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.

 

Right Wing Propaganda and the GOP Blowback

page: 6
26
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 07:17 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Government should be secular. Political parties should be secular.

The problem is that government has gotten so intrusive, so invasive, so much in our lives and in our businesses, they (politicians) lie so damned much, manipulate (using religion) so damned much that it is almost expected for a politician and party to become religious.

If we had a less invasive government, then their secularism would be appropriate. NOT only when it ####ing suits them.




posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 07:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: intrepid

I'm not the only individual in this thread who has received your gatekeeper defense following....


And I stopped listening there. I am not the topic no matter how much you are programmed to think so.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 07:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: introvert

Dude, I honestly and truly believe what I posted on the last page, item by item, issue by issue, rejecting what you're calling "propaganda."


OK, so there is no room for compromise or intelligent discussion.

While I respect your opinion, it is unreasonable and , dare I say, polarizing. That is the very result of what I highlighted in the OP.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 07:21 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

I can mostly agree. Where I draw the line is when the excuse is used to attempt to bar someone who has faith from even getting elected because ... THEOCRACY!

That was never the intent.

And, of course, I notice that the worry is very selective. Individuals who have the vapors over Mitt Romney's Mormonism or Ted Cruz or GW Bush won't bat an eye over Keith Ellison or Obama's blatant attempts to lobby with religious language and references or the same ones who call John Kasich "reasonable" even though he spends more time justifying his governance stance with religious language than Cruz does.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 07:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: ketsuko



The Democrats are secular, and it's dishonest to suggest otherwise.



True. Our government should be secular as well. That is the only way we can protect religious freedom.


Yes, but secular government often looks like atheist or any policy I don't like must therefore be religiously based government.

"You only say that because you're a religious nutjob!" Is one of the most common insults or slurs I see whether the opinion is based in a religious footing or not. And once you convince yourself the only motivation for a thing is religious, then you give yourself leave to dismiss it out of hand on that basis on grounds of separation of church and state.

It's like convincing yourself that an argument is motivated out of racism ... or bigotry ... or ...


That sounds to me like you are playing the victim before there is a reason to play the victim. How can we get together and discuss the issues if you insist on being at a disadvantage you created yourself?



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 07:24 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I know. When atheist/socialists use ""brothers keeper" to sell socialism, it irritates me.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 07:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: ketsuko

I know. When atheist/socialists use ""brothers keeper" to sell socialism, it irritates me.


This will make it easier:



America is changing. 2 choices. Adapt or go kicking and screaming. It's going to happen.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 07:28 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Nope, just pointing out an interesting observation.

Why is it that religious language doesn't bother the left when it's used to endorse your preferred politicians and policy positions, but if someone the left doesn't like uses it or it's used in reference to a policy position the left doesn't like, it suddenly becomes a major violation of church and state?

Where is the consistency in the position? Remember those intellectual inconsistencies? Maybe I mentioned them in another thread today, but this is another one that I can't believe the left can live with.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 07:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: ketsuko

I know. When atheist/socialists use ""brothers keeper" to sell socialism, it irritates me.


Are you talking about the "My Brother's Keeper" initiative that Obama pushes?



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 07:30 PM
link   
a reply to: intrepid

Tilting at windmills causes chaffing.

So I will take the powder.




posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 07:31 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

See, "compromise" has become a one sided weaponized joke. A lot of the demands for "compromise" are now directed at people's principles and core values. You start compromising on those and you really no longer have principles and certainly aren't being true to yourself.

I'll also say something that admits a truth I've long fought against accepting... the overall world is drifting more and more liberal. That places Conservatives in a no-win situation where compromise is concerned. Compromise has to be a "both sides get something beneficial out of it" scenario or else it becomes purely capitulation. Where is the benefit in compromise for a conservative? Are we going to ever see the liberals give up any of their self-identified "gains" in these compromises? Take the gun control issue, how does compromise EVER benefit, even remotely, the gun owners? "I'm going to take your rights from you and apply restrictions on your rights piece by piece" still ultimately reaches a destination of the 2nd Amendment being DOA.

Compromise on the economy still equals me paying more in taxes, the debt climbing rapidly, and more people getting handouts in exchange for voting again for politicians who keep the cycle going in the socialist direction.

Compromise on religious issues... I'm pro-life (though it is an issue I seldom bang my head against the wall arguing around here). How does compromise on abortion issues benefit those of the country who believe it to be legalized murder, period? "Oh goodie, only babies up to week 27 can be aborted, we win!" No. That's not only whoring out your principles, it's deciding between a punch to the nose or a kick to the balls, neither of which is even remotely beneficial.



It isn't propaganda, it's who a lot of us on the right really are and what we know to be true.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 07:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: introvert

Nope, just pointing out an interesting observation.

Why is it that religious language doesn't bother the left when it's used to endorse your preferred politicians and policy positions, but if someone the left doesn't like uses it or it's used in reference to a policy position the left doesn't like, it suddenly becomes a major violation of church and state?

Where is the consistency in the position? Remember those intellectual inconsistencies? Maybe I mentioned them in another thread today, but this is another one that I can't believe the left can live with.


You would have to be specific for me to comment on that.

All I can say at this point is that there is a difference between supporting someone based on religious reasons or supporting a policy based on such, and using religion to deny people of certain rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
edit on 23-3-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 07:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: ketsuko

I know. When atheist/socialists use ""brothers keeper" to sell socialism, it irritates me.


Are you talking about the "My Brother's Keeper" initiative that Obama pushes?


Yay!

Yep.

One individual helping another individual does not equate to government taking from the successful to redistribute to the less successful.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 07:39 PM
link   
a reply to: intrepid

You'll have to line me up against a wall and shoot me.

And I mean that.

My ancestors were a free people with a tradition of fighting for that freedom. You may enjoy the cage and collar, but I don't want it, never asked for it and resent the implication that I somehow need it.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 07:39 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

I'm willing to compromise. Even on issues like abortion. I think we need to respect a woman's right to choose, but also limit at what point a child can be aborted if it is not for urgent medical needs. In fact, I'm anti-abortion and pro-choice.

That's a bit odd to say, but true.

Overall, I think we agree more than we disagree, but we have to be willing to set aside our ego to approach issues like adults.

If your ideology is informed by ignorant propaganda, then we have nothing to discuss. (That is not directed at you personally)
edit on 23-3-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 07:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: ketsuko

I know. When atheist/socialists use ""brothers keeper" to sell socialism, it irritates me.


Are you talking about the "My Brother's Keeper" initiative that Obama pushes?


Yay!

Yep.

One individual helping another individual does not equate to government taking from the successful to redistribute to the less successful.


That program is one that tries to help inner city black youth from getting involved in gangs and violence.

It's a great program and we should support such a thing to curb the uprising of more inner city "thugs".



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 07:43 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Didn't say you would want it, need it, etc. In fact I think you're going to hate it. I said it was inevitable. Again, 2 ways. Accept it or go kicking and screaming. I know which is going to happen already.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 07:44 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

But it's not the only time he's used the reference.

Early on in his first campaign, he gave either a speech or talk where he used the "brother's keeper" reference along with a scenario where he talked about two school kids. One had a sandwich and the other didn't. Instead of saying the kid with the sandwich decided to share, he said the teacher needs to come take away the sandwich and give half to each kid. The implication is clear - government should take and redistribute to make it fair. And he used my brother's keeper as his justification.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 07:46 PM
link   
a reply to: intrepid

I only hope that when you realize what kind of deal with the devil you are making, you don't also find yourself up against a wall and realize there is no one left to fight for you.

The kind of world you think you are wanting always comes with purges, lots of purges. I'll be one of the lucky ones. They'll take me out early because I'll fight.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 07:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: introvert

But it's not the only time he's used the reference.

Early on in his first campaign, he gave either a speech or talk where he used the "brother's keeper" reference along with a scenario where he talked about two school kids. One had a sandwich and the other didn't. Instead of saying the kid with the sandwich decided to share, he said the teacher needs to come take away the sandwich and give half to each kid. The implication is clear - government should take and redistribute to make it fair. And he used my brother's keeper as his justification.


He was discussing a Christian principle in that speech, not a government intervention.

Do you know what it means?



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join