It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: LesMisanthrope
You condemn people for thought crimes, for the content of their thoughts, for how they think. Trump condemned criminals for their actions, their illegal entry, their raping, their drug dealing. Thinking is not a criminal action. Breaking the law is by definition criminal action. Your priorities are backwards, and is evidence you care about your own thoughts, your own feelings, while condemning the thoughts and feelings of others. You are entitled to do that all you want, of course.
Why so literal Les?
I'll let you get back to defending your heartthrob - now that I know you're dead serious, and not really interested in the bigger picture
I hope you are all comfy cozy on your right side of history. Someone will hopefully thank you for your service
originally posted by: daskakik
originally posted by: pavil
Boy, I'd hate for Clinton Supporters to sound negative if that's them not trying to sound negative. Jeez.
If what is them trying not to sound negative?
Both sides take things their candidate has said and tried to tell others that what they have said was just twisted and that what they meant wasn't negative. Honestly, Trump supporters have had to do that a lot more than Hillary supporters.
I have no problem with Mexicans. All I want is for them to follow the law.
And I never was passed about the deplorable comment. I am disgusted by it. There's a difference.
A law and order country is a luxury...
Are there no deplorable people? Or, is it wrong to actually call deplorable people deplorable?
No. Without law and order we would have utter chaos.
You also advocate, along with a desire for lawlessness, an utter end to all fairness and equity. Without law and order, there are no rules to be fairly applied; might, and might alone, dictates who is treated how.
Just no. I cannot disagree enough.
I would say, considering the definition of the word, that the very fact that someone is willing to use it toward such a generalized group is an indication of their inhumanity. So no, to me there are no, or at least such a small number as to be insignificant, deplorable people. If there are, I would say one of the greatest indicators of one being deplorable is the willingness to use deplorable to describe others. I believe no one is unforgivable and everyone has value.
So, you can be aware of people's inhumanity. That's a start. But, that only apples to people that might call others deplorable
Not to people that would have human beings rounded up and forced out of the country because they're all rapists and murderers.
Is law and order a luxury, or a necessity? You said it was a luxury. I say it's a necessity. Now you want to agree with me?
You really should pick a side and stick to it.
Do you care at all about Americans? Do you have any empathy for someone killed in cold blood? How about for women mentally scarred by being horribly violated? Or, as your words seem to indicate, do you only care for one particular group of people - Mexicans?
I care about both.
It's a byproduct of civilization - and a luxury. It's not something everyone can afford
I'm not sure what the hubbub is about on this issue, really.
Given two choices to identify with in Clinton's speech, one "racist/sexist, etc." and one "hard-working American" ... a multitude of folks have identified as "deplorable."
That in itself says a lot.