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.

 

Double standards on the left

page: 11
69
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 04:25 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Being mired in materialism is exactly what happens to societies with right wing, therefore capitalistic and materialistic imperatives driving their economic model and their policy forward.

Just because you, the individual do not live that way, does not mean your voting choices do not promote, in fact guarantee that materialistic and shallow future for the country over which your vote holds some measure of sway.




posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 07:35 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

So you hold a view that all people, if given the choice default to evil?

I vote to allow people to have the choice. Your vote is to give a big government entity the unlimited power to attempt to force your perceived virtues onto others, and in the meantime, you empower them to be every bit as evil as you think individuals would become in right-wing land.

I fail to see how your way is any better.

The simple truth is you believe in a doctrine of collective salvation where we can't be saved unless all are saved, by sheer brute force if necessary, and when I read the gospel that is not the message I take away from it. We have to save ourselves or not at all, and people cannot save themselves unless they make the conscious personal choice to walk that road.

Government cannot enforce any morality, not yours or mine.



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 08:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Grambler

I did say that fascists and their supporters should be made war against, and I stand by that statement.

I specifically did not say that anyone who supports Trump is a fascist, but I know for a fact that there are fascists amongst his current, dwindling support base.


See this link.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Half way down the page I ask just to be clear, you are saying that anyone who supports trump is supporting white supremacy.

You say


Yes recent events have confirmed with absolute clarity, were there any doubt previously.

Your President is a fascist apologist, and support for him is support for that apologism and the fascism it advocates for.


You are a liar.

At least have the nerve to be honest who you are calling for the death of.



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 08:17 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko




I vote to allow people to have the choice. Your vote is to give a big government entity the unlimited power to attempt to force your perceived virtues onto others, and in the meantime, you empower them to be every bit as evil as you think individuals would become in right-wing land.


Which is why you're buisy blaming people for their choices if you don't happen to agree with them. After painting them collectivistic communists, of course.
And for what? For a strong stance against murder and mayhem for the sake of a political ideology from Europes more sinister past? Wow!

It's fricken hillarious, actually. I just don't get why some people still seem to take your oxymoronic drivel serious. Feels like mocking a bunch of retirement home talking points though.



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 08:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler




You are a liar. At least have the nerve to be honest who you are calling for the death of.


It's worse. I don't say it's communists, but it must be communists.

#RedScareUnderNaziBanners



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 08:27 AM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

I don't blame him so much as ask him not to force me to go along.

If you want to go off and collectivize ... fine, go do it, but have to decency to admit that when you vote for collectivist policy, it forces everyone to go in with you whether they want to or not.

Voting the other way, leaves you the option to do it on your own. I want you to be able to go and collectivize with other collectivists if that's what you want, but I want to be free to go my own way because I don't want to live like that.

When you vote to give the government power to collectivize, I am forced by law to go along with you. I am forced to follow your morality whether it is mine or not.

If it's wrong to force my morals on you, then it's equally wrong for you to force me into your collective that way too. I don't care how right you are convinced it is. Guess what? I'm pretty convinced letting people make up their own minds is pretty right, too.

So, please, you guys can all find each other online. There are no laws preventing you from pooling your collective resources, buying your own land, and forming your own collective to interact with the outside world in all matters. I am all for you doing it. Just don't force me to go along if I don't want to.



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 08:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: ketsuko




I vote to allow people to have the choice. Your vote is to give a big government entity the unlimited power to attempt to force your perceived virtues onto others, and in the meantime, you empower them to be every bit as evil as you think individuals would become in right-wing land.


Which is why you're buisy blaming people for their choices if you don't happen to agree with them. After painting them collectivistic communists, of course.
And for what? For a strong stance against murder and mayhem for the sake of a political ideology from Europes more sinister past? Wow!

It's fricken hillarious, actually. I just don't get why some people still seem to take your oxymoronic drivel serious. Feels like mocking a bunch of retirement home talking points though.


Funny you claim it's a stance against murder and mayhem, yet that is exactly what he is calling for against trump supporters.

This is exactly what the op is about.

A self described moral leftist calling for war and death against political opponents, while he and others celebrate him as being against death and mayhem.

This is Orwellian double speak at its finest.



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 10:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler




Funny you claim it's a stance against murder and mayhem, yet that is exactly what he is calling for against trump supporters.


Holding a Nazi banner has nothing to do with support for the President of the USA. You know that, right? Right?

... Right?



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 10:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

You may talk to me about nerve, when you yourself are honest about what your support for your President means for your country. Until then, you are as alien to the moral high ground as can be, and have no standpoint or platform to demand anything what so ever, of me.



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 10:28 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko




If you want to go off and collectivize


What's the collectivizing part in a stance against the fascists collective? The whole concept of logics is lost on PR spindocs, innit?



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 10:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: Grambler




Funny you claim it's a stance against murder and mayhem, yet that is exactly what he is calling for against trump supporters.


Holding a Nazi banner has nothing to do with support for the President of the USA. You know that, right? Right?

... Right?



I do know that.

Its truebrit that doesn't.

He said any supporter of trump is a fascists supporter who needs to have a war againt, killing many.

Read his quote I linked.

And you celebrate him as just being against murder and mayhem



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 10:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Grambler

You may talk to me about nerve, when you yourself are honest about what your support for your President means for your country. Until then, you are as alien to the moral high ground as can be, and have no standpoint or platform to demand anything what so ever, of me.


So you admit you lied.

I don't claim a moral high ground often, but to you who calls for war against and murder of all fascist supporters, and then labels anyone who supports trump a fascist supporter, certainly I have it over you.

You are one of the sickest extremist on ats.

I hope you seek help before you put your sick extremist ideology into practice.



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 10:51 AM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

I am not talking about fascism.

I am talking about leftist politics which holds that we need to have the government run everything in a massive social safety net scheme: collectivised free health care, free college, free this, free that ... basically anything someone can't afford that a person thinks they ought to have a right to, government ought to collectivize and force all of society to pay for to a certain standard for everyone.

Of course, if you neither need, want or can use that standard for one reason or another, you are told you can always afford your own ... but only *after* you are taxed and taxed heavily (i.e. forced to pay for everyone else's in the collective), and by the time you do that, pay for everything that is collectivized, the odds of having enough left over to pay for what you really can or do need, want, and use is very, very slim.

That's the evil of the system.

But I am not at all against letting groups who voluntarily want to create such systems for themselves do so within society. I am only against allowing them the power to force everyone else to have to go right along with them.



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

After you.

I will tell you what, when you do not support fascism, you can tell me my extremism is sick. Until you quit that position, you have nothing to say to me that carries any weight whatsoever.



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 11:03 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko




I am not talking about fascism.


Look! I found the issue. You wont even admit it's existence, and why should you? Any takers?



I am talking about leftist politics which holds that we need to have the government run everything in a massive social safety net scheme: collectivised free health care, free college, free this, free that ... basically anything someone can't afford that a person thinks they ought to have a right to, government ought to collectivize and force all of society to pay for to a certain standard for everyone.


Hyperbole suits your orange.

Wait! Wait for it... affordable healthcare for everyone! Kinda funny how allegedly leftist slogans worked their way straight into the Oval Office, innit? Yes. I really think that you should leave the trench for a secend to pipe up on actual politics from the left.
And try not to look at Portugal paying back it's debt way ahead of time...
edit on 22-11-2017 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-11-2017 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 11:17 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

As a question to you evil righties (
), are you against things like "free" healthcare out of principle, or because of the seemingly inevitable implementation?

Now, I know the answer in general. I really do suspect that if, hypothetically, a system was created to have no additional cost to any taxpayer yet provide universal healthcare, that many on the right would still be against. Maybe out of habit, maybe because of history, or maybe just because it might be seen as a concession to the "other team."

Expanding on that, if a system were created that changed many social safety nets as a one time "investment," that focused on fostering self-sufficiency rather than dependence, but at a higher initial cost (naturally, as a one time deal).. would that automatically be fought because of principle?

I have a lot of questions in this vein, maybe a dialog could be started that starts to step beyond double standards while satisfying the concerns from either side.



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 11:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Grambler

After you.

I will tell you what, when you do not support fascism, you can tell me my extremism is sick. Until you quit that position, you have nothing to say to me that carries any weight whatsoever.


Well by all means if you have such conviction just come out and be truthful.

Why do you have to lie about it if you are so certain you have a moral position.

Make a thread.

Tell everyone, all trump supporters are facsist supporters, we need to go to war with them, and that means killing many of them.

You won't do that because you know it's a disgusting position and you are wrong.

So you act cowardly and try to deny the extremist things you have said.

But by all means, I await your thread letting everyone know just how you feel.



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Serdgiam

For myself, I know what it means.

It means allowing one single provider and only one provider except for those wealthy enough to go outside the system.

The problem with only having one provider is what happens to you when that one provider decides it will deny your claim or not provide coverage for what you have ... or its designated treatment for what you have does not work for you and it will not deviate from its designated coverage to allow for an alternative that may work for you?

With multiple providers in the market, there is always the chance you can switch to another and find the coverage and treatment you need.

But with one provider, there are no alternatives unless you are wealthy enough to pay it all by yourself out of pocket.

Speaking again for myself, I have chronic migraine - a condition that is notoriously individualistic. I have been on forums for its treatment and read numerous horror stories from people in socialized medicine countries. Their disease does not respond to the commonly designated medications their government health care bodies approve for migraine and trying to get alternative therapies or medications they know exist approved is a nightmare for them, often denied. So they suffer, often having to hit the ERs for heavy narcotics to treat repeated long-term attacks ... assuming they don't get turned away their as drug seekers and denied even that form of treatment.

So, my fear of socialized medicine is that I very well could lose my migraine treatment and be back where I was years ago - curled in ball on my bed more days than not in abject pain and misery because my so-called health care refuses to adopt an effective medical treatment to put me back in a stable situation where I can live my life again.



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 12:26 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

First off, have you tried MMJ for those headaches? There are an enormous amount of different ingestion options. I ask because "someone I knew" could only handle their headaches this way, and after long enough, the headaches were actually cured. Hopefully that abides by the silly T&Cs..

Ok, lets take a wonderful trip to La La Land, where we have created a universal healthcare option that doesn't limit providers. In fact, it provides even more provider choices and a quality of treatment that is unimaginable here and now. Beyond that, setting it up permanently only required, say, 2 fiscal years of normal healthcare spending as an initial cost and then very, very minimal upkeep costs (on the order of being sustainable by just a dozen middle class families easily).

I think that the issue isn't so much the idea of universal healthcare, but the implementation in reality. However, with this topic and many others, I think that distinction becomes blurred because the people pushing for "X" always offer the same nonsensical implementation. Over time, the implementation and the actual idea become indistinguishable. Where, opponents end up fighting the idea even if they actually wouldn't have any issue with a novel implementation. Hope that makes sense, and that I used the word "implementation" enough


In this fantasy scenario, with a novel approach and advancing technology, I can easily envision a universal healthcare system that addresses any and all concerns opponents may have. I suspect it would still be opposed all the same though.

I feel that this is one of the core issues behind many of these conflicts. The conflation between being opposed to the implementation and the concept itself. For me, I am 100% in support of universal healthcare, but absolutely not in support of any of the proposed solutions. That said, I feel the conversation will change immensely and unimaginably in the near future (next century).



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: knowledgehunter0986

Time magazine

“The notion that liberals are smarter than conservatives is familiar to anyone who has spent time on a college campus. The College Democrats are said to be ugly, smug and intellectual; the College Republicans, pretty, belligerent and dumb. There's enough truth in both stereotypes that the vast majority of college students opt not to join either club.

But are liberals actually smarter? A libertarian (and, as such, nonpartisan) researcher, Satoshi Kanazawa of the London School of Economics and Political Science, has just written a paper that is set to be published in March by the journal Social Psychology Quarterly. The paper investigates not only whether conservatives are dumber than liberals but also why that might be so.


The short answer: Kanazawa's paper shows that more-intelligent people are more likely to say they are liberal. They are also less likely to say they go to religious services. These aren't entirely new findings; last year, for example, a British team found that kids with higher intelligence scores were more likely to grow into adults who vote for Liberal Democrats, even after the researchers controlled for socioeconomics. What's new in Kanazawa's paper is a provocative theory about why intelligence might correlate with liberalism. He argues that smarter people are more willing to espouse "evolutionarily novel" values — that is, values that did not exist in our ancestral environment, including weird ideas about, say, helping genetically unrelated strangers (liberalism, as Kanazawa defines it), which never would have occurred to us back when we had to hunt to feed our own clan and our only real technology was fire.”


content.time.com...

edit on 22-11-2017 by JoshuaCox because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
69
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join