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.

 

Rep. John Lewis Wants To ‘Take A Bullwhip’ To People So They Care About Civil Rights

page: 7
11
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 22 2017 @ 01:26 AM
link   
a reply to: windword


What happened to Trumps threat to sue them?

When his lawyer appeared in State court to get the judge to drop the case against Trump, he claimed that Trump's threat to counter sue was "campaign rhetoric"

Trump lawyers push dismissal of sexual harassment lawsuit July, 8 2017.

-------------
metaphor? hyperbole? rhetoric?
edit on 22-9-2017 by pthena because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 22 2017 @ 08:33 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Of course they should have different beliefs.

However, just as a person ought to be free to act in any fashion they like, as long as it does not harm others, they should be able to believe what they like, with only the following caveat. No fascism, fallacious ethno-centricsm, no demand for a monoculture of any kind.

For example, I am permitted to be a Christian, others are permitted to be Jews, Hindus, Muslims, and a whole host of other religious or political beliefs...

But NO ONE is permitted to be a fascist, a xenophobe, a religiophobe, a homophobe. Why is there a difference? Let me explain.

Christians, Muslims, Hindus and so on and so forth, do NOT (regardless of the lies you have heard from your media masters) wish harm or death on ANYBODY! Regardless of what their books are mistranslated to suggest by the phobics within and without their ranks, to either bolster them or detract from them, regardless of the witless screeching of the least of their number might imply, religion does NOT make a person a monster, regardless of which religions they might practice.

And furthermore, there are thousands of ideals of a purely political nature, which do not require of their advocates and adherents, an unreasoning hatred of any group of people, nor do they assume supremacy over other human beings. You have a HUGE palette of beliefs and ideals in which you have EVERY right to indulge, without comment or inconvenience from any quarter.

But the moment you take up a fascist ideology, you put yourself in the position of advocating the murder of more than half the people in a given region, including both those who fit a demography you have chosen to target, but also all of those who refuse to permit you to gain the power you desire, knowing that fascists are of course, utter scum, and must be resisted at all costs.

People should have different opinions and beliefs. But people should not be fascists, apologists for fascism, supremacists, or advocate for an ethnocentric governance. Why? Because fascism is the only thing which cannot be tolerated, because to appease or allow it automatically makes a person complicit in whatever eventually results, and there has never been a fascism which was not monstrous and evil in its aspect. The reason for this is simple... fascist ideology is, automatically monstrous and evil, without question.

There is no other way to look at it, unless you have already adopted it into your paradigm, and unfortunately, once you have, you sign your own death warrant. You see, humanity will always destroy you, it will always kill you all, you will never outnumber it, nor out gun it, nor have enough ammunition to defeat it. Humanity is the only supremacy. You are either with all of it, prepared to accept your place within the whole, or it will justly burn you out of itself like the cancer you become when you take up racist, fascist ideology.



posted on Sep, 22 2017 @ 09:24 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

The problem is you're saying some people should not be permitted to have certain thoughts and beliefs and opinions, that they are guilty of thoughtcrime. That's totalitarianism.



posted on Sep, 22 2017 @ 07:50 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust


I wonder if he actually knows people that act like they can get away with doing anything. Like criminals. I am not so sure he would care to discuss the statistics.



posted on Sep, 22 2017 @ 07:55 PM
link   



posted on Sep, 23 2017 @ 04:07 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

No. Totalitarianism would be a ban on thinking any revolutionary thought, or having any but a narrow, heavily limited list of permitted beliefs.

I am saying quite the opposite, that there is only one mode of thought which is not permissible. That is not totalitarian in the least. Where there is only one prohibition, there can be no totalitarianism, because too much freedom is allowed for under such a stricture, to call any resultant society totalitarian or even authoritarian.



posted on Sep, 23 2017 @ 09:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Doing something honorable and noble 50 years ago does NOT excuse ignorant, bigoted, biased behavior today.


Given the revisionist history that we have witnessed time and time again.

I'd say the civil rights era was wag the dog just like it is now.

Only now people should be beat down for not being outraged for the Lewis' liking.



posted on Sep, 23 2017 @ 10:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

No. Totalitarianism would be a ban on thinking any revolutionary thought, or having any but a narrow, heavily limited list of permitted beliefs.

I am saying quite the opposite, that there is only one mode of thought which is not permissible. That is not totalitarian in the least. Where there is only one prohibition, there can be no totalitarianism, because too much freedom is allowed for under such a stricture, to call any resultant society totalitarian or even authoritarian.


No. Banning a single thought is totalitarian. Even suggesting one should ban an opinion is totalitarianism of the highest order. What you are suggesting is what Orwell wrote about in 1984.



posted on Sep, 23 2017 @ 12:15 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

When WE ALL face the fact that the Barcelona Declaration CAUSED effective Jihadist infiltration , THEN tell me.
I wear swords on my back at CONS by the way ...I think you'd like that.



posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 04:31 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen>>> I'd like to take a bullwhip to our lawmakers to get them to take their jobs seriously and put the good f the country first, and not themselves. Extend that to those in our government buraeucrats aswell and then to the media.



posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 04:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dutchowl
a reply to: xuenchen>>> I'd like to take a bullwhip to our lawmakers to get them to take their jobs seriously and put the good f the country first, and not themselves. Extend that to those in our government buraeucrats aswell and then to the media.



Well said!



posted on Sep, 25 2017 @ 03:45 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

You are welcome to your flawed morality, LesMisanthrope.

As long as you never try to inflict it on the society you are a part of.




top topics



 
11
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join