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.

 

Left Wing Extremism? What Left Wing Extremism?

page: 4
37
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 12 2015 @ 04:18 PM
link   
Nice OP! How about this...the liberals want to take all guns away from legal Americans even though it is contrary to the Constitution. So WHEN Trump is President, how about we take away freedom of speech from all liberals even though it is contrary to the Constitution? I know...us right leaning folk wouldn't go against the Constitution...but it sure would put the fear of their actions back in their laps.




posted on Dec, 12 2015 @ 04:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
Can we please all wear badges on our sleeves (and have icons on our avatars) to be able to distinguish between these left wings and right wings?

That would be most helpful, as I, like many, many here as of late have been called many things, and I am just not sure who I am, so a badge or icon would really help me remember.

Thanks.


Oh sweetie, you don't need one. Anyone who pays attention has you firmly locked into the brigade.
A liberal's liberal.

And there ya go.

Anyone who pays attention has you pegged too. Too bad so few do *eyeroll
edit on 12/12/2015 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2015 @ 06:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
Nice OP! How about this...the liberals want to take all guns away from legal Americans even though it is contrary to the Constitution. So WHEN Trump is President, how about we take away freedom of speech from all liberals even though it is contrary to the Constitution? I know...us right leaning folk wouldn't go against the Constitution...but it sure would put the fear of their actions back in their laps.


The Second Amendment is very clear about this, but most people tend to forget about it - here it is: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Translation: we're in danger of being invaded by the British/French/Spanish, so the militia is important and we need to be protected.
So if you have guns are you in the militia?
edit on 12-12-2015 by AngryCymraeg because: Typo



posted on Dec, 12 2015 @ 06:53 PM
link   
a reply to: AngryCymraeg



So if you have guns are you in the militia?


Every able bodied man from the age of 17 to 45 is considered a member of the unorganized militia. Whether or not they own firearms is irrelevant.



posted on Dec, 12 2015 @ 07:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
Nice OP! How about this...the liberals want to take all guns away from legal Americans even though it is contrary to the Constitution. So WHEN Trump is President, how about we take away freedom of speech from all liberals even though it is contrary to the Constitution? I know...us right leaning folk wouldn't go against the Constitution...but it sure would put the fear of their actions back in their laps.


The Second Amendment is very clear about this, but most people tend to forget about it - here it is: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Translation: we're in danger of being invaded by the British/French/Spanish, so the militia is important and we need to be protected.
So if you have guns are you in the militia?

Don't "translate" when your translation is not a translation, but a false opinion. Regardless of your opinion ...

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

... yet some people want to infringe upon it. It shall NOT be infringed. It does not say "until such a time". It says shall not.

Is it a "free State" if the government uses a standing military force to force their will on the people? Would the right to bear arms help in that situation? A well regulated militia was chosen over a standing army due to concerns about how that army could be used to oppress the people. When the people took up arms against Washington, did they revoke the right to bear arms? No. Because it was recognized that the abuse of some did not outweigh the need for the right to exist.

Jefferson stated that a standing army was "an engine of oppression". Since a standing army is an engine of oppression, the right to bear arms would necessarily be needed as a check against that oppression (Jefferson's opinion has been validated over and over again).

You asked "are you a member of the militia" ... well here is your answer.

I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.

Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia.

Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table [the Constitution] gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor.

-George Mason



What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.
-Thomas Jefferson


Try again.



posted on Dec, 13 2015 @ 06:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
Can we please all wear badges on our sleeves (and have icons on our avatars) to be able to distinguish between these left wings and right wings?

That would be most helpful, as I, like many, many here as of late have been called many things, and I am just not sure who I am, so a badge or icon would really help me remember.

Thanks.


Oh sweetie, you don't need one. Anyone who pays attention has you firmly locked into the brigade.
A liberal's liberal.

And there ya go.

Anyone who pays attention has you pegged too. Too bad so few do *eyeroll


Yep, I suppose the difference is, I am proud to be a conservative.



posted on Dec, 13 2015 @ 06:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
Can we please all wear badges on our sleeves (and have icons on our avatars) to be able to distinguish between these left wings and right wings?

That would be most helpful, as I, like many, many here as of late have been called many things, and I am just not sure who I am, so a badge or icon would really help me remember.

Thanks.


Oh sweetie, you don't need one. Anyone who pays attention has you firmly locked into the brigade.
A liberal's liberal.

And there ya go.

Anyone who pays attention has you pegged too. Too bad so few do *eyeroll


Yep, I suppose the difference is, I am proud to be a conservative.


Difference in what?

Pride's a funny thing, So's stating that your mind is closed and made up. And that you're comfortable in boxing yourself in.

But some people seem to need that.


edit on 12/13/2015 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2015 @ 07:38 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Does this prove that Muslims are leftist?

The only thing I exrapulate from that, is Muslims like barack hussein obama



posted on Dec, 13 2015 @ 12:52 PM
link   
What I see a lot of in this thread. . .by both sides

Posters describing groups of people by their most extreme members/voices and using it as overwhelming evidence that the entire group of people agrees with the extremists that claim to be part of said group.

Over-simplification, mostly regarding history. By both sides.

Cherry-picking, here are examples of horrible things. . .does not see examples of non-horrible things

Plus the usual ATS name-calling, black and white thinking, overactive pattern recognition. . .you all can probably come up with quite a few more if you try.



posted on Dec, 13 2015 @ 05:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
...
No, I didn't ignore what you said then and I'm not ignoring it now. You were wrong. Here's the exchange.

You based your whole theory about the person in question based on his facetious Twitter profile in which he was OBVIOUSLY trolling:


wow... You are assuming that that person in specific is simply trolling. What you are leaving out is that although Yiannopoulos is a British Republican, he is also gay, and has a lot of friends, many of them gay, as well as many liberal friends. Many of those friends also respond in his tweets.



originally posted by: theantediluvian

Trans-African-American, Jewish, #NAACP St.Louis Representative, Preferred pronouns: They, It


Really? Trans-African-American Jewish? Preferred pronoun "it?" Do yourself a favor and update your information.


What that man/woman was trolling about could very well be the fact that everyone wants to label gay people, and no one seems to ask them in specific. Not every gay person wants to be labeled as the opposite sex. It's more probable that the person you are referring to in particular is referring himself/herself as "it/they" because everyone else wants to define who he/she is.


originally posted by: theantediluvian

Uh. Is this a discussion or are you going to just say off the wall nonsense because there's no talking to somebody who will resort to insanity rather than concede a point.


Concede what point?... It is leftwingers who want to claim that because the PP shooter was "supposedly" Christian, that he committed those horrendous crimes because of every Christian who is against abortion... We show you that many mass murderers were/are left wingers, and you don't want to claim the same thing?... How convenient...



originally posted by: theantediluvian
Actually the Nazis were extreme right-wing fascists. You do realize that they could have called themselves the "National Part of Unicorn Loving Rainbow Warriors" and it wouldn't have changed WHAT THEY ACTUALLY WERE.


It wasn't just that they claimed to be socialists... Their policies were also socialist...

Hitler forced businesses to make the things needed for the war. Business owners could only keep their businesses if they did what Hitler told them to do... After all, businesses were there simply "for the good of the people". Although Hitler allowed business owners to keep their businesses. They only kept them because they followed his orders. Business owners could not do as they wanted. The NAZIS controlled them under penalty of death if they did not do "what was needed for Germany".

The NAZIS also boycotted the businesses of most Jewish people and other minorities.

The NAZIS implemented price controls which squeezed small farmers, apart from the food rationing which occurred not just because the war but because of Hitler's socialist policies.

You want to claim that because under Hitler Germany was very nationalistic that this made them far right?... All socialist/communist regimes were/are very patriotic. Such undying patriotism and national pride is also found in such regimes. In Cuba to this day they brainwash Cubans since an early age to be very "patriotic", and even to give up people's lives for the good of the revolution... In these regimes it is also emphasized to be "warriors for the revolution", and to always be ready for war against "capitalistic, imperialistic nations".



originally posted by: theantediluvian
For instance, the official name of North Korea is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Is North Korea a Democratic Republic?


That's because socialists and communists see their ideals as "democratic"... After all, socialism/communism is "for the good of the people"... Although it never turns out that way, and instead they always turn into some of the most repressive regimes the world has ever known.


originally posted by: theantediluvian
No and please don't pretend to be offended and try to turn your BS around on me. You're the one making all sorts of asinine claims. You said that his militant environmentalism proves his leftist affiliation. It's obvious that you associate environmentalism with the left-wing though in actuality, people from either side of the political spectrum can be environmentalist. I simply pointed out that you seem to believe otherwise.


I am not pretending anything. If anyone is it is you... Again, what Hitler, and his NAZIS implemented was ENVIRONMENTAL EXTREMISM... In 1935 Hitler signed the Reich Nature Protection Act. There was even a death penalty for illegal slaughter of animals even if people were hungry.

In the Nazi propaganda film “The Eternal Jew”, Hitler used the slaughter of cows and sheep in the Jewish kosher ritual to emphasize that “the Jew has no love or respect for animals in the Germanic sense.” He outlawed animal experimentation, but authorized cruel experimentation on humans, and even the slaughter of minorities. Hitler called this "the pacification of Nature" by the Jews in his Mein Kampf. This is ENVIRONMENTAL EXTREMISM...

www.aim.org...


edit on 13-12-2015 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.



posted on Dec, 13 2015 @ 06:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: LABTECH767

"Left wing Extremism" is a catch all used by Authority's to categorise social justice campaigners of all ilk's weather it be freedom of speech or even justice campaign's, anti war etc but usually Religious
terrorists are categorised as being Right Wing extremists but these days more often the "Right Wing" is replaced with the name of there religion.


Really? Authorities are going after left winger extremism? You obviously forget that the present authority in American is "left wing", and they have been labeling Americans who lean politically to the right as extremists, and not the other way around...





originally posted by: LABTECH767
It is actually a fact that Europe at the moment is under the control of a group of RIGHT WING extremist terrorist whom are also called the Bilderbergers and history will remember them as exactly that.


Really?... Is that why these same world leaders have been pushing for "progressivism" and world socialism? Because they are right wing?...



posted on Dec, 13 2015 @ 06:35 PM
link   
wow.

so much deluded

benighted

gullibility.






Sorry.

edit on 12/13/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2015 @ 11:15 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse



Hitler


...wasn't Socialist.



posted on Dec, 13 2015 @ 11:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: ElectricUniverse



Hitler


...wasn't Socialist.

Nazism = Nationalsozialismus which means national socialism.

www.nationalreview.com...
edit on 13-12-2015 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2015 @ 11:43 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

And, see, this is what happens when people look at mere names or labels and not behaviors or characteristics or results, particularly in their efforts to shore up their own existing view. Propaganda thrives and ignorance spreads.
edit on 12/13/2015 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2015 @ 11:46 PM
link   
a reply to: ~Lucidity

Says the person who did not read the source which has nothing to do with names.



posted on Dec, 13 2015 @ 11:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

And, see, this is what happens when people look at mere names or labels and not behaviors, particularly in their efforts to shore up their own existing view. Ignorance spreads.


Which behavior are you talking about? Do you not understand that under socialism the people truly do not have the power, even when the opposite is claimed?

The people only have power when each individual has power. When that power is taken away from the individual(each individual is part of the people) and given to an institution, such as the state, no matter how much it is claimed that the people have the power, this is not true.

To impose "the good of all" and to give up individual rights has always led to the most repressive regimes the world has ever known. ALWAYS.

Anyway, this thread is about the fact that even after the latest attack was done by Muslim extremists, and even a very liberal extremist, the official ATS position is to keep attacking Americans who lean to the right.

Joe from NLBS himself labeled the people who did the undercover PP videos as " inspiring the violence which caused the pp shooter to kill people"...

Tell me, should we not say the same thing of liberals when Syed alongside with his wife murdered people as well?...

You can claim that "he was liberal at first, but then turned" all you want. But the truth is, as he stated himself he was liberal.

Not only that, but the undercover people who made the videos never called for people to kill anyone. Yet, you have liberal groups like Black Lives Matter, which have been caught preaching the killing of cops but liberals continue to claim that BLM is not an extremist group?...




edit on 14-12-2015 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.



posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 12:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
...wasn't Socialist.



Yes Hitler was socialist... If you want to point to right wing dictators you should point to people like Francisco Franco. Francisco Franco became a right wing dictator right after liberals, socialists, communists and anarchists in Spain began a war against Catholics, priests, etc. Anyone who they wanted to murder and was religious, and/or capitalist. Franco was the response to the violence from the left known as "The Red Terror of Spain". Franco was right wing, and he became an extremist to stop the extremists in the left.
edit on 14-12-2015 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 01:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: ~Lucidity

Says the person who did not read the source which has nothing to do with names.


I read the source and far, far more. My statement stands. Your reply to the statement that Hitler was not a socialist was a floppy fish of deflection and diversion to start with. The latest conservative lifeline is broken. Face it.



posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 01:19 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

What the Nazis stood for was so far right by today's measures that it was off the scale. Expand your horizons and take a real and honest look at those who are truly behaving today the way Hitler and the Nazis behaved then, no matter name you choose to call it. Or don't. Keep your biases alive and keep reaching for something, anything to try to rationalize or excuse or take away the stain of you fallen ideology, co-opted by people who are just like them. Your not going to rewrite the history many in my family lived firsthand and is being repeated today by some. I'd give you a clue, but again, I don't much care. Your bias is your own. To me, it's a joke.




top topics



 
37
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join