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.

 

Liberal Vitriol

page: 5
44
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2018 @ 07:54 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

I think you can sum it up as having changed this way.

Years ago, the question everyone was asking was "How should we govern?"

Today the right no longer asks that question, what they ask is "Should we govern?"

The issue on the table has morphed from one of policy to one of if the government should even continue to exist.




posted on Jul, 1 2018 @ 08:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: Greven

Well, yeah I did actually, and I didn't see people running around with severed heads of Obama, major networks (read CNN) condoning the assassination of Obama and gleefully discussing the order of ascension. I didn't see every single network, non-stop for 18 months, go full-on retard trying to lash out at Obama. Every late night show flat-out assailing Obama, 3/4 of Hollywood going on vein popping tirades on Awards shows about Obama.

No, I didn't see ANY of that...did you?


I did. I listen to a lot of AM radio. 6 hours a day, every day of Rush/Hannity demonizing every little thing about Obama.

In fact, let me tell you this little story about Hannity's show, it's the moment where I realized who he was:
For 8 years I listened to him defend W, and force all of his liberal callers to name the guy as "President Bush" just to tick them off. He claimed it was out of respect for the office and the country. When Obama got in power, Hannity never called him President, would respond dismissively to callers that used the phrase "President Obama", and constantly allowed his callers to not use the title President. And this started from day 1 of Obama's Presidency.

That moment made it crystal clear to me what he was going to do from that moment on.



posted on Jul, 1 2018 @ 08:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mach2
a reply to: Greven

I don't think you are dumb. That means you are intentionally being disingenuous. You know that it requires 60 votes in the Senate to pass legislation, yet you pretend that isn't reality.

As bad as you feel now, prepare for things to get worse. The liberal movements reach has exceeded its grasp, and there will be a centrist backlash.

Moderate democrats are leaving the party.


Not true.

You only need a simple majority to pass legislation in the U.S. Senate. And the VP - who is also the president of the senate - is brought in as the tie breaking vote if required. Pence has already done it on more than one occasion.

To confirm a Supreme Court nominee does requires 60 votes.

At least as of today...

Maybe you just got those two different types of Senate votes confused?


edit on 7/1/2018 by Riffrafter because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2018 @ 08:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: kaylaluv

I have, many times.

Just go look through the mud pit. You won't have to look far to find all kinds of them. People gloating about NK continuing to manufacture nukes following the summit. People gloating about Harley Davidson moving manufacturing off shore. Every time the NYSE drops one point there will be threads gloating about that.



I think you are mistaking anger and frustration with gloating. People are angry and frustrated because Trump followers are talking about him as if he were the second coming, and that he is solving all our problems. Pointing out the problems that haven’t been solved is not gleeful or gloating - it’s pointing out that Trump has not solved our problems.

I could say the same thing with Obamacare. Many Obama haters have been quick to point out the failings of Obamacare. Gleeful gloating? Or anger and frustration that the problems of healthcare in this country haven’t been solved?


While you're on point with some people, there are people who literally hope the peace process fails, which could lead to nuclear war:

See here.



posted on Jul, 1 2018 @ 08:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Riffrafter

originally posted by: Mach2
a reply to: Greven

I don't think you are dumb. That means you are intentionally being disingenuous. You know that it requires 60 votes in the Senate to pass legislation, yet you pretend that isn't reality.

As bad as you feel now, prepare for things to get worse. The liberal movements reach has exceeded its grasp, and there will be a centrist backlash.

Moderate democrats are leaving the party.


Not true.

You only need a simple majority to pass legislation in the U.S. Senate. And the VP - who is also the president of the senate - is brought in as the tie breaking vote if required. Pence has already done it on more than one occasion.

To confirm a Supreme Court nominee does requires 60 votes.

At least as of today...

Maybe you got those two different types of Senate votes confused?


You're a little confused here. It takes a simple majority to pass the legislation, yes, however it takes 60 votes to overcome a filibuster to actually bring the bill up for a vote. So to pass any new legislation does actually take 60 votes. Supreme Court nominations only takes a simple majority, they changed that last year with the Gorsuch nomination.

ETA: The votes you're thinking of where Pence had to come in to break the tie were votes on bills they were bypassing the filibuster with using budget reconciliation, which only requires a simple majority. But new legislation can still be filibustered, and it takes 60 votes to bring them to the floor for a vote, which is why it takes 9 Democrats to get most things done.
edit on 1 7 18 by face23785 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2018 @ 08:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Riffrafter

originally posted by: Mach2
a reply to: Greven

I don't think you are dumb. That means you are intentionally being disingenuous. You know that it requires 60 votes in the Senate to pass legislation, yet you pretend that isn't reality.

As bad as you feel now, prepare for things to get worse. The liberal movements reach has exceeded its grasp, and there will be a centrist backlash.

Moderate democrats are leaving the party.


Not true.

You only need a simple majority to pass legislation in the U.S. Senate. And the VP - who is also the president of the senate - is brought in as the tie breaking vote if required. Pence has already done it on more than one occasion.

To confirm a Supreme Court nominee does requires 60 votes.

At least as of today...

Maybe you got those two different types of Senate votes confused?


You're a little confused here. It takes a simple majority to pass the legislation, yes, however it takes 60 votes to overcome a filibuster to actually bring the bill up for a vote. So to pass any new legislation does actually take 60 votes. Supreme Court nominations only takes a simple majority, they changed that last year with the Gorsuch nomination.

ETA: The votes you're thinking of where Pence had to come in to break the tie were votes on bills they were bypassing the filibuster with using budget reconciliation, which only requires a simple majority. But new legislation can still be filibustered, and it takes 60 votes to bring them to the floor for a vote, which is why it takes 9 Democrats to get most things done.

Ah, you edited to include it.

There has been more than just the tax reform legislation that has been passed and signed by the president.

And no, such passage wasn't mostly with budget reconciliation.
edit on 20Sun, 01 Jul 2018 20:24:48 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago7 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2018 @ 08:23 PM
link   
I believe that your whole rationale is incorrect or at the very least very simplistic and inaccurate.

Consider this graph covering the period 1982 - 2013, the period you are speaking about:



It shows the decline of moderates on both sides of the aisle. I believe this increasing polarity is the main driving force behind the fanaticism you are speaking about and it is on both sides.

Media, with it's "if it bleeds, it leads", philosophy will naturally lead with what ever is most extreme (hence the billions of dollars worth of free air time for #45.

The internet has exelerated this reinforcing feedback loop. (See "The Bubble Filter" by Eli Paiser")

This is happening to all of us:


A filter bubble is the intellectual isolation that can occur when websites make use of algorithms to selectively assume the information a user would want to see, and then give information to the user according to this assumption.

Websites make these assumptions based on the information related to the user, such as former click behavior, browsing history, search history and location. For that reason, the websites are more likely to present only information that will abide by the user's past activity.

A filter bubble, therefore, can cause users to get significantly less contact with contradicting viewpoints, causing the user to become intellectually isolated.


www.techopedia.com...

That is how I see the problem.

And don't for a single minute believe that it is a "Liberal" or "Progressive" thang.


edit on 1-7-2018 by FyreByrd because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2018 @ 08:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
I haven’t seen anyone say they are gleeful for nuclear war because it will make Trump look bad. Quote please?


Ah that's just conservative speech. I have learned to read conservative speech as we all have learned to read liberal speech.

I will try to discribe in liberal termonology.

The left's hate has seriously blinded them to a degree that is nuclear.



posted on Jul, 1 2018 @ 10:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: loam

Are they calls for assassination? No. But since the left seems to find dog whistles under every rock, I wonder why they don't hear those examples?


I believe that some of these, and various MSM talking points that 'advertise' the sentiment so to speak, are probably psychological operations (psy-ops.) There was a period there--around the time of Snoop's video--where it had the feel of a concerted effort to trigger the unbalanced. Either way that's some disturbed and bad juju from folk.


edit on 1-7-2018 by The GUT because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2018 @ 10:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: The GUT

originally posted by: loam

Are they calls for assassination? No. But since the left seems to find dog whistles under every rock, I wonder why they don't hear those examples?


I believe that some of these, and various MSM talking points that 'advertise' the sentiment so to speak, are probably psychological operations (psy-ops.) There was a period there--around the time of Snoop's video--where it had the feel of a concerted effort to trigger the unbalanced. Either way that's some disturbed and bad juju from folk.




Are you talking about the same Snoop dog that loves capitalism so much that he is the host of a gameshow now?



posted on Jul, 1 2018 @ 11:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I can Remember as a Kid in the Early 1960's being Warned about the Communist Fifth Columnists Infiltration into U.S. Institutions such as Collages and Government Agencies . I thought it was just Government Propaganda used to create Hysteria during the Cold War , but Fast Forward 50 Years , and I Now see it as Prophetic ....

edit on 1-7-2018 by Zanti Misfit because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2018 @ 11:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: highvein

Are you talking about the same Snoop dog that loves capitalism so much that he is the host of a gameshow now?


I refer to him as Snoop Doggy Doo. Fits him better---he's earned it.



posted on Jul, 2 2018 @ 12:17 AM
link   
a reply to: face23785


Exactly right. The next Supreme Court nominee can be confirmed with a simple Senate majority, just like Neil Gorsuch was last year.

Harry Reid had something to do with this. A rule change in 2013 or 2014, I believe.



posted on Jul, 2 2018 @ 02:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk



edit on 2-7-2018 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2018 @ 03:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I agree I think the government uses state school guidelines,all the crap they have been taught of late in public schools,never have I seen blatant ignorant protests,I remember the hippies in the 60's at least they made some sense,the idiots these days have signs made up for them,but they can't read nor comprehend what they say



posted on Jul, 2 2018 @ 07:19 AM
link   
a reply to: MiddleInsite
Clinton, Bush, Nixon...

I perosnally believe Clinton set back equal rights, he also made Hilldog a laughing stock.
Bush lied to get oil and kill more than a mil.
Nixon? Well... yeah..

Trump seems to be the first straight-shooting US president since I’ve been born.
He tells it like it is, maybe even the oposite of sugar-coating.



posted on Jul, 2 2018 @ 07:37 AM
link   
I think one of the problems in America today is that we have no external foe to unite us. Since we lack this foe, we find or manufacture internal ones.

That along with the 24 hour news cycle. 24 Hour news channels need something to fill their time. It used to be news, but people don't tune in for that much news, and there are many other places to find news. So, the 24 hour news channels turned to news analysis shows to start filling some of their time. This got people a little more interested, but people didn't really invest their time. Eventually these analysis shows evolved into opinion shows, and that's when things really started to take off. The more polarizing the opinion, the more extreme the view, the more viewers the 24 hour news channels could attract. All so people could thump their chests and seek confirmation bias for their views or outrage at "the other side's" views.

So with the further polarization of opinion and lack of a uniting external foe, the logical conclusion is that society, in general, will fracture and turn on itself. I wonder if that is why, since 9-11, we have been manufacturing things to fight (Iraq, Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, Libya, Iran, ISIS, etc.). I wonder if TPTB are trying to hold America together by any means necessary. You could even go back to Reagan's speech to the UN's 42nd Session:


Can we and all nations not live in peace? In our obsession with antagonisms of the moment, we often forget how much unites all the members of humanity. Perhaps we need some outside, universal threat to make us recognize this common bond. I occasionally think how quickly our differences worldwide would vanish if we were facing an alien threat from outside this world. And yet, I ask you, is not an alien force already among us? What could be more alien to the universal aspirations of our peoples than war and the threat of war?



posted on Jul, 2 2018 @ 07:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: BomSquad
I think one of the problems in America today is that we have no external foe to unite us. Since we lack this foe, we find or manufacture internal ones.


And the root of that problem is we're all programmed for WAR, we this hegemonic imperialist hyper-hypocritical state.




posted on Jul, 2 2018 @ 07:53 AM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I agree that we are programmed for war, but it isn't the State doing it. It is the tribal nature of humanity that we have yet to rise above.

As individuals we can rise above conflict, but in groups, we practically seek it out.
edit on 2-7-2018 by BomSquad because: added to the thought



posted on Jul, 2 2018 @ 07:57 AM
link   
a reply to: BomSquad

Its absolutely the state, and its partner the MSM, top to bottom inside and out, it all bent on manipulating us all via our nature. Which nobody ever seems to want to hear about, our nature that is, so that we cant so easily be fooled... but I'll keep on rocking the boat anyways.


edit on 2-7-2018 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
44
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join