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.

 

Mexico meets migrants at southern border with armed forces

page: 13
90
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 8 2019 @ 08:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: thedigirati
a reply to: Aazadan

Which safe country? the USA is not safe, have you ever been out of the USA?
Have you been to, Chicago, Boston, new York San Francisco?
They are not safe. So what other misguided wisdom do you wish to impart?

Where is it safe?

ETA why should the USA be noble? You want to be noble join a Church. Just don't ask me to pay for it.


Been to all four, been to 2 of those in the last 6 weeks. They were perfectly safe. There were a couple bad neighborhoods but that's all.

Thanks to the government, they had schools that allowed for an educated workforce, they had buildings that weren't death traps, they had roads to allow for transportation, there were regulations on how the food I ate was prepared, there were police forces, there were fire fighters, the cars I rode in were much safer than they would be without government regulation, and much more.

Every single step I took on those trips was made safer thanks to the existence of government.




posted on Jun, 8 2019 @ 08:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Aazadan


What’s wrong with being dependent on government?


""If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams

I have no words to better answer than those.

TheRedneck


Without government, the only thing you get is an earlier death. I would rather live longer, and do so comfortably, so I'll happily rely on government to provide that and continue to vote for people who want to govern responsibly rather than dismantle the programs that allow for that to happen.

You should understand this much better than me. WIthout government you wouldn't even be alive right now given what you've shared previously about your financial history and health.
edit on 8-6-2019 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2019 @ 08:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: thedigirati
a reply to: TheRedneck

for some reason the left and/or Democrats do not want people to be independent


The reason is simple. They want the government to be bigger, they want you dependent on it, and to keep voting for them as they promise to make the government even bigger to help you out.


What’s wrong with being dependent on government? Personally, I like the idea of government agencies that work in the public interest.


Yeah and that's all well and good in some fantasy land where everyone is altruistic and puts others' interests ahead of their own. Unfortunately that's not the real world. The government workforce is millions of people. By sheer numbers it's simply impossible to have such high hiring standards that you know you're getting the best people in all these bureaucratic positions. Their own interests take priority a lot of times. People want to get raises and promotions. And even well-intentioned people are hamstrung by the bureaucracy and red tape.

How do you think those problems at the VA happened? A combination of incompetence, indifference and good people not being able to do enough because they're held back by the rules in place, which are set by Congress (yeah, those people are the height of selflessness). It's not like the majority of the VA was sitting around trying to figure out how they could get vets to die while waiting for care. It's incompetence, refusal to recognize they're part of the problem, and selfishness. People never think anything is their fault, it's always someone else.

There's an old saying that "the only thing that saves us from the bureaucracy is its inefficiency." Virtually anything you try to get the government to do is gonna be slower and cost more than the private sector could do. Yes, the "evil" private sector, which has the same human problems but actually has incentive to do things like control costs and provide efficient and effective service. If you're not getting what you want from them, you go to another company. There's competition. There's no competition in government. If the government is the only entity that provides what you need, what incentive do they have to provide good service? None.

Go work for the government for a few years and then tell me it's the best solution for anything. Your childlike faith in government is cute but like most liberal ideas it doesn't work in the real world.
edit on 8 6 19 by face23785 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2019 @ 09:04 AM
link   
a reply to: face23785

Competition doesn't provide the best product, it provides the product that people are most willing to pay for.

New cars could be built in the US that cost only a small percentage of what they currently do, but they would have none of the safety features they have right now, they would likely even still use leaded gasoline. I'm sure you've seen videos of some of the really cheap cars that guarantee you die in a crash?

Or lets take another example, Craftsman tools are doing so bad in the marketplace because their old strategy of making a high quality product that you buy once in your life doesn't generate the repeat sales, and lower price point that others provide.

When it comes to the government, you can elect better people... not every employee is always going to be the best at anything (if that were true, almost no one would be qualified to hold a job), but that's fine because people just follow procedures. You cannot have a good organization without voting for people that want to run it well though.

Look at the state of the internet in the US. It won't improve with someone like Ajit Pai in charge of the FCC, and you don't change that without electing people who want the government to run well, and are committed to appointing people to that office that aren't in the pockets of the telecommunication companies.



posted on Jun, 8 2019 @ 09:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: face23785

Competition doesn't provide the best product, it provides the product that people are most willing to pay for.


Is that such a bad concept? "Best" is a relative term. People can get what they choose, what they think is best for them, instead of what you think they should have. Typical authoritarian thinking. People like you should choose what's best for everyone right?



New cars could be built in the US that cost only a small percentage of what they currently do, but they would have none of the safety features they have right now, they would likely even still use leaded gasoline. I'm sure you've seen videos of some of the really cheap cars that guarantee you die in a crash?


Yeah I have, and they don't sell well either. Safety is one of the biggest things people want when they shop for a new car. If the government pulled all their regulations for crash safety, auto makers would still put it in most of their vehicles because that's what people want.



Or lets take another example, Craftsman tools are doing so bad in the marketplace because their old strategy of making a high quality product that you buy once in your life doesn't generate the repeat sales, and lower price point that others provide.


Dunno where you got that idea, Craftsman tools are doing just fine. There are cheaper alternatives, for sure, and that's awesome. People can buy what they want. Again, that seems to be something you're against. Sorry, we're not a communist country. Everyone doesn't have to have the same thing.


When it comes to the government, you can elect better people... not every employee is always going to be the best at anything (if that were true, almost no one would be qualified to hold a job), but that's fine because people just follow procedures. You cannot have a good organization without voting for people that want to run it well though.


Ah, the old "we just need the right people" fallacy. Doesn't address any of the problems with people that I brought up with government in my last post, as I knew you wouldn't. You have all this faith in government, but you really don't have the slightest clue how it runs. There are people here like me who have worked for the government who can explain all the problems with it to you, but you're too closed-minded to listen. You just think you need to get the "right people" in there, in other words people who think like you, to make decisions for everyone else and determine what they should and shouldn't have. No thanks. Government is necessary for some things, for sure. I'm not an anarchist. But it's use is limited, especially at the federal level. In most cases there are better ways to do things at the state and local level or privately.


Look at the state of the internet in the US. It won't improve with someone like Ajit Pai in charge of the FCC, and you don't change that without electing people who want the government to run well, and are committed to appointing people to that office that aren't in the pockets of the telecommunication companies.


My internet is just fine thanks. And the rest of the country is improving faster than the global average. Of course you wouldn't know that because all you know is what you've been told to think about how everyone in Trump's administration is beholden to special interests and everything is awful right now, despite that not being true. Orange man bad, facts optional. Typical as well, and just what I'd expect from you.

Again, you really should get informed on these issues before you post. This # is getting embarrassing. Pretty much every part of your posts are wrong. You don't know anything but cliff notes. This is a waste of my time. I come here to have conversations, not talk to a brick wall. You're closed-minded, uninformed and arrogant. You don't want to learn, you don't want to listen to people with more knowledge than you, and you're not open to the possibility that your precious government might not be the best solution for everything. You just want to spout your talking points, regardless of how little sense they make or how impertinent to the discussion they are. Get the last word in so you can feel like you "won." My points are here for other people who read the thread who might actually be open-minded and interested in learning. That's good enough for me. It's not like I'm gonna break through the level of brainwashing you've endured. Enjoy your weekend.



posted on Jun, 8 2019 @ 09:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan


Without government, the only thing you get is an earlier death. I would rather live longer, and do so comfortably, so I'll happily rely on government to provide that and continue to vote for people who want to govern responsibly rather than dismantle the programs that allow for that to happen.

Bless you, then. Depart from me in peace and lick the hand that feeds you.

I would rather die a free man than live as a slave.


You should understand this much better than me. WIthout government you wouldn't even be alive right now given what you've shared previously about your financial history and health.

Then I would have died a free man. As it is, I am still a free man, because even though I accepted assistance, I did not accept the bonds that were offered with it. If I die tomorrow, I will die in freedom knowing that I have lived a fuller life than those who serve their masters ever can.

Enjoy your slavery. May it serve you well as you serve your masters.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 8 2019 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

So if you remained free while getting help, why can others not do the same?



posted on Jun, 8 2019 @ 10:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan


Craftsman tools are doing so bad in the marketplace because their old strategy of making a high quality product that you buy once in your life doesn't generate the repeat sales, and lower price point that others provide.

I know Craftsman quite well. Every single tool my father ever owned was Craftsman.

The reason Craftsman is failing is because of two things: they decreased their warranty service, and competition outpaced them. I watched my Dad one time intentionally break a 1/2" Craftsman breaker bar over an argument. His friend said if there was abuse, Craftsman wouldn't honor their warranty. It took several attempts with a 15-pound sledgehammer and two concrete blocks as end supports, but he beat that breaker bar in half.

I rode with them down to the Sears store. Dad walked in and laid the two pieces of the breaker bar on the counter without saying a word. The clerk looked at them, obviously abused, found the name "Craftsman," grabbed a new 1/2" breaker bar from the back and laid it on the counter with the words, "Will that be all, sir?"

I once found a lifetime warranty S&K ratchet that was left out in the rain. It was rusted solid. I took it in and did the same thing; the clerk handed me a repair kit.

Now, Craftsman will hand you a repair kit, but other manufacturers (like Husky) will hand you a new tool. Snap-On will even come to you and make sure your tools are in good repair for you! At the same time, Craftsman has maintained their high prices while others are producing tools with the same warranty Craftsman had for less. Snap-On is the exception to that; they charge a premium for their tools, and they are doing great. Almost every serious mechanic in the nation uses Snap-On tools.

Your example fails.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 8 2019 @ 10:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

Because, like you, they seem to like their chains.

Freedom is not free. It can be hard at times. But without it, nothing else matters.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 8 2019 @ 11:13 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

So the benefits of government for you, but not for anyone else?



posted on Jun, 8 2019 @ 11:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

Where did I say that?

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 8 2019 @ 12:23 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

You didn't.

Living free is a concept that all too many can't begin to fathom today. Freedom was why my great-greats (x many) first crossed the Atlantic Ocean from Europe to what were then the Colonies--Manhattan may still have belonged to the Dutch...

They, almost as soon as they landed, headed across the Appalachians into Kentucky, Indiana, etc... Because they had no further use for "landed nobility" deciding what was good for them.

How is a govt. agency much different from landed gentry, save in name alone? I submit that it isn't.
edit on 6/8/2019 by seagull because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2019 @ 12:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Aazadan

Where did I say that?

TheRedneck


You said you could take help without losing your freedom... so why do you think others can’t?



posted on Jun, 8 2019 @ 12:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Aazadan

Where did I say that?

TheRedneck


You said you could take help without losing your freedom... so why do you think others can’t?



posted on Jun, 8 2019 @ 12:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: TheRedneck

You didn't.

Living free is a concept that all too many can't begin to fathom today. Freedom was why my great-greats (x many) first crossed the Atlantic Ocean from Europe to what were then the Colonies--Manhattan may still have belonged to the Dutch...

They, almost as soon as they landed, headed across the Appalachians into Kentucky, Indiana, etc... Because they had no further use for "landed nobility" deciding what was good for them.

How is a govt. agency much different from landed gentry, save in name alone? I submit that it isn't.


And how many of them died young due to entirely preventable circumstances had there been an actual government in place?



posted on Jun, 8 2019 @ 01:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan


You said you could take help without losing your freedom... so why do you think others can’t?

I already stated it must be by choice.

Did you miss my post? Or just ignore it?

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 8 2019 @ 01:31 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull


You didn't.

I know. But some people have to twist words around to fit into their mold of thinking, I suppose.

My great-great-great-...-great-grandfather came here before it was a country as well. He settled in the West Virginia/Kentucky area as best as we can tell... I guess he got off the boat with his walking shoes on. It's possible he came over as an indentured servant and there just aren't records for his servitude. But once he settled, he had kids, who had kids, who had kids... they traveled south into what is now Tennessee, then to here in Alabama, and finally they split; some went farther south, while others went west to Texas. A few of my forefathers stayed here, though.

I had three of those forefathers fight in the Revolutionary War... several in the War of Northern Aggression... two uncles I know of in WWII... my father in Korea... all of them fought for freedom from oppression, the very thing that Aazadan is claiming to desire. Oppression is easy to find in this world. It exists in most third-world countries, and many first-world countries. It even exists here if one wishes to find it. I don't. My forefathers fought, some made that ultimate sacrifice, so I and my kids could be free. I will remain free as long as I breathe. Anything less would be to dishonor them and myself.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 8 2019 @ 03:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Aazadan


You said you could take help without losing your freedom... so why do you think others can’t?

I already stated it must be by choice.

Did you miss my post? Or just ignore it?

TheRedneck


But without government available to provide those things, you can never make that choice. Medical treatment and access to education weren't forced on you, but they were made available.



posted on Jun, 8 2019 @ 04:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

Education was... 1-12 (that was before mandatory K).

I don't want the government to provide those things... I want to provide them for myself. Government gets in the way of that... for instance, education. I enrolled in college on my own damn dime, back in the 1980s. The reason I quit was that the government shut down the economy around here thanks to the aftermath of the Iranian hostage crisis. The high gas taxes, implemented after it started to fall again in price, kept the price high and finally killed us. Businesses went belly-up, and left me without a job through no fault of my own. And I still made it two more semesters, working whenever and wherever I could find. It just wasn't enough, so I left to find work. When I finally got in a position to go back, the availability of student loans had raised tuition costs to several times what they were.

When I accepted government assistance, it wasn't some wonderful thing they did for me out of the goodness of their hearts, as much as it was partial payback for what they had already taken from me. Even then, I managed to pay most of my own way and graduated without owing one thin dime in student loans. Why? Because I learned early in life that what the government gives you, they will charge a precious price for later.

You haven't learned that. Yet.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 8 2019 @ 05:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Aazadan

Education was... 1-12 (that was before mandatory K).

I don't want the government to provide those things... I want to provide them for myself. Government gets in the way of that... for instance, education. I enrolled in college on my own damn dime, back in the 1980s. The reason I quit was that the government shut down the economy around here thanks to the aftermath of the Iranian hostage crisis. The high gas taxes, implemented after it started to fall again in price, kept the price high and finally killed us. Businesses went belly-up, and left me without a job through no fault of my own. And I still made it two more semesters, working whenever and wherever I could find. It just wasn't enough, so I left to find work. When I finally got in a position to go back, the availability of student loans had raised tuition costs to several times what they were.

When I accepted government assistance, it wasn't some wonderful thing they did for me out of the goodness of their hearts, as much as it was partial payback for what they had already taken from me. Even then, I managed to pay most of my own way and graduated without owing one thin dime in student loans. Why? Because I learned early in life that what the government gives you, they will charge a precious price for later.

You haven't learned that. Yet.

TheRedneck


The fact that the university even existed for you to go to in the first place is entirely due to government existing. You went to a state university didn't you? Without government, you wouldn't have even had the opportunity to attend.



new topics

top topics



 
90
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join