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.

 

Catering to the minorities/groups is not good for the country.

page: 5
37
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 30 2016 @ 09:40 PM
link   
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

Agreed. My original post mentions ethnic people, including minorities receiving more benefits than natural citizens. It's definitely a messed up nation.




posted on May, 30 2016 @ 09:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Can't pick and choose? I like how you try to ensure no one can argue with you otherwise they hate people in wheel chairs.

Plenty of people on the left are pretty much the opposite of being helpful in your example. Essentially, most common sense people might agree a ramp should be created for a government building. The left then might say everyone can use that ramp if they identify as disabled, even if they walk perfectly fine, and it is illegal to deny them that right even if they block and impede wheel chair users from using the ramp as it was intended.

The left prefer everyone be able to access rights given to us because we pay taxes into a system meant to benefit us in certain ways.

Crazy world, when emotional arguments are used in attempt to validate a circumstance in which has no relation to anything in reality. I guess that's what politics is all about though.



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 10:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: Annee

Can't pick and choose? I like how you try to ensure no one can argue with you otherwise they hate people in wheel chairs.

Plenty of people on the left are pretty much the opposite of being helpful in your example. Essentially, most common sense people might agree a ramp should be created for a government building. The left then might say everyone can use that ramp if they identify as disabled, even if they walk perfectly fine, and it is illegal to deny them that right even if they block and impede wheel chair users from using the ramp as it was intended.

The left prefer everyone be able to access rights given to us because we pay taxes into a system meant to benefit us in certain ways.

Crazy world, when emotional arguments are used in attempt to validate a circumstance in which has no relation to anything in reality. I guess that's what politics is all about though.


I don't do Left and Right.

Except Fundamental Right Wing Religious - - - Christian Political Lobby.

I'm a Globalist.



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 10:59 PM
link   
a lot of "white" people have amnesia or lack of information. look up black wall street as an example. self determination literally met with a fiery end. our present is created by our past. Most "americans" are not even native to this land but they want to make america great again. all I really see are certain people fearful of losing their voice and power which they didnt really have to begin with.

edit on 05pm115America/Chicago3100k by magnetik because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 11:15 PM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope

So what ethinic group is benefiting more than the white population. What are they specifically receiving. I also would like too know why you think we need smaller government but also more ethnicities in goverment. Could it be because they are under represented? Perhaps if the government didnt regulate the water and air would be cleaner? I could go on.....



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 11:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: xuenchen


We know it took over 140 years to get the LGTBQ equal marriage law nationalized right? Rome wasn't built in a day as they say.


That's a good point. I'd like you to forfeit your right to vote. Don't worry though, we'll give it to your 4th great-grand children. You have to be patient with these things.



I challenge you to name any country on the face of this planet where, from its inception, every individual within it was free, independent, and on equal footing. Go on, I'll wait.



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 11:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Looselungjones2

I never said we need more ethnic people in government, I believe that's up to the people.

Blacks receive more college funds than whites.

Example one.

There's more, I'm just logging off for the night.



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 11:50 PM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope

I didn't read the whole thread, my input is probably irrelevant, redundant, or just plain out of sync, but sometimes you just wanna speak anyways.

Personally, I don't think there is any big universal "should" to anything,

But in deciding what you want, you must be aware of the implications.

Trying to AVOID majority rule was the basis of the formation of the USA.

So choosing to change that and go instead into more democratic majority rule is a big step. It means scrapping the constitution and a whole lot of principles. It means moving more into socialistic idealism.

That's fine. But be aware that is what you are rooting for.

The part of the OP that goes into "we need more freedom" illustrates the problems in either extreme- the majority feeling dominated or oppressed by the individual, happens just as much as an individual can feel dominated or oppressed by a majority.




It is interesting to finally see us coming to the conclusion of this great experiment- only to find that our hypothesis that such a system of individualism MUST be perfect, was mistaken! Both individualism and collectivism get destructive at extremes!!!

There really is no easy answer to the everyday effort to be balanced.

It's like the day you realize there is no easy magic pill or easy diet to lose weight - sigh, we're just going to have to be moderate, not expect miracles, and be present in the now.



posted on May, 31 2016 @ 12:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: chuck258

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: xuenchen


We know it took over 140 years to get the LGTBQ equal marriage law nationalized right? Rome wasn't built in a day as they say.


That's a good point. I'd like you to forfeit your right to vote. Don't worry though, we'll give it to your 4th great-grand children. You have to be patient with these things.



I challenge you to name any country on the face of this planet where, from its inception, every individual within it was free, independent, and on equal footing. Go on, I'll wait.


How does that relate to anything?



posted on May, 31 2016 @ 12:30 AM
link   
Minorities must adhere to the same laws, nothing more. Government cannot and must not extend beyond its own realm.

We're a constitutional republic. That means all are expecte€d to be protected.

However, this does not mean separate, conditional or targeted laws. Failure to include or exclude a law given a personal trait, individual or group, must also not be allowed.

Agreed?



posted on May, 31 2016 @ 12:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: chuck258

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: xuenchen


We know it took over 140 years to get the LGTBQ equal marriage law nationalized right? Rome wasn't built in a day as they say.


That's a good point. I'd like you to forfeit your right to vote. Don't worry though, we'll give it to your 4th great-grand children. You have to be patient with these things.



I challenge you to name any country on the face of this planet where, from its inception, every individual within it was free, independent, and on equal footing. Go on, I'll wait.


How does that relate to anything?



It relates to the post he was quoting in his response (that you can't see):


We know it took over 140 years to get the LGTBQ equal marriage law nationalized right? Rome wasn't built in a day as they say.


To which he responded:


That's a good point. I'd like you to forfeit your right to vote. Don't worry though, we'll give it to your 4th great-grand children. You have to be patient with these things.


This implies he believes any country that is born should be born a perfect utopia, independent of external factors, which is, plainly, #ing retarded.


I would argue that no country on the face of this planet was formed with true equality among every individual living within it's borders. America didn't follow a path that most other major powers didn't follow as they rose. Do you think the small tribes and Nation States that Gengis Khan conquered while taking over the largest territory in human history had the same rights and freedoms of Mongol Nobility? Did the tribes that Muslims slaughtered when they formed the first Caliphate have the same rights as the Muslims they conquered?

No.

America is no different. Yes it is true that White men were the benefactors of such American expansion and growth, but in no different a way than Muslims were when they conquered North Africa and Spain. Adding to that, poor Muslims didn't have the same rights and privileges as Richer Muslims. I doubt Mongolian peasantry had the same freedoms and resources available as Mongolian nobility.

Also, he conveniently forgets that, despite taking 150 years (which is actually quite short when it comes to recorded history) - Western Civilization, yes, the one in which White men wield most of the power, have ushered in arguably the greatest Civil, Human and Social Rights advancements in human history. Something that is not matched anywhere else in the world, past or present.





edit on 31-5-2016 by chuck258 because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-5-2016 by chuck258 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2016 @ 12:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: chuck258

This implies he believes any country that is born should be born a perfect utopia, independent of external factors, which is, plainly, #ing retarded.



OK, then we interpreted that comment differently.



posted on May, 31 2016 @ 12:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Be fair - he also named gays and blacks.



posted on May, 31 2016 @ 12:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: MiddleInitial
a reply to: Annee

Be fair - he also named gays and blacks.


Smokescreen



posted on May, 31 2016 @ 12:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: chuck258

This implies he believes any country that is born should be born a perfect utopia, independent of external factors, which is, plainly, #ing retarded.



OK, then we interpreted that comment differently.



I edited my comment if you'd like to read the rest. I accidentally submitted it before finishing.



posted on May, 31 2016 @ 12:49 AM
link   
a reply to: MiddleInitial

*sigh*

Can you argue anything logically or are you going to just point out emotional assumptions based on your pre conceived notions about what I may or may not actually be saying...?

Certain people, at times, expect more attention, benefits, legislation, etc than others.

This includes religious folk, ethnic folk, and people that are different in other ways.

True or false?



posted on May, 31 2016 @ 01:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: chuck258

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: chuck258

This implies he believes any country that is born should be born a perfect utopia, independent of external factors, which is, plainly, #ing retarded.



OK, then we interpreted that comment differently.



I edited my comment if you'd like to read the rest. I accidentally submitted it before finishing.


Bedtime.

Catch you somewhere on the Flip Side.



posted on May, 31 2016 @ 03:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: Kali74

Norms I expect people to accept, adapt to in the USA...

The Constitution.

That's mostly it, I don't mean people should be forced to live one specific way. I just mean no one should be favored to live differently than the rest of us. Everyone should be at an equal level, treated exactly the same. Few if not zero loopholes, exceptions, etc.


What in your mind are specific issues that seem to indicate we don't treat people equally? As in, what today do you see as violating the constitution?



posted on May, 31 2016 @ 03:13 AM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope

Wow, I seem to have ruffled your feathers. Actually I didn't make an emotional assumption and my original observation is rooted in logic. In your post (on page 2) you listed trans, gays, and blacks (as examples of minorities exploited by politicians and media). In the post by Annee immediately after yours (if memory serves) she said some thing like 'didnt take long for this to devolve into another anti-trans thread'. (I am paraphrasing her words.) And so my post called her out for the "fallacy of incomplete evidence" (a.k.a., cherry picking), and come to think of it, she IS guilty of giving trans people special attention. More to the point: I admit, my post was made with tongue-in-cheek: I microtrolled your thread. I'm sorry.

On topic, I would say that while it might be true that sometimes certain groups of people want special consideration in various ways, the issue pales in comparison to the fact that special interest groups DO receive special consideration and then benefit when people have their eye off the ball. For instance, by arguing about each other. That's my two cents and I'm sure it's practically worthless at this point in the life of this thread. Cheers.



posted on May, 31 2016 @ 03:34 AM
link   
a reply to: MiddleInitial

I supposed I assumed your response was more agreeing with the other poster in general, but attacking me further, assuming I have personal problems with blacks and gays. My bad, sorry about that. You actually analyzed things very well in my opinion.

Nah, nothing said is worthless. I'd argue everyone wants special treatment in one way or another - it's just that politicians exploit the group that would cause a good amount division for their own means, and when a politician is looking out for his and his own ( or her) - it's pretty much the detriment of the citizens.

This is why I'm against special consideration in the first place.

No laws should be made that specify people based on their gender, ethnicity, sexual preference etc.

As in, with the Trans issue - no laws allowing anyone to use whatever bathroom, no laws against it. Common sense can rule, if a big man in the ladies room gets assaulted because someone thinks he shouldn't be there, let a cop handle the situation, followed by a court if the man truly feels a just decision hadn't been made.

Gays? There's nothing about marriage in the Constitution. I think the government should butt out of all marriages, straight and gay. No laws saying they can or can't get married, no laws about discrimination etc.

A truly free nation will decide what they are okay with and what they support. If a business owner doesn't want to serve gay people.. So what? If it's truly something people disagree with, that business will lose a lot of profit for having such stances. It's not up to the government to decide how we treat others - unless violence or other things obvious things are involved.



new topics

top topics



 
37
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join