all the exhaustion that makes me have to take more naps during the day, you bet I would take it.

But I do not think the other poster is an elitist because he makes $20k a year, he's doing what he should. But I think you are an elitist because work seems to be beneath you.



posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 08:37 AM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy

I don't really understand your mind set, you admit your disabled and I assume are on governmental assistance. Most of us understand the hoops you had to jump to get this assistance, yet you wish to criticize others on the same programs, even though they also had to jump threw the same hoops you had to jump threw to get said benefits????

How is it that you had to prove a disability, but others faked it?



posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 08:44 AM
link   
I think history shows both parties have changed platforms over time. Voters change over time.

In the current political system, I am with Bernie.



posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 09:10 AM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy

And in the same breath, the coal miners can thank us for wanting and paying for the products that their hard work produces, because it is the purchase of the coal from their mines that provides them with a paycheck.

It's a symbiotic relationship. But I'd just as quickly prefer to get my energy from wind or solar once it becomes fiscally viable for me to do so, set them up on my own property, and be self-sufficient in the energy department.



posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 09:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: Bone75

Oh, so you are for a robot world where the robots are our slaves. That way we don't have to pay them.


So what's wrong with that? Are you a robot sympathizer? Po wittle wobots.


See, the other guy on the thread here, said he makes $20k a year, by working. He also has children that he is taking care of. That means the other guy has a right to benefit from his labor and we should not be here with our hands out begging for the "fair share" if we aren't also willing to do our fair share of work also.


I think I'm the "other guy" you're referring to lol. And it was 200k, not 20k.


But I do not think the other poster is an elitist because he makes $20k a year, he's doing what he should. But I think you are an elitist because work seems to be beneath you.


What part of "I would trade it for a shovel in a heartbeat" did you not understand?



posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 12:03 PM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy

There is only one side and none of us are on it:


The Fabian Society and the Bilderberg Group

It is interesting to note what leading Bilderberg members have had to say about the Group. David Rockefeller writes that “Bilderberg meetings must induce apocalyptic visions of omnipotent international bankers plotting with unscrupulous government officials to impose cunning schemes on an ignorant and unsuspecting world” (Rockefeller, pp. 410-1). Denis Healey writes that “in America they were attacked as a left-wing plot to subvert the United States, in Europe as a capitalist plot to undermine socialism” (Healey, p. 196).

In fact, all of the above statements are correct with the exception of the strange idea – no doubt the product of Socialist misdirection efforts – that the Group’s activities would somehow “undermine Socialism.” The truth of the matter is that the Bilderberg Group has been a Socialist operation from inception: by all accounts, Bilderberg was the brainchild of Polish Socialist Joseph Retinger who was a close collaborator of the Fabian Society.



Fabian Socialism and The Bilderberg Group



posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 12:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: nullafides
Unlike many...

I do not need to feel the "comfort" of belonging to a "side".


Same here, coal is not a clean burning fuel as they say. I saw them processing this in West Virginia and its quite dirty. I don't care about coal AND I hate the elites....so moving on.



posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 12:42 PM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy


The Democrats say the parties changed platforms over time, so the Democrats are like the Republicans, so it would mean the Republicans and not the Democrats.

No, Indy. It is a matter of fact that the parties switched platforms. Anyone who is educated in American History and American Politics knows that.

Being supportive of Unions is the side I'm on. "Coal" is not on the side I'm on. For every miner's job lost, another will spring up in clean energy industries. The planet is more important. Sorry.
edit on 8/17/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 12:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs

No, Indy. It is a matter of fact that the parties switched platforms. Anyone who is educated in American History and American Politics knows that.



But most of the modern Democrat policies have been the same since the 1930s.




posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

And who got us out of the mess that Hoover's administration allowed?
FDR. Civilian Conservation Corps. All the lovely lakes we have were built by those who wanted to work AND get help.

It was a beautiful plan, and it worked.


Abraham Lincoln, the 16th U.S. President and a Republican (left), and Franklin Roosevelt, the 32nd U.S. President and a Democrat. The Republican and Democratic parties effectively switched platforms between their presidencies.

During the 1860s, Republicans, who dominated northern states, orchestrated an ambitious expansion of federal power, helping to fund the transcontinental railroad, the state university system and the settlement of the West by homesteaders, and instating a national currency and protective tariff. Democrats, who dominated the South, opposed these measures. After the Civil War, Republicans passed laws that granted protections for African Americans and advanced social justice; again, Democrats largely opposed these expansions of power.

Sound like an alternate universe? Fast forward to 1936. Democratic president Franklin Roosevelt won reelection that year on the strength of the New Deal, a set of Depression-remedying reforms including regulation of financial institutions, founding of welfare and pension programs, infrastructure development and more. Roosevelt won in a landslide against Republican Alf Landon, who opposed these exercises of federal power.

Source
edit on 8/17/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 02:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: xuenchen

And who got us out of the mess that Hoover's administration allowed?
FDR. Civilian Conservation Corps. All the lovely lakes we have were built by those who wanted to work AND get help.

It was a beautiful plan, and it worked.

[source quote]Abraham Lincoln, the 16th U.S. President and a Republican (left), and Franklin Roosevelt, the 32nd U.S. President and a Democrat. The Republican and Democratic parties effectively switched platforms between their presidencies.

During the 1860s, Republicans, who dominated northern states, orchestrated an ambitious expansion of federal power, helping to fund the transcontinental railroad, the state university system and the settlement of the West by homesteaders, and instating a national currency and protective tariff. Democrats, who dominated the South, opposed these measures. After the Civil War, Republicans passed laws that granted protections for African Americans and advanced social justice; again, Democrats largely opposed these expansions of power.

Sound like an alternate universe? Fast forward to 1936. Democratic president Franklin Roosevelt won reelection that year on the strength of the New Deal, a set of Depression-remedying reforms including regulation of financial institutions, founding of welfare and pension programs, infrastructure development and more. Roosevelt won in a landslide against Republican Alf Landon, who opposed these exercises of federal power.[source quote]
Source


Astute of you to find that switch.


The Switch happened after Rockefeller and various Northern Money Powers (the ones that backed Abraham Lincoln for president and wouldn't let the South secede) got leverage on the US Gov. As evidence consider that all of the presidents, except Grover Cleveland, from 1868 to 1904 came from Ohio, Rockefeller's home State.

Basically Rockefeller had one side and the opposition, fronted by J.P. Morgan got the other. About 1890 was when the parties became nearly identical, and voter participation dropped.

Voter participation has dropped steadily from 1894, because the parties no longer represented ideals, they just wanted to get elected. Conventional history covers the change by assigning it to the Progressive Era, when both parties favored bigger government.

Before the Rockefeller-Morgan investment of the parties, Democrat meant local power and Republican meant national power.
edit on 17-8-2015 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-8-2015 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 10:02 PM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy

That is a pretty much uniquely American idea stemming from the Two-Party System. US/Them. Rep/Dem. Coke/Pepsi. With us/Against us.

The world is not a binary place. There is more than this/that.



posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 11:23 PM
link   
I refuse to allow cognitive dissonance to force me into binary thinking.

The argument is always that, "Even if you don't choose a side, you benefit from or contribute to one side or the other by your passivity."

If the argument is that this is the case no matter what I do, then in the end the only things I have any direct power over are my own intentions. Therefore I choose not to choose a side, and not to perceive our society and the world at large through the lens of constructed duality.

If that's all I can do, then that's the best I can do. And if not, then there is a viable alternative to choosing a side. I will simply do my best to do what I feel is right and leave all thought of "sides" to the... well... to the side.


Peace.
edit on 8/17/2015 by AceWombat04 because: Typo



posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 11:48 PM
link   
a reply to: AceWombat04

Shades of grey...nothing is black and white. I am disappointed when I see people allowing themselves to be bullied into "This" or "that". "If you dont support THIS, you must be for THAT"...is such tripe and minimalist thinking.



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 10:00 AM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy

Which Side Are You On?

My great-grandchildren's...whoever they may be and whatever political party they ascribe to at some future date.

If you demand I make some false binary choice...I choose a better future.

Both left and right, there seems to be too much of the "ME! ME! ME!" and "NOW!" mindset.

And here is the rub...we WILL eliminate dirty fossil fuels...we WILL reform SS and Medicare...we WILL better care for our environment. Not because of some Green Movement or political agenda. Not because everyone will realize that they have been exploited by some propaganda campaign of denial..

We will change because it is our only option. It took Humans 2 million years to occupy most of the globe and reach a massive population of 3.5 Billion by 1970...in the past 40 years we have doubled it to 7 Billion.

There is a non-political collection of researchers and scientists that estimate humans global energy, water and food supply and demand levels as well as what the earth in it's current state is possible of replenishing with the help of technology.

This year we crossed that "sustainability" mark in July. That means by the end of December we will have consumed roughly 40% more energy, water and food than the earth and technology can replenish.

Think of it as an exponentially growing national debt with interest. We need to spend less and the longer we wait the deeper in debt we will be.

I feel for the coal miners having less work...but we did not choose to not transition to the automobile for fear of putting buggy whip makers or horse breeders out of work.

We, as a species, will advance in the energy space. All that is accomplished by the USA fighting the change is affording places like China the opportunity to own the new energy technology space...which they are working very hard to do...and not because it is the "right" or "wrong" thing to do, but because it is the future that survival demands.


edit on 18-8-2015 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 11:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: xuenchen

And who got us out of the mess that Hoover's administration allowed?
FDR. Civilian Conservation Corps. All the lovely lakes we have were built by those who wanted to work AND get help.

It was a beautiful plan, and it worked.


Abraham Lincoln, the 16th U.S. President and a Republican (left), and Franklin Roosevelt, the 32nd U.S. President and a Democrat. The Republican and Democratic parties effectively switched platforms between their presidencies.

During the 1860s, Republicans, who dominated northern states, orchestrated an ambitious expansion of federal power, helping to fund the transcontinental railroad, the state university system and the settlement of the West by homesteaders, and instating a national currency and protective tariff. Democrats, who dominated the South, opposed these measures. After the Civil War, Republicans passed laws that granted protections for African Americans and advanced social justice; again, Democrats largely opposed these expansions of power.

Sound like an alternate universe? Fast forward to 1936. Democratic president Franklin Roosevelt won reelection that year on the strength of the New Deal, a set of Depression-remedying reforms including regulation of financial institutions, founding of welfare and pension programs, infrastructure development and more. Roosevelt won in a landslide against Republican Alf Landon, who opposed these exercises of federal power.

Source


Part 2

Roosevelt ran as a constitutional small government Democrat in 1932, sounding like an 1800's Democrat. There were Civil War veterans alive then, and most people's elders still remembered the time when Democrats were for weak central government. Ayn Rand and Isabela Patterson, both of them extreme, individualist, small-government libertarians, voted for Roosevelt in 1932.


Roosevelt promised to "abolish useless offices" and "eliminate unnecessary functions of Government", stating that "Government – Federal and State and local – costs too much", and even promised to help facilitate the "restoration of the trade of the world".

Roosevelt lashed out at Hoover: "I accuse the present Administration of being the greatest spending Administration in peacetime in all our history."

en.wikipedia.org...


FDR promised a "New Deal" which one would think meant less government, more freedom. But he never said what the New Deal would be before he got elected. Sounds like "Hope and Change"


Roosevelt himself did not have a clear idea of the New Deal at this point, so he promised no specific programs.[14] It was said that "Even a vaguely talented dog-catcher could have been elected president against the Republicans."
en.wikipedia.org...


Hoover had a reputation as a miracle man from his organization of the wildly successful charity Belgian relief effort during and after WW1. Hoover actually initiated most of the New Deal programs that FDR gets credit (or blame) for. Much of Hoover's efforts at first were attempts to pressure businesses into voluntarily controlling production and wages to a central plan. That is the Fascist method of control, "personal leader pressure". It works better when the leader has a secret police or a legion personal body guard, which Hoover did not have.



For more than two years, President Hoover had been restricting trade and increasing taxes on the wealthy with legislation such as the Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act and the Revenue Act of 1932.
en.wikipedia.org...




Even though he kept Hoover's program, Roosevelt attacked the Republican for overspending and raising taxes. Hoover raised tariffs, income taxes, estate taxes, corporate taxes, and even slapped a tax on all bank checks. The last tax seems to have severely curtailed economic growth. Additionally, Hoover went after the New York Stock Exchange and Wall Street "fat cats." Hoover's tax increases and attack on Wall Street severely crippled the economy which led to Roosevelt's criticism.

One of Roosevelt's best and brightest, Rexford Tugwell, claimed the New Deal derived from Herbert Hoover.
www.examiner.com...


FDR and Hoover were both strong central government types, and neither of them ever considered the real cause of the Great Depression, which was the Federal Reserves' inflationary bubble whipsaw.

Both sides are on the same side.



edit on 18-8-2015 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-8-2015 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 07:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

I would like to point out that the title in the OP is the name of the song, of which came at a time of greater political turmoil than today.

Florence Reese was merely asking which side is the good worker on, because that's the first line of the song.








edit on 8/18/2015 by WarminIndy because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 08:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

The end statement, yes, both are on the same side.



posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 06:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: Indigo5

I would like to point out that the title in the OP is the name of the song, of which came at a time of greater political turmoil than today.

Florence Reese was merely asking which side is the good worker on, because that's the first line of the song.





There is no greater political turmoil than now. With every passing day, we lose less freedom and fairness in our elections.
edit on 23-8-2015 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join