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.

 

AMERICA.WE.ARE.ALREADY.AT.WAR

page: 12
61
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns


I have never understood the purpose of the #Resist movement (seriously)


I don't identify with any movement. I do not respect in any way, shape, or form this administration.


What are you resisting?


I resist the Trump presidency, and have since before day one, because it seems to me that most everything the administration wants, or has tried, to socially implement is the antithesis of what America stands for, has stood for, and means.

In other words, I resist that which is unAmerican and a potential threat to this nation.


As far as the meaning of America to me (I know you didn't ask me), I feel it is a land of unlimited opportunity for anyone willing to work hard and take risks (success is never guaranteed). I believe we have a brilliant Constitution which established the boundaries of government interference with our natural unalienable rights. America provides us the opportunity to realize ideals such as freedom, liberty, choice, individual responsibility, and so on.


I agree with all of that, and want to preserve that.




posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 04:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Liquesence


I also oppose any potential threat to our nation, and do not identity everyone of either ideology as such either. If you aren't someone who wants to declare all conservatives are equal to Nazi a-holes, then you are definitely not a member of the group I am complaining about.

It is your right to not respect the Administration, I only have a problem with those who want to illegally overthrow it in some kind of false-flag coup. I also appreciate that we have similar to definitions of what our country means to each of us. I believe any political party (or political action) is just a means by which we ensure the Constitution is upheld. I also do not appreciate when any political actor abuses the Constitution.

In that regard, the current Admin. is no different than any of the others. It is everyone's duty to ensure they are holding up to the ideals set forth in the Constitution, I just have not seen any instance of that. I am largely supportive of Trump because he has shown himself to be interested in protecting our BOR - the entire BOR too. I think everyone should indeed have freedom of choice, as long as no one else is expected to endless shell out money for random endevours. IMHO trying to legislate things away one does not like is also a useless/immoral practice.

A random example of my argument would be abortion rights. The SCOTUS has already made its determination on that, and I never felt it was within the purview of the FED to address anyhow. I am not a supporter of abortion, in that I don't personally support the practice (although there are of course exingent circumstances). In that same note, I don't believe it is something that should be illegal because I disagree with it.

It is my right to disapprove of it, while your right to approve and both are fine. I just feel the government has once again overreached and decide to legislate social issues whereas their role should be limited (IMO) to national security/defense and maybe a few other things. At the core, a big and intrusive government is by far my largest complaint.

We have a lot of issues with corruption as well. The problem is that the real corruption is being drowned out by these people (mostly children or young adults) who shout and scream about random things they are clueless about. It really muddies up the water, and makes it difficult to determine when true corruption is being uncovered. It may turn out that Manafort was indicted, or even (more unlikely) Podesta. But regardless, it is important that corrupt officials be made to answer for their crimes against US. These young adults screaming about "treason this" and "colusion that" are not helping to clear those waters. Someone forgot to teach them that those allegations are without any evidence whatsoever and they shouldn't be acting as though they were a foregone conclusion & settled business.

This "settled business" fallacy is a big reason a lot of conservatives react the way they do to climate change. In my opinion, the changes to the climate have indeed been noticeable. We've had weather events that I never expected to see, and in short it appears to be going through some changes. The problem is that there are a decent number of researchers who have concluded that human activity cannot be linked to the climate change while others insist it must 100% be us causing it. Instead of reconciling the differences in findings via the scientific method (including always reevalauating and revising your data and conclusions), they insist the matter is settled science, without any room to question otherwise. That is the antithesis of science, and is something that will have to be addressed before you will really find widespread support (and broad support, from all those indys not just left v right).

I didn't mean to write a novel here, just listing some grievances and generally agreeing with that shared definition of America



posted on Oct, 29 2017 @ 05:41 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns


If you aren't someone who wants to declare all conservatives are equal to Nazi a-holes


Never have. I tend to not stereotype or generalize, except as a point of argument.


I just feel the government has once again overreached and decide to legislate social issues


I feel that "legislation" of social issues has helped protect those who would otherwise be vulnerable to, for instance, discrimination.


I am largely supportive of Trump because he has shown himself to be interested in protecting our BOR - the entire BOR too.


I see an obvious and blatant attack on the 1st Amendment, for one. I also see an attempt to make discrimination acceptable.


The problem is that there are a decent number of researchers who have concluded that human activity cannot be linked to the climate change while others insist it must 100% be us causing it.


No, the problem is that one group says 'humans' are to blame, while another group says 'no, other factors are to blame,' without recognizing that both are to blame and thereby wanting to marginalize human activity instead of at least trying to be good stewards of the planet.


It is my right to disapprove of it, while your right to approve and both are fine


That is true. What is not fine, however, is attempting to criminalize what one doesn't agree with :

I don't believe it something that should be illegal because I disagree with it.


Good to know. Some people seem to believe that, though. Belief is fine.


I only have a problem with those who want to illegally overthrow it in some kind of false-flag coup


I do not know what you mean.


just listing some grievances and generally agreeing with that shared definition of America


Yeah it sounds like we are generally on the same page. Sadly, it seems most people can't maturely discuss these issues without it becoming a partisan pissing match (both sides).



posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 05:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Liquesence

Very true, I find it hard to avoid that "pissing match" sometimes because of the sheer (for lack of a better word) thick headedness of some individuals. Of course it is someone's right to be as dense as they want to be, but that doesn't make it any less irritating
That is not directed toward you in any way, you seem like a reasonable critically thinking individual.

I agree that people who want to legislate their own will are misguided, as the difference between disliking something and making a law against it are two very different things. People seem to forget that each law (usually) takes away some freedom or otherwise replaces the judgment of an individual for the popular will of the people including legislators imposed through government (tyranny of majority). It is the limiting of certain rights or choices of the individual that I think constitutes an invasive government presence when personal judgment would easily suffice.

Another example would be seatbelt laws. In some states, failure to wear a seatbelt will net you a citation and serve as a primary reason to initiate a traffic stop (which can easily lead to more crimes being discovered by the state actor). If a consenting and well informed adult wishes to risk not wearing a safety belt in a vehicle, then the state shouldn't have a problem with that. The state has already determined it has no obligation to protect individual citizens, so why is it so concerned with "safety" now? So much that they can levy fines (or worse) arising from my personal informed choice to risk my safety by not wearing a safety belt in a vehicle? The state has chosen to legislate this issue (probably so highway funding, etc isn't compromised - but even so, that is still public money) as opposed to relying on individual choices (I would choose to wear a seatbelt, just a semantic argument).

Anyhow, great to have a non-insulting chat with someone that obviously is a grown adult


Thanks for that much



No, the problem is that one group says 'humans' are to blame, while another group says 'no, other factors are to blame,' without recognizing that both are to blame and thereby wanting to marginalize human activity instead of at least trying to be good stewards of the planet.


There is certainly nothing wrong with not polluting the planet, I don't want to live in a chemical or smog wasteland either. So there is no real argument from me on that either. I just think that anything in science is subject to constant review and challenge, and it seems like a lot of researchers only want to shut the other side down, as opposed to proving it wrong through fact or experimentation. Either way, regardless of its cause, taking care of Earth isn't something I oppose.

I'm a realist, I know automation coupled with improved nuclear/solar/wind/hydroelectric power generation technologies will supplant fossil fuels as the primary (and eventually, all together) means of energy. I don't think any type of uncontested climate science is required to bring about this change either, as the genie is basically already out of the bottle. No doubt corporations are benefiting (in some way, maybe tax breaks?) by delaying automation from really taking over a majority of job functions, but it is only a matter of time until no degree of incentives will outweigh the lower costs (and higher efficiency, think precision + 24/7 working) of automation.

Just my two cents though, for what they are worth


edit on 10/30/2017 by JBurns because: (no reason given)

edit on 10/30/2017 by JBurns because: spelled "fossil" with an "e" by accident



new topics

top topics
 
61
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join