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 do conservatives always find themselves on the wrong side of history?

page: 10
71
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 16 2017 @ 04:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Gryphon66
...
No liberal is for "change for the sake of change." If you can back up your claim with actual evidence please do so.
...


You all voted for Obama was proof enough that you all voted for change "just for the sake of change".


Nah. Not really. But thanks for playing.




posted on Oct, 16 2017 @ 04:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I have to give it to you ... you dare to complain about revisionist history, while maintaining that the word republican in the Constitution refers to the Republican Party.

You win the prize.



Is that what I wrote? Dare point out where I wrote that? BTW, dare to point out how "republican form of government" equals to "direct democracy" or the socialist system you always love so much? PLease go ahead and try to speak about "historical revisionism"...



posted on Oct, 16 2017 @ 04:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Gryphon66
...
No liberal is for "change for the sake of change." If you can back up your claim with actual evidence please do so.
...


You all voted for Obama was proof enough that you all voted for change "just for the sake of change".


Nah. Not really. But thanks for playing.


Not really? so, you are telling us now that one of the major arguments most people in the left were not making was that "this would be the first black President in the United States"?

The main argument from the left was that his race made him a better candidate than any other. That to me sounds like "change for the sake of change"...

edit on 16-10-2017 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



posted on Oct, 16 2017 @ 04:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Super hurricanes stop businesses immediately then need government intervention to start up again.
there is no proof that Super hurricanes are from co2



posted on Oct, 16 2017 @ 04:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Gryphon66
...
No liberal is for "change for the sake of change." If you can back up your claim with actual evidence please do so.
...


You all voted for Obama was proof enough that you all voted for change "just for the sake of change".


Nah. Not really. But thanks for playing.


Not really? so, you are telling us now that one of the major arguments most people in the left were not making was that "this would be the first black President in the United States"?

The main argument from the left was that his race made him a better candidate than any other. That to me sounds like "change for the sake of change"...


Loaded questions now? LOL.

Demonstrate (with something other than your own opinion) that "most people on the left" voted for Obama because of his race.
edit on 16-10-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Oct, 16 2017 @ 04:57 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

You tried to equate the citation in Article IV to the Republicans. It's right there above. Don't lie, don't try to scrabble out from under the weight of that crap.

As to this rot ...



BTW, dare to point out how "republican form of government" equals to "direct democracy" or the socialist system you always love so much? PLease go ahead and try to speak about "historical revisionism"...


That's just more blathering that no one here has said. Hang your scarecrows on your own time.



posted on Oct, 16 2017 @ 04:58 PM
link   
Have not read the thread but just offering a reason for the logic in the title; situations don't become noteworthy unless real change is needed and conservatives, by definition, resist that change.



posted on Oct, 16 2017 @ 05:04 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse




"republican form of government" equals to "direct democracy" or the socialist system you always love so much?


The rise of the republic during the renaissance was somewhat of a corrective to the feudalism of that time and a real powerhouse for the fine arts. the patricians had to prove their legitimacy due to their history, being traders and not monarchs. They sponsored city palaces, churches and raised their prestige with supporting famous artists, sometimes in direct opposition to the church as well.
Every actual slave or bondsman entering a city was able to obtain citizenship if he found a sponsor, which meant actual freedom from his former oppressors. Happened quite a lot, pissed of quite the bunch. Also, a council republic is pretty close to direct democracy. Broaden the perspective?


edit on 16-10-2017 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2017 @ 05:09 PM
link   
Most citations in European history to "republicanism" refer to the relatively representative democratic nature of the Roman REPUBLIC (prior to the Empire of course) combined with the Renaissance ideals of the natural rights of man.

One can read just a bit of Rousseau, Hobbes, Locke or even Madison or Jefferson and discover that.

It has little or nothing to do with the Republican Party either in 1860 or now.



posted on Oct, 16 2017 @ 05:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

We could trace that further back to the Greek and Plato or to the old norse and their thing, which was obviously always a thing. Can't. Resist. Bad. Alemanns. Wordplay.



posted on Oct, 16 2017 @ 05:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: Gryphon66

We could trace that further back to the Greek and Plato or to the old norse and their thing, which was obviously always a thing. Can't. Resist. Bad. Alemanns. Wordplay.


LOL ... love that thing you did with the thing about the Thing.

Why didn't Marvel Comics ever have Ben Grimm travel back in time to the Old Norse period? LOL


edit on 16-10-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Oct, 16 2017 @ 05:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Nickn3

You are correct. I wouldn't say a female getting knocked up, by making a bad choice, then snuffing out, (murdering) her "problem" as/is a "winning" "choice". Then the same liberal thinking/thought that "offers" this "women reproductive right". Don't let you hang a rapist, to "cruel". But the first argument they throw at you is, "what about the rape victims"!!??!! Liberals have created their own retarded civilization and expect sane people to live in it.



posted on Oct, 16 2017 @ 05:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Pssst.... I'm prolly working on that marvel of a comic when I'm a really old norse in Greece or something like that. But don't tell them kids, they will make another crappy CGI movie instead and I'm having a hard time to get any producer with all this Hollyhammer crap already. lulz.






posted on Oct, 16 2017 @ 05:54 PM
link   
How so? History is written by, whoever wins at the time. We have a problem in The U.S.A. That problem is, that the vast majority of public educated comrades think we're a "democracy", we are not. We are a "Republic" ruled by law. That law, being the C.O.T.U.S. The "law", that all "laws" are subject to. ..
Back to your ridiculous question. How so?



posted on Oct, 16 2017 @ 06:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Loaded questions now? LOL.

Demonstrate (with something other than your own opinion) that "most people on the left" voted for Obama because of his race.


Loaded question? not really, but obviously you want to deflect from answering the questions.

BTW, it isn't my opinion that people voted for Obama because he is black... For crying out loud, that was one of the phrases even used in these forums during the 2007-2008 election cycle.

The left in general was running with the "vote for Obama because he would be the first black American President".

People who wrote that they were voting for him were completely unawares, even many in ATS, about many of the things Obama wanted to implement, instead the "he is black that's why we should vote for him" was the main reason so many voted for him.

You are actually trying to deny a known fact. But that's what you always do don't you?












edit on 16-10-2017 by ElectricUniverse because: add link.



posted on Oct, 16 2017 @ 06:14 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

No need to fix what ain't broke. Just need compliance to the C.O.T.U.S. from both Republicans and Democrats and good education. I don't believe the founders ever thought the public/citizens would become so fragile, depraved and queer, ..that they'd have thought to direct law to the people and not to the government. The "amendments" aren't for the people. They're there to tell the government what it is not allowed to do. No additional "amendments", or "new law" will change that. One could write a book on the subject.



posted on Oct, 16 2017 @ 06:20 PM
link   
if you side with gluttonous corporations and the greedily wealthy at their country clubs, while at the same time being an easily controlled racist fool who loves division and to hate anyone and anything they are told to hate [so they will support greed and corporate rule by elitists] then it is likely you will be on the wrong side of everything natural and beautiful.



posted on Oct, 16 2017 @ 06:21 PM
link   
a reply to: murphy22




we're a "democracy", we are not.


You've got that right. Rigged game, remember?

Study: US is an oligarchy, not a democracy



posted on Oct, 16 2017 @ 06:42 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

You're well-aware that I don't play your sophomoric games with fallacies.

Ask a real question; get a real answer.

As to the rest of your typical performance, let's consider the evolution of your claim:

Liberals vote for change for the sake of change

... which then became ...

Most liberals voted for Obama because of his race ...

... which then became ...

Some people voted for Obama because of his race ... as described in multiple Youtoob videos which you chose based on title.

Guess what chief, you can also tote those goalposts down the field on your own time.
edit on 16-10-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Oct, 16 2017 @ 06:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: murphy22
No need to fix what ain't broke.

I didn't say fix. I said change.



new topics

top topics



 
71
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join