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.

 

This Court Opening Terrorizes Me, President Trump’s Legacy on the Line...

page: 3
16
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2018 @ 04:21 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Politics. A disgusting word. Tit for tat-so who gets paid off? Nothing that applies to the best interests of American citizens.

The biggest business in the world-politics. And as, I believe Shakespeare once said, "First, we kill all the lawyers." That'll take care of most of our governmental problems.

Unfortunately, these US governmental battles are taking place nationally and internationally-we are not the US we were after WWII. We owe mountains of money to everyone; so who controls who these days?

If you are under the illusion that your little vote counts-think a lttle deeper, a lttle harder, a little smarter with open eyes.




posted on Jun, 27 2018 @ 05:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: WUNK22
Please don’t be scared! Find a safe space, maybe with some cookies and warm milk. Look at pictures of puppies and kittens, it will all be okay.
No worries the big boys have the helm, MAGA!! USA! USA!


NO!

This administration is taking us back to the dark ages.

At 72 years of age - - I'm gonna kick, scream, and VOTE - - to move forward - - not backwards.

You're 72 years old?....I don't think you should be worried about it.



posted on Jun, 27 2018 @ 05:19 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I think Trump will pick someone he likes. Sometimes people do the right thing for the wrong reason.

Napolitano would be an interesting choice.



posted on Jun, 27 2018 @ 05:25 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

I can’t go there with you on the “one voice” idea. To me that’s anathema to everything that America has been in my opinion, even if I agreed with the results.

That Balance idea though... I can agree with that wholeheartedly.



posted on Jun, 27 2018 @ 05:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: whyamIhere


This is why I am fiscal conservative and a social liberal.




Me too - - actually.

Although, I also support the logical progression of a United World (NO, not the NWO conspiracy variety).

A united world is the eventual, natural course (assuming we don't screw up and revert to the dark ages).

Having said that, we, as a civilization, are not ready for even the initial stages of anything like that. The gap in standards of living for ppl around the world is too great. Religious radicals promote hate. Individual governments are competitive and petty. The list goes on.

Maybe in a couple centuries with a little luck?



posted on Jun, 27 2018 @ 06:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: tovenar
Do you have the right to pull out the IV tube, thus killing the unconscious soldier that depends on you for life? After all, you didn't consent to be a blood donor; you didn't consent to share your life-force with some unconscious stranger...

So, in the same of "controlling his own body," the donor soldier wants to yank out the IV. Should we as a society allow that?


That's a really good argument against abortion, hadn't thought of it like that before, but I mostly don't agree.

First of all there should still be an exemption for rape, right? If a wounded enemy combatant, let's say a medic, stumbles up to your unconscious form on the battlefield and starts drawing your blood before passing out, I think it's fair to end it? Or, speaking more seriously; if they take you prisoner and hook you up in an enemy field hospital. Of course in the case of a pregnancy the fetus didn't force itself to be conceived. But then the enemy soldier didn't force you to conceive him, either. I think my point stands, it would be grotesque and contrary to human nature to reward the rape of strangers like that. I apologize for sounding inflammatory, and maybe you even agree with me on this specific case.

Moving on. How much of a sacrifice or effort is it for the soldier to give his blood? It probably won't take too long. There's a chance it will make him sick, but probably he'll be OK, and he'll most likely realize that he might need blood one day from someone else. It seems reasonable to force him, especially in a military setting, where he is already forced to actively kill other humans, and there's a very real chance he might be ordered to do something so dangerous it will kill him more likely than not. So if we imagine a situation like that, were death could come at any hour and where human life is cheap, I think it's reasonable. But to compare this with abortion in a free society, is problematic. Especially when pregnancy is a lot more taxing than donating blood, and also I'd argue it's more personal.

I get it though; it's a matter of principle, right? No one has the right to take a life, even indirectly. But it seems to me that you only apply this to the issues of abortion and euthanasia, and not to all other areas of life, because these two happen to be emotional hot-button issues, especially abortion.

Should blood donations be mandatory if there's not enough blood of a particular type? (BLOOD SOCIALISM, now that's scary.) What if someone is dying of a rare disease and to live they need money for the treatment. Is it my duty to pay that money? Maybe not? But what if their brother already stole money from me and started the treatments? Do I have to keep paying then? Or is there something about the blood bond that makes the difference?

I know one thing for certain; organ donation after death should be mandatory, by your argument! I don't think a dead person can have more rights than a living one.

I won't even go into the usual arguments about what a human is. We probably wouldn't agree anyway, and I don't need to spam this thread so much. And no offense, it's just an issue worth discussing every now and then.



posted on Jun, 27 2018 @ 07:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Trueman

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: WUNK22
Please don’t be scared! Find a safe space, maybe with some cookies and warm milk. Look at pictures of puppies and kittens, it will all be okay.
No worries the big boys have the helm, MAGA!! USA! USA!


NO!

This administration is taking us back to the dark ages.

At 72 years of age - - I'm gonna kick, scream, and VOTE - - to move forward - - not backwards.

You're 72 years old?....I don't think you should be worried about it.


So you’re saying go die already cause she’s 72 ?

Wow, that doesn’t sound too old to me.



posted on Jun, 28 2018 @ 12:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Cutepants.

I was arguing that your right to your own body, like every right, Is not absolute.

Adult female Americans should have the right to control their body, but that right isn't any more absolute than a mans right.

We require people to get vaccinated, regardless of their personal beliefs, because their health impacts the rest of us.

Paradoxical.


Is it ok to murder your own children, if they get on your nerves? They re just larger fetuses. And the parent has control over their bodies...

Maybe it's ok to kill a fetus, because it isn't conscious... But then, could you kill a sleeping person or a Down syndrome person, because they aren't fully developed.....?

Civilization is caring for and defending the weak. Unless they cannot survive outside the womb...



posted on Jun, 28 2018 @ 12:30 AM
link   
I nominate Andrew Napolitano. He is level headed and very knowledgeable.



posted on Jun, 28 2018 @ 12:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Blueracer
I nominate Andrew Napolitano. He is level headed and very knowledgeable.


Too old.

But, a nice smart guy.



posted on Jun, 28 2018 @ 01:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: whyamIhere

originally posted by: Blueracer
I nominate Andrew Napolitano. He is level headed and very knowledgeable.


Too old.

But, a nice smart guy.


Andrew is 68. "Harlan F. Stone (1941-1946) was 68 years old when he took his oath of office."

Supremecourt.gov
edit on 6/28/2018 by Blueracer because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2018 @ 01:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Blueracer
I nominate Andrew Napolitano. He is level headed and very knowledgeable.


No one is above the law

This was a bit of a shocker when Napolitano said Trump could be indicted.



posted on Jun, 28 2018 @ 04:11 AM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6




either Americans have full rights over their own bodies or they don't


Laws be damned. No one has the authority to tell me I do't have rights over my own body.

I will brake any law that tries.



posted on Jun, 28 2018 @ 04:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


Let's just have equal rights before the law for EVERYONE period and move on.

Marriage should be a matter for religion.

Civil unions should be a matter of legal distribution of property rights, famililal authority, etc.

I have zero issue with as many people forming a civil union as can stand each other.

Viablilty is a decent marker for personhood for lack of a more scientific criteria.

We've had our share of disagreements, Gryph, but I can honestly say I agree with everything you wrote there.



TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 28 2018 @ 04:45 AM
link   
a reply to: scraedtosleep

Ah, so you understand my position on the 2nd Amendment fully.


The purpose of restricting government from passing infringing laws isn't to "allow" people to do things... rights are rights, whether the law permits them to be or not. It only takes Americans who are determined to exercise a right for it to actually be exercised. The purpose of stopping infringing laws is purely a matter of convenience and not escalating someone from "rights exerciser" to "Yeah, someone is going to die if they try to jail me over exercising those rights."



posted on Jun, 28 2018 @ 07:25 AM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6




Ah, so you understand my position on the 2nd Amendment fully.


Don't know what your position is but I am against any law that takes freedom from the people.

I am Pro-choice and pro-2ed all the way.



posted on Jun, 28 2018 @ 11:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Gryphon66


Let's just have equal rights before the law for EVERYONE period and move on.

Marriage should be a matter for religion.

Civil unions should be a matter of legal distribution of property rights, famililal authority, etc.

I have zero issue with as many people forming a civil union as can stand each other.

Viablilty is a decent marker for personhood for lack of a more scientific criteria.

We've had our share of disagreements, Gryph, but I can honestly say I agree with everything you wrote there.



TheRedneck


I just want to point out a risk inherent in Gryphon's final comment:

"Viability is a decent marker for personhood for lack of a more scientific criteria."

Viability is a spectrum rather than a simple yes/no. The Nazis rationalized the "EndLoesung" (final solution) by executing quadrapalegics, etc. then they ramped up to genetic disorders like Down syndrome and.... Jewish ancestry.

I would argue that one of the hallmarks of civilization is care for the weak. The Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius minted a series of coins depicting the "Roman Virtues". The coin for "pietas" shows a young man carrying his elderly father on his back, and the old man's crutch under his arm...

The way we treat our dependents defines us, as much as how we treat our enemies.



posted on Jun, 28 2018 @ 01:21 PM
link   
a reply to: tovenar

That is another way of saying, "it depends on what the definition of is is."

The danger of redefinition is always present. We've seen it happen with the word "racism." It used to mean, and does still mean according to the actual definition, the act of openly discriminating against someone based solely on nationality or race. But now it simply means "I think you're wrong but I can't/won't explain why." We are going to have to deal with this redefinition some time in the future, and it won't be a pretty sight.

The same thing can apply to "viability," but there is only one solution: stop the redefinition!

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 28 2018 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: whyamIhere

They don't even do the economy well either.


Look at what the last GOP pres did, Bush, screwed everything from the economy to foreign policy


I predict Trump may do worse.


It just seems to be in their DNA or evil soul to screw things up for everybody but their beloved rich, usually white, people.



posted on Jun, 28 2018 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell




Look at what the last GOP pres did, Bush, screwed everything from the economy to foreign policy


The ACA was obamas baby and look what that did for us.




top topics



 
16
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join