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.

 

Why We are Divided

page: 3
16
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 06:57 AM
link   
We are not divided. Republicans control all three branches of government. Other than getting rid of Social Security and Medicare what more do Republicans want? What is left? There are no liberals left in government. Please enlightenment as to what it would me to be undivided and Republican happy?




posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 07:01 AM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

Diversity of opinion is a good thing. When the government unites the population it usually sends them to war.



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 07:03 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

No we are divided because half the country cannot accept those simple facts and continue to insist it was all some Russian plot.



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 07:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

originally posted by: SoulSurfer
a reply to: JinMI

You cannot salvage this system. People need to wake up and realize what is controlling their minds. We are too busy fighting eachother while there is a bigger threat to us and it is nonhuman. Invasion of the body snatchers can be a metaphor or the reality.
...
If you all want to blame someone or something, look in the mirror after turning off your T.V.




Still watching, but I wanted to comment on this part:


A wise man once told me, pursue discomfort instead of Joy and see where THAT takes you. In other words, he is telling me here to see what is hidden behind the pain.

It is literally the secret of secrets. The key that unlocks the door, and turn it upside down. What i am about to say is a download of information I received just now.

Alice in wonderland. Mirror world, the womb= Matrix. Makes me wonder... if that world... is the one we currently live in.

It's a riddle, a puzzle...a box...

Pandora's box...

and now im freaked out, and gonna go play Call of duty and ignore...

Oops there it is...


I know I am speaking cryptic, but what just happened (to explain..or try to) was me observing my mind. We do everything we can to escape the pain, the truth. Notice how society does exactly the same thing?

It feels like a pendulum swinging back and forth. The master... of this game.




King James Bible 2 Corinthians 4:4
"In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them."


Now you know, who is the god of this world. God did give her/it Space to repent, but also... a place to rule...




King James Bible Revelation(Apocalypse) 2:21
"And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not."


Let's hope for this from our father;



King James Bible Matthew 6:10
"Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven."






edit on th2017000000Tuesdayth000000Tue, 06 Jun 2017 07:06:56 -0500fAmerica/ChicagoTue, 06 Jun 2017 07:06:56 -0500 by SoulSurfer because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 07:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: JinMI

Diversity of opinion is a good thing. When the government unites the population it usually sends them to war.


It is a good thing ... until no one can find a way forward. Diversity of opinion in the modern context is what has led us to Berkeley campus riots. Simply put, they have decided they will not tolerate dissenting views because they have labeled them "hate" and "fascism."


“Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster... for when you gaze long into the abyss. The abyss gazes also into you.”
Friedrich Nietzche



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 07:08 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Berkeley has a culture of violence that transcends politics. The rise of the alt-right is simply the latest excuse for rioting.



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 07:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: ketsuko

Berkeley has a culture of violence that transcends politics. The rise of the alt-right is simply the latest excuse for rioting.


Maybe if it were just Berkeley ... but it's not. It's Portland too. And Evergreen College, and many other college campuses.



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 07:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015
We are not divided. Republicans control all three branches of government. Other than getting rid of Social Security and Medicare what more do Republicans want? What is left? There are no liberals left in government. Please enlightenment as to what it would me to be undivided and Republican happy?


Just a few short years ago Democrats controlled all branches of government. What's your point?



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 07:28 AM
link   
a reply to: SoulSurfer

This world is a fallen place. It's really that simple. We are only here for a short time, and it's our duty to look past that and be ready for what comes next and never lose site of that fact, never let anything in this world replace that fact.

The simple way a Christian should look at it is that God has the top spot in your heart and nothing else should take that spot, nothing in this world.

We are in the world, but not of it. He should never be far from your thoughts. It helps maintain the perspective.



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 07:33 AM
link   
We are divided because of inequality. In the US people are fighting for a place to live, for a decent job, for a doctor, for education, for mo money so they can buy a decent existence. Like the rest o the human world, fighting for resources. They will be purged .



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 07:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: ketsuko

Berkeley has a culture of violence that transcends politics. The rise of the alt-right is simply the latest excuse for rioting.


Maybe if it were just Berkeley ... but it's not. It's Portland too. And Evergreen College, and many other college campuses.


The college stuff is a passing trend and no more. In the 60's and 70's, you had a lot of protests because of the Viet Nam war and civil rights. In the 80's, it was all about greed and making money, so you didn't see a lot of protests on campuses. It's cyclical. It will settle down eventually.



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 08:03 AM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

You and I view prosperity quite differently.



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 08:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: kaylaluv

You and I view prosperity quite differently.


Didn't you see the movie Wallstreet in the 80's? According to Gordon Gekko, greed is good. That movie was a symbol of the times.
edit on 6-6-2017 by kaylaluv because: misspelled Gordy's last name



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 08:09 AM
link   
a reply to: JinMI


By no means do I expect a hand holding peace dance but FFS, the majority to have things in common and I think it's high time to focus on those to get our representatives to do our bidding!


I don't think we can get anywhere, until we can agree on -- and return to -- some basic guiding principles... What our founding fathers knew as Natural Law, and gave us a Constitution to protect and uphold those principles.

For example, that whatever we can do for ourselves and by ourselves (without harming or affecting others), is our absolute and inalienable right not to be violated in any way, and to be protected and upheld under the law. Just agreeing on that one principle would completely nullify the whole gay marriage argument in all its forms. No one would try to deny anyone the right to marry the same sex... and no one would force anyone to participate in gay marriage.

I would also like to think we could agree on the Lockean Proviso, which basically states that when one takes so much that there is insufficient left for others, one has taken too much.... and that our laws should protect and uphold that principle -- not create laws that entitle some more than others and still others that get none at all. While Locke spoke to a different time and dynamics, the principle remains the same, and can be applied to our oh-so-monetized world as well. This is the basic principle behind anti-trust and monopoly laws.

A prime example today would be pharmaceuticals. When government grants a corporation -- not even a person, but a fictional legal entity created out of whole cloth! -- the sole control over a substance derived from nature and the bounty of the earth (because let's fact it, none of us brought anything into this world. It was all here when we got here), and they take so much via prices that too many have no access to a life-saving medicine, it is a gross violation of the Lockean Proviso.

Another example would be land. When our government holds millions and millions of acres of land and there are people homeless or struggling to keep a home, it is a gross violation of the Lockean Proviso. When government obtains thousands and thousands of homes thru foreclosure and sells those homes to corporate investors, thus skewing the market for the individuals/families who need a home, it is a gross violation of the Lockean Proviso.

I guess we would also have to agree that money is a tool -- nothing more and nothing less. Not a weapon, not the goal, just a tool.

Having said all this -- and I could say more, believe me! -- I have absolutely no idea how or even if we could get our congress critters to agree to the same and actually follow through, much less the people.

But great question and great OP. Thank you!!!



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 08:20 AM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

Never saw it, and was not a symbol of the times for me.



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 08:35 AM
link   

I don't think we can get anywhere, until we can agree on -- and return to -- some basic guiding principles... What our founding fathers knew as Natural Law, and gave us a Constitution to protect and uphold those principles.


This I can agree with.


For example, that whatever we can do for ourselves and by ourselves (without harming or affecting others), is our absolute and inalienable right not to be violated in any way, and to be protected and upheld under the law. Just agreeing on that one principle would completely nullify the whole gay marriage argument in all its forms. No one would try to deny anyone the right to marry the same sex... and no one would force anyone to participate in gay marriage.


Yes and no. A marriage is not something you do by yourself. It always takes the agreement of others. At least one other - the one you would marry, and usually at least one more - the one who would marry the couple.

So in that sense, you've already negated your opening premise. Marriage is not something you can do by yourself. It is always going to be a social activity. That moves it out of the category of right and into the category of privilege or social good or whatever you want to call it.

You cannot grant a right to marry without risking harm to others: what if the one you want to marry does not want to marry you or what if the one who must perform the marriage does not want to marry the couple?

This is why the whole gay marriage debate is so contentious.


I would also like to think we could agree on the Lockean Proviso, which basically states that when one takes so much that there is insufficient left for others, one has taken too much.... and that our laws should protect and uphold that principle -- not create laws that entitle some more than others and still others that get none at all. While Locke spoke to a different time and dynamics, the principle remains the same, and can be applied to our oh-so-monetized world as well. This is the basic principle behind anti-trust and monopoly laws.


You also cannot grant people the right to do for themselves and uphold this too. Some people are going to go out and produce for themselves and that is going to lead some of them to superproduce in various ways. Now you are saying if they produce too much and some do not produce enough, they no longer have a right to what they produced. You again negate what you opened with.

Either people have a right to the goods they produce or they do not. It's called private property rights, and you are either secure in them or you are not.



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 08:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea



I could not have asked for a better response. You win the internets today Boadicea!




Having said all this -- and I could say more, believe me! -- I have absolutely no idea how or even if we could get our congress critters to agree to the same and actually follow through, much less the people.


Congress was meant to be a rotating position. Not the same members and certainly not a career. Term-limits were not really mentioned because government was never supposed to be as it is now. A career. Think of it how you would think of jury duty.



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 08:41 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Children with the smallest vocabulary seem to have little trouble in understanding what someone is trying to convey. That is because they communicate with a blank slate. Their attention is on what is being said, not on what they are going to say.



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 08:44 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I read that post by the thought process that prepared it rather than the content, which by now should know is all arbitrary on ATS.


At its core, the message is live and let live. Live within your means.

Back to basics as it were.



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 08:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: JinMI

Diversity of opinion is a good thing. When the government unites the population it usually sends them to war.


One of those rare times I'll agree with you.

However agreeing with each other is not necessarily agreeing with the government. There are basic things we can agree on. Things we really should get back to if we expect to move forward.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join