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.

 

The U.S. might be better off without Congress — and a president

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2017 @ 10:17 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

You're mixing a whole lot of ideas together as if they're all one in the same there. Ideas such as Universal Healthcare for the world does in fact sound very good. There is nothing wrong with those ideas but of course you might run in to trouble getting them to work sometimes. Part of the problem may in fact be people such as you who resist them before they even have a chance at all because you assume they'll turn in to some Orwellian nightmare. But who knows for sure.

But the concept itself isn't a bad idea. Peace and well being for all the people of earth sounds good too. But just because I might agree with those ideas in and of themselves doesn't mean I agree with all the other crazy sh*t you include with it. You go from Healthcare for all to Forced Sterilization and killing people. That's a massive assumptive jump in logic there buddy.

You seem to be against "Progress" so to be true to that I'm assuming you live like the Amish, right??? Churn your own butter by hand, no electricity, etc. right??? No??? Well so I'm guessing some progress is good then right??? So does that mean Progress is good when you agree with it but anything you don't like is then bad progress and needs to be stopped???

Because that sounds like the same mentality of those who you fear and point out too. You are painting with a very broad brush and in doing so you demonize whole groups of people by slapping a arbitrary label on them all then decide what it is they all think. That's wrong and rude and dangerous. You're exactly the same kind of intolerant minded person that you describe who are force sterilizing people only you're just coming at it from a different perspective but you seem to represent their same uncompromising mentality of how things need to be and have decided that for everyone.




posted on Jan, 9 2017 @ 11:53 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

I am not assuming anything. The Rockefellers, the Rothschilds, the Gates, etc, they all have participated in enforcing these "progressive ideas" you want to claim "sound good and we shouldn't assume would be bad". These ideas are already being implemented, enforced and used.

Not to mention that progress used to mean something different to what it has been converted for the past few decades. It has been hijacked by the globalist left , and again, look at those policies these left-wing globalists are embracing. Every one of them is "the new definition of progress".

If anyone is assuming all of these "progressive ideas are for the good of all" are people like you who keep ignoring how the globalists are using these ideas for their own good, and not for the good of all.

The worst tyrants are those who always claim they want to enforce policies "for the good of all".

Look at the policies implemented under the Obama administration "for the good of all" which the left believed in. Yet here we are, having the left-wing government, and their paid and bought for media claiming only their news are true, and anything else that deviates from "left-wing progressivism" is fake and should be boycotted/banned.

If anyone has been labeling people is the left-wing governments/globalists. Anyone who deviates from the mandated ideas that the left believes in has been labeled and branded "a right-wing extremist and possible terrorist." Yet you get groups like BLM openly call for the deaths of white people and police officers and what does the rest of the left do? Nothing, not a peep. Instead, those who consider themselves as "left-wing moderates" ignore what the far left is doing using those same ideas of "equality for all, and for the good of all".

Look at what "leftwing progressivism" is doing in the U.S. and the rest of the world. The blaming of whites, and using "white guilt" to force people who are white from their university positions, and other jobs. The left even in the UK calling for white philosophers to be dropped from curriculum and instead to only use "non-white philosophers" in University/college curriculums.

We have the left in the U.S. calling for getting rid of the electoral college and instead to use "direct democracy" which is nothing more than mob rule, or as Marx named it "proletarian dictatorship".

But i guess all of this is just made up according to you? After all, it is only "for the good of all".

When you have articles like this one and instead of people like yourself being horrified that anyone would want policies from the dictatorship of China to be implemented in the U.S., your first reaction is to ignore it and instead resort to changing the subject and claiming "people are only assuming these ideas are bad".




edit on 10-1-2017 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



posted on Jan, 10 2017 @ 12:32 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Wait a second. I'm not saying anything here. You're doing most of the talking. I'm also not supporting even a fraction of the things you keep saying. You're just throwing a whole bunch of stuff together and saying that's what I am supporting. I'm not.

Another thing is when you're talking about "The Left" that doesn't mean anything as there is more than one variation of what it means to be left leaning. You have a Traditional Left which is what most people probably are and consider to be the left. Then you have NeoLiberaism which is what you're saying when you talk about Left Wing Globalists. Then there are Progressives which are similar but have their own weird ideas.

It's not even something you can just say and have it make any real sense. Just saying "The Left" doesn't mean anything because you're grouping in people who don't support any of that stuff you're talking about but are still considered to be on the left. You're putting too many things under one group that doesn't fit. There is too much grey area in there for you to blanket label everything like you are, including the labels you have for me.

All I've said so far is that the idea of Universal Healthcare for people on earth sounds like a good idea. Doesn't mean I agree at all with how it's been put in to action. Just the concept is a good one. But lots of things sound good as ideas. Hell, communism sounds really good as long as you don't actually try to make it happen in reality. Then it all falls apart. But on paper it sounds good.

You're getting way too intense here and pushing too many labels and stuff together for me to even keep up with everything you're trying to say.



posted on Jan, 10 2017 @ 01:31 AM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

I know that there are many people in the left that believe in different branches of left-wing ideology. Never said differently. Peace on Earth, everyone being equal etc, sounds good. Here is the thing, even with the different branches in the left they do have one thing in common. The belief that "universal healthcare etc" should be forced on people. I am sure you have your own ideas which should be forced on others. Such as people who don't believe in abortions should also pay taxes to fund other's abortions, or even healthcare itself.

These ideas should be left for individuals to decide themselves. No group, or government should ever impose their views on others. Are you going to tell me that in general the left, even those who don't subscribe to communism, or other radical left-wing ideology, don't have their own ideological belief which should be forced on others? Are you going to tell me that you, as a left-winger, don't have your own ideas which you think "should be imposed for the good of all"? If you claim differently you are simply lying.

Whether it is "universal healthcare," which everyone would have to pay for including those that don't agree with it, and which would include "paying for other people's contraception, or abortions", or whether it is some other "political ideology" such as forcing every woman to accept transgendered men in women's restroom, etc. These might seem like good ideas but they are not when they are imposed. That's how authoritarian governments are always implemented. Through imposing ideas that "are supposed to be for the good of all" and are nothing more than political beliefs being imposed on others.

I don't believe, nor do I agree with using violence or bullying against anyone for any reason, except self defense. Everyone does have rights, but when the beliefs of a group of people is being forced on others this is always a bad idea which leads to authoritarian states/nations. That's what progressivism is in all it's forms. The imposition of certain left-wing ideas being forced on everyone.

This article, and the ideas being put forth by both the reporter, and the author are some of the latest examples of people in the left believing their ideas should be imposed on others. These two even go beyond that by stating, according to their view, that Chinese policies should be implemented in the U.S.


edit on 10-1-2017 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.



posted on Jan, 10 2017 @ 02:19 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

You can't seem to have this conversation without making it about me personally and inserting all kinds of words in my mouth and trying to represent my position on things whether I'm giving you my position or not.

I also don't subscribe to your theory that the one thing in common for those on the left is that we all want to force our issues on others by force. So your whole argument is dead right from the start. I could say the exact same thing about people on the right too. Does that make it correct???

Keep up the hate brother. It's not going to get you very far pushing your ideology of hating those other people. But you keep it up if you want. I'm not going to engage in it though. Nice talk thought.



posted on Jan, 10 2017 @ 08:43 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse


You are trying to make it sound like no "Collectivist" form of government ever gave power to one individual or a small group of individuals. Is that what you think?

Not at all, sorry I wasn't more clear.


i guess then Lenin was never in charge of the U.S.S.R., neither was Stalin in charge later of the U.S.S.R., Nor was castro ever in charge of Cuba, nor Hitler himself and the NAZIs.

All those forms of government I mentioned above, among others, gave power to one person, or a small group of people while claiming "it is all for the common/collective good".

All of them.

As we give power to our gubment today. The worst of all those examples you cited above. We freely choose to obey and support our nice benign democracy, "interventions" and NWO hegemony.

Don't look too close at all the horrifying details of foreign policy, though. Makes these other 'regimes' look like boycotts.



posted on Jan, 10 2017 @ 08:57 AM
link   
It's ridiculous.

Each State or Commonwealth has a Governor who is indeed the president of his own country.

That's the purpose of governors.

The President of the United States is supposed to be the leader in charge of the combined defense of the union of these countries called States.

There are 50 Governors. One President and Vice President can work with with 50 Governors IF necessary.

Then there are two Senators per - who represent their State so the President doesn't have to.

And there are 535 House members. Each representing a region of their respective states...

If you ask me, there is more representation in the U.S. government than any other on the planet.

Between lobbyists and unions, etc. There are plenty of people on the job.

But having two people in charge of the red button? Ooh no. Ohhhhhhhh no.

That's stupid.

The military doesn't need two Daddies. Just one, please.



posted on Jan, 10 2017 @ 06:28 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

I see. So let me ask you then, how would you implement "universal healthcare" without forcing new taxes on people and even without forcing those who don't agree with it, which would be tens of millions of Americans at least who would not agree with such measure. How would you pay for such taxes for "universal healthcare" which in the "progressive way" would pay for contraception of others, their abortions, etc without forcing new taxes on everyone?

In fact, even in your response you seem to be admitting that it would have to be "forced" on people such as myself.


originally posted by: mOjOm

You're mixing a whole lot of ideas together as if they're all one in the same there. Ideas such as Universal Healthcare for the world does in fact sound very good. There is nothing wrong with those ideas but of course you might run in to trouble getting them to work sometimes. Part of the problem may in fact be people such as you who resist them before they even have a chance at all because you assume they'll turn in to some Orwellian nightmare. But who knows for sure.
...



But to you this is somehow not forcing your will upon others? Really?


edit on 10-1-2017 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.



posted on Jan, 10 2017 @ 06:42 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Well, if everyone would stop funding the War Machine and Corruption that would be a good start. Hell it would pay for more than just health care too.

Again, all I'm saying is the idea of universal healthcare to everyone is a good idea. I already said there is a difference between the idea of something and the application of it in reality.

Obviously it would need funding. But we currently waste how much of our tax money on War or Corruption??? Most all of it.

You seem to have the attitude that such an idea is never possible or unthinkable. It's not. It just isn't currently feasible because people are f*cked up and would much rather fight and kill each other instead of help each other.

I mean it's estimated that we could solve world hunger for 30 billion a year. Now that's a lot of money sure but we spend way more than that already killing each other. But imagine how safe a nation would be if they did that. They would be totally safe because who the hell would attack the nation that is feeding the world??? Nobody. They wouldn't even need a military because nobody would try and stop that.

Anyone who did would be an obvious enemy of humanity and could simply be removed by everyone else for their obvious anti-human ideals.



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 08:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
...
You seem to have the attitude that such an idea is never possible or unthinkable. It's not. It just isn't currently feasible because people are f*cked up and would much rather fight and kill each other instead of help each other.
...


Riiight...Like it worked so well for let's see... the U.S.S.R., China, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, etc, etc. Heck, even European countries, including the UK are going broke in great part because of their UH...

BTW, 13 trillion of U.S. dollars just from U.S taxpayers have been used "to bail out banks, and world organizations" just from 2007-2011... All in the name of "helping out other countries". What has that money done?... Enrich the rich, and these same countries, and banks are once again in deep doodoo...

Then there is the fact, as I have shown, that despite "progressive" institutions and groups getting billions of dollars in donations to "try to help people in third world countries", that money has been used to force sterilizations, force abortions, etc, etc... But hey, it's "in the name of progress and for the good of all". So it "should be ok?...

I find it ironic that some people, in the left, want to claim that "there was never a communist threat to the U.S."... Yet here we have left-wing media, and left wing institutions incluging "thinkprogress" proclaim that we need a "direct democracy" and we need to get rid of the electoral college... We have several democratic officials backing such a move, and here we have even left-wing journalist proclaiming we should look to China to change our policies and be more like them... Of course, this journalist and the left-wing author also claim we should implement policies to even get rid of the President, and we should also implement policies like those of Switzerland.

Yet the policies that allowed Switzerland to get so much money was by becoming a tax heaven for corporations, and even making deals with dictators, rich gangsters, globalists and politicians all over the world who have been hiding their money in Swiss banks... Since Switzerland started putting a stop in this and have been a "bit more transparent" they had to increase, and increase the taxes on regular people to try to offset the loss of money. Although there are still probably trillions of dollars in Swiss banks from a lot of dictators, rich gangsters, globalists, and politicians...


originally posted by: mOjOm
I mean it's estimated that we could solve world hunger for 30 billion a year. Now that's a lot of money sure but we spend way more than that already killing each other. But imagine how safe a nation would be if they did that. They would be totally safe because who the hell would attack the nation that is feeding the world??? Nobody. They wouldn't even need a military because nobody would try and stop that.


Guess what... People have different ideals and they will never think like you because people are not robots... That's what communism does, try to impose these socialist ideals you have which time and again have proven to implement nothing but socialist dictatorships.


originally posted by: mOjOm
Anyone who did would be an obvious enemy of humanity and could simply be removed by everyone else for their obvious anti-human ideals.


It's quite funny, and here you are trying to claim you are not trying to impose anything. Until people like you come to understand that compassion and charity should never be imposed on people, we are going to keep having nothing more than socialist dictatorships all over the globe

Compassion, charity, and good will come from the heart of people, from their free will. Compulsion to "do good" always leads to dictatorial systems. Which you don't seem to understand.

You want an example of a charitable organization that helps people only through donations? St. Jude Hospital. When people are allowed free will, and when people have enough money for their family and themselves a lot of people give out to charities of their own free will.

Compulsion, no matter how "good the intentions are", always leads to no good.



edit on 11-1-2017 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 08:15 PM
link   
WELL you know WE just knocked out a couple of communists so all this NON-REPUBLIC discussions are mute.



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 08:54 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Dude. Why is everything some kind of personal attack with you.

I'm not saying to force anything on anyone. I thought we were just discussing some ideas here. You're just out to make enemies of anyone with different ideas than you.

I never said anyone had to think like me either. You seem to be the one who refuses to allow others ideas, not me.

All you do is call me a progressive and a communist and everything else and I already said Communism doesn't work. So how the hell am I a communist???

You are everything that you've been labeling me and I've done nothing at all but try and discuss some IDEAS. Just ideas.

So you don't like the idea of feeding hungry people. Fine. I don't care. I never said you had to like it or think like me about it either. I simply mentioned it in context of a nation that decided to do it. I'm not passing laws based on it.

You a psychopath who can't seem to stand a different opinion than your own.

Which is fine. Live in your perfect world where only your ideas are right. I don't have to live there though. So good day to you man. Good luck with all that anger and sh*t.



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 09:17 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

You seemed to be implying that anyone who would confront what would be "the new world order" who you imply would be "feeding the world" could "simply be removed because they are an enemy of humanity." And then you try to imply I am insane... wow... Dude, face it, you have socialist ideals which have never worked...

Like your pal Marx said...



The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism.

Read more at: www.brainyquote.com...

That is exactly what you are implying. Any opposition to what is in fact socialism has to be removed for the good of humanity...


edit on 11-1-2017 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join