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.

 

What are the things we can all agree on

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2016 @ 12:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: DonVoigt
a reply to: ForteanOrg

And therein lies the problem, one person's inability to believe that both sides can share a point of view


If they could they would not be sides.




posted on Aug, 7 2016 @ 01:15 PM
link   
a reply to: ForteanOrg

Not necessarily, there are going to be aspects that we don't agree on as I've said there may not be perfect harmony, but if we can compromise and set aside the little issues that we don't agree on, I'm sure that we will find many issues that we do agree on, and generally from what I've seen right here in this thread that there are many important issues that we do agree on and can stand behind each other on.



posted on Aug, 7 2016 @ 01:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom
I would hope that we could all agree that the US shouldn't be borrowing money at interest from private banking cartels that don't have the money to begin with.

I would also hope that we could all agree that justice shouldn't be a multi-tiered system. There should be no such thing as too big to fail or too big to jail. The justice you receive in court shouldn't depend on how much money you have or how high your position is in the government.



And both of your points are clear indications that our government does not draw its power from the consent of the people.



posted on Aug, 7 2016 @ 02:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom
I would hope that we could all agree that the US shouldn't be borrowing money at interest from private banking cartels that don't have the money to begin with.

I would also hope that we could all agree that justice shouldn't be a multi-tiered system. There should be no such thing as too big to fail or too big to jail. The justice you receive in court shouldn't depend on how much money you have or how high your position is in the government.



And both of your points are clear indications that our government does not draw its power from the consent of the people.


I wish I didn't have to agree with you but....

Corporations are now people so....but I agree with you completely. One of the strange morphological aspects of capitalism.



posted on Aug, 7 2016 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: DonVoigt

How about this as a thing that everyone can agree on:

The Government, it's agencies, and individual agents thereof, it's congress persons, presidents, staff at any level, military or civilian, must NOT behave in a way which:

1) Costs the nation its honour.

2) Costs the nation financial hardship.

3) Interferes with the privacy, freedom and liberty of the people.

4) Or any of the above, especially not for the gain of individuals or companies associated with lobbies, power blocks, donations to the parties campaign coffers, or any other incentivised relationship.



posted on Aug, 7 2016 @ 03:44 PM
link   
a reply to: DonVoigt

It is hard when you have people who believe that if they spend all summer working hard to grow their own vegetables and raise their own pigs and chickens or sheep, what have you, and then work all fall to set that aside to see them through the winter, they have every right to enjoy the fruits of all that hard work and that it belongs to them to dispose of as they see fit.

Then you have others who sincerely believe that they were somehow exploited by those people and all that produce was stolen from them, so they deserve an equal share of it, even if they did not a thing to produce any of it for themselves, even if they had every opportunity to do so, including access to land and resources. Because in their philosophy, no one should ever be able to own any property and anything that is produced on it is or should held in common for all.



posted on Aug, 7 2016 @ 04:12 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

From wiki
"
According to the OECD in 2012 the top 0.6% of world population (consisting of adults with more than 1 million USD in assets) or the 42 million richest people in the world held 39.3% of world wealth. The next 4.4% (311 million people) held 32.3% of world wealth. The bottom 95% held 28.4% of world wealth. The large gaps of the report get by the Gini index to 0.893, and are larger than gaps in global income inequality, measured in 2009 at 0.38.[8] For example, in 2012 the bottom 60% of the world population held same wealth in 2012 as the people on Forbes' Richest list consisting of 1,226 richest billionaires of the world."

Tell us again about that access to land and resources.



posted on Aug, 7 2016 @ 05:50 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

And thus you prove my point.

And if you had a tomato plant you grew all on your little lonesome, did you steal that from someone else?
edit on 7-8-2016 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2016 @ 06:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom
I would hope that we could all agree that the US shouldn't be borrowing money at interest from private banking cartels that don't have the money to begin with.

I would also hope that we could all agree that justice shouldn't be a multi-tiered system. There should be no such thing as too big to fail or too big to jail. The justice you receive in court shouldn't depend on how much money you have or how high your position is in the government.



And both of your points are clear indications that our government does not draw its power from the consent of the people.


Well put, it's amazing that something so important as justice becomes an industry, where the greatest amount of shekels is spent saving the skins of the really well off, and the big monopolies often lasting years.

Advocacy, a person who argues for the cause of another person in a court of law....it's so often a joke for Mr Pleb.

The money-go-round of organizations like the Federal bank, is just a posh word for stealing off the taxpayer, not just the interest, but a fee for printing the stuff as well...so much for capital costs even. The same goes for big industry, their incentives are probably huge in new build to make the capital cost much more acceptable, (in the case of so-called AGW) they could probably build a load of crap that doesn't work, and still get their shekels...all profit.



posted on Aug, 7 2016 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

I like that, general honorable guidelines that are expected of our elected officials. They are there to represent 314 million people as a group, for the sake of maintaining honorable name for us not just the highest bidder. Agreed



posted on Aug, 7 2016 @ 07:20 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I think it's fair to say that we can all agree that each man has a right to the fruits of his own labor.



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 02:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: ScepticScot

And thus you prove my point.

And if you had a tomato plant you grew all on your little lonesome, did you steal that from someone else?


Nope, but then no one actually believes that. It is a straw man argument that has nothing to do with whether everyone has access to land and resources.



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 02:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: DonVoigt
a reply to: ketsuko

I think it's fair to say that we can all agree that each man has a right to the fruits of his own labor.


The problem is that there are multiple different ways of defining what is the fruit of own labour.



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 02:28 AM
link   
a reply to: DonVoigt

I think most of us can agree trump is a fool except for the trumpbots



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 08:35 AM
link   
a reply to: lortl

I'm tired of talking about the things that divide us, that is why I started a thread to talk about the things that unite us.



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 08:36 AM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

There certainly are different ways to define it, agreed



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 10:39 AM
link   
a reply to: DonVoigt

1. What if our country’s security could be effected if certain financial arrangements aren’t maintained?

2. How much time/money would it cost this country to round up 11+ million illegals? Who’s going to do it? We’d need a national effort on the scale of WWII in order to accomplish that.

3. If all of the parents of these youth you mention are taken into consideration, wouldn’t they constitute a large percentage of society? And if that’s the case, than the problem with unruly kids IS a societal issue. No?

4. Should a document written 240 years ago by people who’d have absolutely no way of relating to present day society be our ONLY guide when deciding who should and should be allowed to own deadly force?

5. Mudslinging is subjective, Limiting free speech is unconstitutional.



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 09:19 PM
link   
a reply to: TownCryer

1 I'm guessing that your talking about paying off terrorist nations ransom for kidnapping American citizens

2 e verify responsible citizens report their employers for hiring illegal immigrants, illegal immigrants get fired or businesses owners lose their license to do business. Deny them any kind of government funding for anything, they self deport because they can't freeload off of us anymore.

3 parents take personal responsibility for raising their children, children grow up to become good people, some people will still be bad but the problem gets better.

4 yes only a minority of people in this country believe in changing it, that's why the minority of people who want it change it keep trying to chip away at it.

5 another issue of personal responsibility by politicians. Only people who can't stand on their platform resort to mudslinging
edit on Mon20168V201623931 by DonVoigt because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 09:23 PM
link   
I think people can often find that they agree on a lot of beliefs, and yet their approach to reaching the goals and realizing the beliefs as they would like can differ vastly.

It's weird when you observe two or more people having such a conversation. They can get really into the fact that they all seem so similar, and then that moment comes where they start talking about different approaches and you can see the disappointment. You just know they're all scheming a way to get out of the situation.

I don't think most people should be expected to match up in belief and approach.



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 09:33 PM
link   
a reply to: pl3bscheese

Agreed, right here in this thread i have proved that most people are sick of talking about the things that divide us and that most of the larger issues that have been discussed are actually the issues that unite us there have only been a small amount trolls come in here trying to derail the thread



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join