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: 4
16
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 08:51 AM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3

Inequality has existed since the dawn of time. There is just no conceivable way to remedy that. We all deal with the hands we are dealt, some better than others.




posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 08:51 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko


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?


Obviously, as I stated, what one can do for oneself by oneself without harming or affecting others is our right; So obviously, one cannot force anyone else to marry.

However, when two people decide for themselves and by themselves to commit their lives and hearts to each other for eternity, they don't need anyone else to do so. They can do so without even telling anyone else. They can make that commitment with no help from anyone. They can do so before their God and/or before their friends and family or they can do it all by their lonesomes. No one's participation or approval is necessary. Much less a government and/or religious entity that "grants" their permission.

By the same token, government should not be telling anyone what they must believe -- including people of faith -- which unions they are allowed to officiate and/or otherwise participate in, much less what is acceptable before God.

It is only government intervention/interference in our free will to do so that requires anyone else's participation or, worse, approval.


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.


No, I negated nothing. Those who "superproduce" seldom (if ever) do so all by their lonesome, and almost always do so with the help from government intervention/interference. You know, that whole "you didn't build that alone" thing. As stated, no one brought anything to this world. They can only work with what is here already. And everyone -- every last one of us -- is standing on the shoulders of giants who came before us in a myriad of ways.

Some pigs are NOT more equal than others.



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 08:55 AM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

Live and let live is fine until we get to the bits where if you have too much and someone else has not enough, you shouldn't have what you have.

Define "too much" and "not enough."

I have no problem helping those who genuinely need it, but I have a big problem if I bust my butt and someone outside of the situation says I have too much and dingledorfus down the street doesn't have as much so I have to surrender what I have to him.

Or to use Obama's story. If one kid at lunch has a sandwich and another kid doesn't, the teacher should take half the kid's sandwich to give to the other kid.

No. You hope the kid recognizes the issue on his own and offers to share of his own free will.

You tell me which story is true charity.



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 08:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

So in other words, you do very much believe in defining what is too much and not enough?

You don't believe in private property rights.

I cannot walk that path with you. Eventually, that path ends in no one having any security in anything - not your home, not your person, nothing ... not even your vaunted freedom to marry.
edit on 6-6-2017 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 09:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Boadicea



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


Awww shucks! Thank you



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.


I definitely agree. If we could all agree on something, it would be awesome if we could agree on a set of rules/limitations on congress critters, and put forth a "Contract for Congress Critters" so to speak, and making it clear they will only get our votes if they pass that set of conditions for themselves. Such as reducing their salaries to the median income of the people, eliminating other long-term perks like health insurance and pensions, no exemptions for Congress critters in laws they pass for the rest of us (like insider trading!), every bill passed must detail the Constitutional foundation for that proposed law, and so on. In other words, we must reform congressional service to serve the people -- NOT THEM!



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 09:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: jjkenobi

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?


My point is and nobody on the right will answer the question is what has to happen for Republicans to think we are not divided.

If we get rid of Social Security and Medicare would that be enough to satisfy the Republicans?



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 09:06 AM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

We found a way in 2008 to balance wall Street and corporations with trillions. And both have been doing very well since that injection.



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 09:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: MOMof3

Inequality has existed since the dawn of time. There is just no conceivable way to remedy that. We all deal with the hands we are dealt, some better than others.



So your solution is to do nothing. We just can't have any public policies to address wealth inequality in this country. We just can't do it. Got it.



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

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: JinMI

We found a way in 2008 to balance wall Street and corporations with trillions. And both have been doing very well since that injection.


Corporate welfare is politically correct.



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

That would be nice. Then repeal the 17th Amendment. Give Senators back to the state legislators.

I know that seems counterproductive to what you are after, but think about it.

The state governments as bodies have no direct representation at the Federal level, and you are more directly connected to your state government than you are the Federal one. Plus, state legislators are not wealthy or powerful ... at least they aren't in Missouri. They have to work actual jobs.

The House is problem enough. Also, with the telecommuting tools, expand the size of the House again so that we have enough Reps to directly reflect the seize of the US population.



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


You don't believe in private property rights.


Of course I believe in private property rights. What I don't believe in is government entitlements granted to the few at the expense of the many.


I cannot walk that path with you. Eventually, that path ends in no one having any security in anything - not your home, not your person, nothing ... not even your vaunted freedom to marry.


Wrong. Government entitlements granted to those pigs that are more equal than others results in no private property rights. I'm sad that you cannot see that.



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 09:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: ketsuko


You don't believe in private property rights.


Of course I believe in private property rights. What I don't believe in is government entitlements granted to the few at the expense of the many.


I cannot walk that path with you. Eventually, that path ends in no one having any security in anything - not your home, not your person, nothing ... not even your vaunted freedom to marry.


Wrong. Government entitlements granted to those pigs that are more equal than others results in no private property rights. I'm sad that you cannot see that.


You are not talking about equal before the law.

You are talking about a different wording of "from each according to his ability to each according to his need."

I am sad you don't see that.



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 09:12 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko


Then repeal the 17th Amendment. Give Senators back to the state legislators.


If I had that power, I would. I would be happy to include that in a "Contract for Congress Critters."


I know that seems counterproductive to what you are after....


It is not counterproductive at all. I'm not sure what you read into my words that would make you think so.



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 09:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

Most people who want the Congress to work for the people think it is. That's all.



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 09:21 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko


You are talking about a different wording of "from each according to his ability to each according to his need."


No, I'm not... you are closer to that definition than I am. Except I would change "need" to "worth." It is government intervention/interference that allows some to take from others -- at the end of a gun and to the detriment of others -- based on perceived worth. Take away the government granted privileges and entitlements, and we would see the playing field change very quickly.



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 09:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Boadicea

Most people who want the Congress to work for the people think it is. That's all.


Congress doesn't work for the people. Congress is controlled by the CEOs. The lobbyists force the politicians to pass laws creating cartels and monopolies in exchange for campaign financing. The lobbyist pay the politicians. The CEOs pay the lobbyists. Money talks. The American people are BS.

It really doesn't matter which party controls the presidency. Lobbyists define domestic policy for both parties. The CFR defines foreign policies for both parties. It really doesn't matter who is president.


edit on 6-6-2017 by dfnj2015 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 09:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

I get very nervous whenever someone says - If someone has/takes too much and someone doesn't have enough, then it should be taken from them.

There is a very dominant belief that it applies simply to anyone who has more than you do. That the economic pie is a fixed thing. That wealth you create is stolen from someone else.

Put simply, if I grow a tomato on my patio, even though I grew it from seed, I "stole" those tomatoes from someone who doesn't have them, and someone should take my tomatoes and distribute them equally to all who have none because I took too many tomatoes from those who don't have any. That's your Lockean Principle.



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 09:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Boadicea

Most people who want the Congress to work for the people think it is. That's all.


Would those people be the 19% who approve of Congress.



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 09:37 AM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3

Wha?



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 09:37 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I don't know where you got the idea where I think someone else's should be taken and given to someone other. I don't think that at all and others shouldn't IMO.




top topics



 
16
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join