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.

 

Oregon militants sit silently as furious residents shame them for ruining their community

page: 3
13
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 04:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheTory
a reply to: imjack




Anyone that views the Right media machine as being the Left is:
1. Conservative
2. Not in the loop since 2008.


That's not true in any way shape or form. It makes more sense to say that anyone who doesn't understand conservatism is not conservative. Yourself, for instance.


But conservatives themselves don't understand conservatism!

Thanks for the laugh. You still never even touched on my last post that I literally posted twice just to get a response fyi. The question being: what makes someone a conservative?

Spoiler: it's a single issue voter, someone that puts a single issue above the platform. Like that gay guy, that votes Republican for less taxes.

edit: removed a part about you being gay, it wasn't directed at you.
edit on 20-1-2016 by imjack because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 04:40 PM
link   
You know this has been amusing to watch. The idiots role in with guns and take over a Federal Building to support some people who it turns out want nothing to do with them. They steal and vandalize stuff. The locals hate them, and why would they not? How would you feel if a bunch of armed people showed up in your town and claimed they were on a mission from God? The Native Americans are demanding the be prosecuted for damaging their land and artifacts. When other crazy militias showed up in solidarity the end up fighting and then leaving. And then they complain when people keep sending them sex toys. The just can not understand why nobody wants them around and why the vast majority of the American public think they are a joke. At some point the locals are going to get their guns and go deal with these idiots. And frankly I do not blame them.



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: imjack




But conservatives themselves don't understand conservatism!

Thanks for the laugh. You still never even touched on my last post that I literally posted twice just to get a response fyi. The question being: what makes someone a conservative?


Which conservatives exactly? And why are they not conservative?

The literature on conservatism is out there for anyone who chooses to use it. Given that none of it is welcome in academia, we can be sure very few have read it.

Conservatism has a wide variety of arguments, but the one that captivated me is the rational and empirical approach to politics. The premise is that we hold on to, defend, and utilize the ideas and institutions that have served us the greatest and the longest, as opposed to destroying them in favor of an abstract, conceptual model that some philosopher thought up one time.



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 04:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: imjack

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: TheBulk

I find it interesting how often conservatives members go out of their way to talk about BLM. Even in threads, like this one, that have nothing to do with BLM. It's almost over-the-top...


Conservatives go out of their way to talk about anything.

Indoctrination has made them the bias fact-checkers for their masters. The best part of when a conservative says something is when they generally assume all other conservatives feel the same way, when they're the single most diverse group in terms of "acceptance".

There are gay conservatives.
There are conservatives that hate gays.
There are women conservatives.
And there are conservatives against more equal rights
There are black and Islamic conservatives.
There are conservatives that hate blacks and Muslims.
There are atheist conservatives.
There are bible thumpers that show clear hate for anti-faith.


Only a hypocritical fool would vote for that party and consciously proclaim it's ideals. You're only representing yourself. You're not being represented.


Idk. Its weird. A lot of the higher up Republicans are #s. I'm against #lords of any group. The party got #ty when the religious people came into it in my opinion, I'm against people pushing their views on others and a lot of the arguments coming out of the RNC are pitiful. We need to bring the party back to pre- WWII ideals. I'm a younger Republican. From what I've gathered the younger ones of us aren't really too concerned with the socially repressed ideals of the older generations. But again generalizing a tad bit.

I'm glad Gays got their marriage rights. I'm deeply disappointed it took till 2015 for that to happen. You would hope we would have ended this long ago.

I write this to encourage more young people to realize we have a chance to save our party from #lords, and we can still return to our original and most important ideal (make the government use every tax dollar as effectively as it can ).

I'd like to believe we can still work together with democrats. Not all of us are hypocritical or fools but we do need a more patient and understanding base.

We as a country need to stop the polarization and oversimplification of politics. It'll only lead to a bloodbath




Back to the topic of the thread. The Oregon militia is greatly misunderstood. Essentially they feel that there are key people in positions of power within the government that are using underhanded tactics in order to en-richen themselves at the expenses of the American people. Their plight is not that different from the Black lives Matter Movement. People in a position of power (the police) doing something underhanded and #ty (shooting black people
and disproportionately going after them for minor crimes) in order to enrichen them (court fees are ridiculous in this country).

What utterly baffles me when people compare these two groups is that no one sees their underlying similarities.


You should all be listening to what the Oathkeepers have been reporting about this Oregen issue. They were also notably in Furgenson to prevent against any more police brutality.

www.oathkeepers.org...



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 04:54 PM
link   
a reply to: MrSpad

What constitutes local?


"The locals don't like them so i don't either!"

Just seems a little weak don't ya think? Kinda childish?

edit on 1/20/2016 by onequestion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 05:16 PM
link   
a reply to: TheTory

You know it's really straightforward, I posted my opinion twice, you just haven't read it. The person beneath your post here quoted me. Read it.

The point is that 'Republican' has no real ideals in the first place and the majority of the party is made up of people that care about 1 thing, rather than the Republican party.

This is why I was stating it's moronic to generalize yourself against a party like that, that has such large extents of acceptance, because literally both sides of every argument that exists, can be supported by the Republican party, while the same is just generally not true for liberals, who support the platform, and aren't voting for a single issue, but rather voting for a leader.

This is why being a gay conservative is weird, but being a straight liberal means nothing.
This is why being an atheist conservative is weird, but being a Christian liberal means nothing.
This is why being a black Republican might seem weird, but being white and liberal doesn't.

The majority of people that ignore this, even understand how it works. They're surprised at something that should be obvious. Conservatism in a nutshell is just favoring tradition. It has no moral connections. Don't be so surprised that it leaves you with no real moral judgement.
edit on 20-1-2016 by imjack because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 05:23 PM
link   
a reply to: imjack

I wasn't responding to the rest of your diatribe, just your definition of conservatism.


Conservatism in a nutshell is just favoring tradition. It has no moral connections. Don't be so surprised that it leaves you with no real moral judgement.


"Favouring tradition" also means favouring the empirical results of the tried and true. Anything else is favoring the idealistic, very little of which has passed any empirical analysis. Communism for example.



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 05:27 PM
link   
a reply to: SaintFrancisco

Yes there is a gross misrepresentation of the group and their grievances. It's no wonder the locals may wish to see them gone, because they are probably repeating and regurgitating what the media tells them to, just like the OP. I doubt any of them have spoken to the protestors, but we can be very certain most of them have been tuned into their televisions.



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 05:28 PM
link   
a reply to: imjack

Why couldn't you be gay and have conservative values?



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 05:34 PM
link   
a reply to: TheTory

I understand. I spelled out in my first post pretty clearly what I meant however, and it seemed to go misread by everyone.

And, empirical results are something that's interpreted. Just like tradition itself is interpreted.

And when it comes to interpretation, being most powerful means you have the best glasses.

This doesn't stop the masses from voting Republican, because they feel they make a difference however.

And having the most evidence of something also doesn't make it what everyone wants to do.


If I could make a better analogy for our Government, the Left is the popular vote, and the Right is simply the unpopular vote. The thing is, the 'Popular' vote, for every issue, at some point, offends someone, and so they just go Republican for that single reason.



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 05:35 PM
link   
a reply to: imjack

Do we really know what anyone votes for?

My vote is for open source voting system.
edit on 1/20/2016 by onequestion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 05:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: imjack

Why couldn't you be gay and have conservative values?


I wasn't really saying that. I was more saying, people find being gay an enormous life choice, and as Republicans, are the party that were against legalizing gay marriage, I'm saying many people found it hypocritical to be a Republican and be gay. This is their misunderstanding however, because they have liberal values, so they vote liberal, and what they are missing, is that most people actually have some liberal values, and the truth is, they are conservative over a single issue.

So being gay and conservative, is kind of weird, but if you're a Billionaire, and you need Tax Money, maybe not. Or you believe in Jesus. The point is, it's 1 thing that keeps you a conservative, while many things keep the liberals democrat.
edit on 20-1-2016 by imjack because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 05:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: MrSpad

What constitutes local?


"The locals don't like them so i don't either!"

Just seems a little weak don't ya think? Kinda childish?


The people who live there who they claimed they came to help. And it is pretty weak, showing up uninvited. Causing problems for people who did not ask you come nor, want you around. They are clearly idiots. Idiots who claim to be on a mission from God. Lets just ignore the fact that the people they came to help want nothing to do with them, that the local want them gone, that the Native Americans want them prosecuted, that because they did not want to share the spot light they fought with and drove off other militia groups who also came to help, that they committing crimes, that they speak crazy talk every time they find a camera and that they have no idea what they are doing. Forget all that. And look at how they have take the spot light off the real problem and instead made the entire thing about themselves. Look at how they have made the entire militia movement look like a bunch of bumbling idiots getting sent on missions from God. All because they imagined riding into town and being haled as heroes and then being embraced by the national spotlight. It was and is all about them. And if that does not make them you hate them, I do not know what will.



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 05:41 PM
link   
a reply to: MrSpad

Did you watch any of the videos they produced?

They are there for more than just the hammonds.

Did you see the videos of the other ranchers interviewed from the area where they said they agree with why their there?

Who cares what they think in my opinion some issues are bigger than that.

I bet the loyalist in colonial America were crying and complaining too while the patriots were fighting for their freedom.

I define for myself why I do or do not support them I don't care what anyone else thinks and I support anyone who thinks the big government agencies are bullying and taking advantage of the public.
edit on 1/20/2016 by onequestion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 05:46 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

No idea what that is. My personal preference would be electing 'neutral' leaders, that are mandated to carry out 'issues' that are voted for instead.

But that's the initial lie they told us about this system.



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 05:47 PM
link   
a reply to: imjack

Point taken. I apologize for misunderstanding.

If I can offer some insight to your point , it would be Robert Conquest's "Three Laws of Politics", which seem to ring true. They are as follows.

1. Everyone is conservative about what he knows best.
2. Any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing.
3. The simplest way to explain the behavior of any bureaucratic organization is to assume that it is controlled by a cabal of its enemies.



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 05:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: imjack
a reply to: onequestion

No idea what that is. My personal preference would be electing 'neutral' leaders, that are mandated to carry out 'issues' that are voted for instead.

But that's the initial lie they told us about this system.


Interesting perspective.



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 05:57 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

I sell 90 billion TV commercials a month, and I can already tell you Trump is going to win, simply because the price he paid for them.

That, or for the first time ever, I'll have made a ton of money, but from the person that lost.

If there was ever a better person to consider the whole thing a sham, it's me.

I hate this system. My job makes me feel like our company picks the winner.

I've considered every other possible system. I'll probably google open source sometime by the end of tonight.



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 05:59 PM
link   
a reply to: imjack

Well, 90 billion huh?

You hiring?

LOL!'

Open source in that context would just mean public domain, the ability to view the actual votes. Like open source code for computer programs.
edit on 1/20/2016 by onequestion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2016 @ 06:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: imjack
You hiring?
'

do you know php?




top topics



 
13
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join