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.

 

Prevailing Left blowing wind on ATS (Op/Ed)

page: 9
6
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 07:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover
I took the test and guess what? I AM A LIBERAL!!!
and here is how it describes liberal:

LIBERALS usually embrace freedom of choice in personal

matters, but tend to support significant government control of the

economy. They generally support a government-funded "safety net"
to help the disadvantaged, and advocate strict regulation

of business. Liberals tend to favor environmental regulations,

defend civil liberties and free expression, support government action

to promote equality, and tolerate diverse lifestyles.

so tell me what is so terribly bad about all that?

Did I say there is something Terrible Bad about all that?

I am just saying that this is YOUR state of Mind - which has NOTHING to do with how the Politricks work in the world today. Even if you vote for your Liberal-Democratic candidate and even if he or she wins - it does not Matter! Nothing will change! The Same BIG BOSSES to which he has to answer to, will still pull the strings and all the stuff will be the same as if the president was conservative-republican. It is just a Big Play for the Masses to "THINK" they are actually Influencing their Political system and their goverment when in fact the Truth could not be more different.

The Goverments of the World Today are NOT in service of Their PEOPLE - as it was supposed to be; but in service of their Masters - the Global Elite. They say JUMP, and Goverments just ask "How High Sir?".

That is the point I am trying to make.

Thank you for listening I mean reading.





posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 07:33 AM
link   
that was a reteorical question souljah, to all the conservatives and hard right on this thread, not to you. And generally i agree with you...as I like to say, the only difference between the republicans and the democrats is at least the democrats try and kiss ya before they tell ya to bend over and with the republicans it more akin to date rape. We all know the lies but a little affection (even feigned) goes a long way



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by grover
as I like to say, the only difference between the republicans and the democrats is at least the democrats try and kiss ya before they tell ya to bend over and with the republicans it more akin to date rape.

Now that is a VERY good and VERY Funny Observation my Friend!



Sadly I think people will not get this Joke.




posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 08:24 AM
link   
Parinoid? as earlier stated..........ATS is parinoid.................just saying many conservatives get beat down by members and mods all too often. But grover is right as is Souljah............Demoncrat or Republicate are all the same in "dubya's" warped world. Good hard Conservative or true "liberal" is OK. Take a freakin stand on issues.

As for the original thread..............darn right ATS is falling off the edge of the world to the left..........The ultra right understands where they stand in the world.......ultra left doesn't............they think they are "nominal"



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006
..................
Muaddib spent his time attacking the nature of what I asked and refused to write an Op/Ed piece in rebuttal. Even to this day, he has not.
..................


Right.... you only excerpted quotes from sites that the only thing they did was to resort to demeaning comments, and insults anyone and everyone, mostly all Republicans, who do not agree with you. that's all you did ceci....and then "you demanded an intelligent debate to dismiss all those insults and demeaning comments"....


Originally posted by ceci2006
Unfortunately, for myself and Muaddib, we got into a spirited debate in which he hurled insults at me for what I posted.
...................


I insulted you?.... Please, don't try now to steer the blame and put it on me. I was not the one who kept posting excerpts from sites which kept saying "All Republicans are like Nazis, religious fanatics, etc, etc. You can't even give your own opinion without excerpting sites which only insult and make attacks... Yet, you "demand" that if people want to prove that those sites are not right, they should be polite to you and repond with an intelligent, erudite piece without resorting to attacks?... BTW, the one thing I did was to tell you i would do the same thing you did and made excerpts to sites which also only insult and make demeaning attacks...but of course because i did that i was insulting you, yet that's the only thing you did to respond to that op/ed and you were not insulting nor attacking anyone, right?


Originally posted by ceci2006
Semperfortis, whom I respect very highly, did. He had the courage to write about his feelings regarding the country and the POTUS. After he did, I stopped my dissent and answered his post.


You shouldn't have resorted to excerpting quotes and giving links to sites which only resort to hatred, insults, and demeaning attacks to begin with...and then saying you agree with all of what was said in those excerpts and links.



Originally posted by ceci2006
And in this op/ed, Semper has more bravery and candor than Muaddib did on the same issue. And despite the fact we see things differently, he has shown that he will engage in a debate in a forthright manner especially when discussing his views. So, unlike what Muaddib says, I do not see all conservatives in the same way.
...................


Then you should have written "an intelligent and erudite piece", from the very beginning, instead of excerpting insults, demeaning comments and personal attacks.


Originally posted by ceci2006
So, these posts in grover's thread were not an attempt to deride the "true conservative spirit" that needs to take back the Republicans. Instead, I was curious--as grover was--about the extremists of the party who attempt to sabotage our basic Constitutional rights in order to continue their stranglehold over the nation. I tried to do it without attacks or derision.


right, so you were curious to see how conservatives would react to excertps, which you stated you agree with and only resort to insults, demeaning comments and personal attacks...




Originally posted by ceci2006
Instead, I looked for academic evidence and investigation to broaden my understanding of this subject matter.


Since when have "academic" papers given "evidence" which only resorted to name calling those who opose a certain view as "religious fanatics, psychotic, who only propagate some certain diseases, etc, etc"?....

Don't try to hide your true intentions ceci, they are quite clear by all those excerpts and comments you made.


[edit on 7-6-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by thermopolis
Parinoid? as earlier stated..........ATS is parinoid.................just saying many conservatives get beat down by members and mods all too often.


Well it's looks like that I, or any other mod can convince you otherwise, so we'll leave it at that. Believe what you want to believe.



But grover is right as is Souljah............Demoncrat or Republicate are all the same in "dubya's" warped world. Good hard Conservative or true "liberal" is OK. Take a freakin stand on issues.


How about none of those??
And btw.. Doesn't your "all the same" statement conflict with the one you've made after that?



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 09:40 AM
link   
grover
Re: definition of a liberal:
Some of those same definitions apply to conservatives also, such as freedom of choice in personal matters, defend civil liberties and free expression, and tolerate diverse lifestyles. At least they apply to me, and I consider myself conservative. Or maybe moderate.



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheBandit795
Lately???

You mean like since at least 1913 government was intertwined with business.. When businessmen began to print federal notes.


In history anything in the last 100 years is lately. The developments in the past 100 years are the most influential in how we have gotten to this point. 1940's/WW2 they really bought the governments out and became one in the same.



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 10:50 AM
link   
Oddly enough I find myself in agreement with Souljah. The two party system in America is, if not dead, certainly in desparate need of intensive care. The two parties are virtually one and the same. Corruption runs no more rampantly amuk in one than the other. Its fairly equally amuk.

Mr. Bush is no more corrupt than Mr. Clinton. Two peas in a pod. Truely, if there is anything to this NWO claptrap, this argument is playing right into their hands.

In looking back as far as I have the interest to do so. I've noticed that the "bashing" seems to be cyclical (sp?). The trend will undoubtably turn the other way somewhere down the road.

I still can't believe I agree with Souljah. Not a first, but rare
.



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

grover
Re: definition of a liberal:
Some of those same definitions apply to conservatives also, such as freedom of choice in personal matters, defend civil liberties and free expression, and tolerate diverse lifestyles. At least they apply to me, and I consider myself conservative. Or maybe moderate.


you are right jsobecky, or should be.....BUT when you look at it who is in favor of restricting or eliminating a woman's right to chose, and who is so vehemantly opposed to gays (both extremely private issues that involve both freedom of choice and tolarance of diverse lifestyles) and their choices? Its not liberals and democrats, it is conservatives and republicans who have actually made opposition to these issues (among many, these are just the most egregious examples) a party platform.



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 02:38 PM
link   
I tend to agree with your last comment grover, it is the segment of the Republican party that I refer to as Bible Thumpers--Others call them neo-cons, or ultra-conservatives, or things a whole lot less nice.

BTW if you really look at when big government first started to take over I think you will find it was during the administration of John F. Kennedy and it has gotten steadily worse since then.

[edit on 7-6-2006 by Astronomer70]



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 02:56 PM
link   
actually astronomer it was before that. It was the eisenhower administration.



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 03:17 PM
link   
ACCORDING TO YOUR ANSWERS,

You fall exactly on the border of two political philosophies....

CONSERVATIVE
LIBERTARIAN

CONSERVATIVES tend to favor economic freedom, but frequently support laws to restrict personal behavior that violates "traditional values." They oppose excessive government control of business, while endorsing government action to defend morality and the traditional family structure. Conservatives usually support a strong
military, oppose bureaucracy and high taxes, favor a free-market economy, and endorse strong law enforcement.

LIBERTARIANS support maximum liberty in both personal and economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence. Libertarians tend to embrace individual
responsibility, oppose government bureaucracy and taxes, promote private charity, tolerate diverse lifestyles, support the free market, and defend civil liberties.


as to the topic at hand, I am all for opposing viewpoints - somewhere in the middle is where the truth is shown. The point is that it seems that anytime I or one of the other more conservative members makes a statement in support of our core beliefs that we are attacked on a personal level. This does happen to the left as well, but I was hoping that the "new" ATS policies on political commentary and attacks would help that but it doesn't really seem to have.

And rock on Souljah, keep fighting the good fight.



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
actually astronomer it was before that. It was the eisenhower administration.


I would be interested to see how you arrived at that conclusion, but that is a topic for another time. I still think it happened about the time NASA was created, when JFK decided we should go to the moon. Hell, everyone knew we were going to the moon way before he said anything, but by concentrating the entire nations effort through the government we set back our space program a lot.



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 07:19 PM
link   
astronomer would you like me to U2U the history and such which has brought me to this conclusion. Its not like conspiracy history either, its founded history that kind of shows the real turn of it. I think Kennedy actually threatened it more then helped it, a major reason he was killed. I'll U2U it to you if you like so I don't derail the Thread.



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 12:56 AM
link   
All I can say, Muaddib is that you protest too much. I asked you first and you did not honor my request. But you, have done nothing but degrade not only me, but other people who do not agree with you. That is all you do. You don't offer anything more that is of intellectual worth for us to learn about conservativism. And sadly, you didn't on grover's thread.

You went on the attack instead of truly countering the information with erudite links and commentary of your own. Even you have done the same thing here with your attacks on me, grover and Jamuhn. And then, you release your tirade on everything that doesn't apply to you as being "liberal propaganda".

So, all I can say is speak for yourself. I will be honestly amazed if you do write something that sheds light on the conservative view instead of attacking the opinions of other people, including mine.



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
actually astronomer it was before that. It was the eisenhower administration.


I'm going to contend that it was even before Eisenhower. I'm going back to Hoover. He used the CIA to acquire "dirt" on everyone that he percieved as a threat to him. It's believed that Hoover was a closet homosexual, and dreaded that little secret from getting out, because it would have ruined his political endeavors. Anyone can see how something as taboo as Presidential homosexuality would have derailed a presidency in an instant during that time.

So, presuming this to be true, he went about collecting information on all of the people that he felt were of any possible threat to him and his plans. Whether or not the reasons he did this information gathering are true or not is up for debate, but the fact remains that he was the first to gather large sums of intelligence on just about everyone that he could. There are file cabinets full of info on people that he was following, like mob bosses and other powerful people.

Just thought I'd post that. Now, back to your regularly scheduled topic.

TheBorg



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 01:07 AM
link   
I feel comfortable talking on this site. We should put our political status behind us, and look for better ways to improve our country and world, after all isn’t this what this site is about?



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006
All I can say, Muaddib is that you protest too much.


Oh, so now there is such a thing as "protesting too much"?....



Originally posted by ceci2006
I asked you first and you did not honor my request. But you, have done nothing but degrade not only me, but other people who do not agree with you. That is all you do. You don't offer anything more that is of intellectual worth for us to learn about conservativism. And sadly, you didn't on grover's thread.


I degraded you?....lol....you are something else... BTW, I did honor your "request"... i did exactly what you have done, excerpted quotes from sites just like you did....


Originally posted by ceci2006
...................
So, all I can say is speak for yourself. I will be honestly amazed if you do write something that sheds light on the conservative view instead of attacking the opinions of other people, including mine.


I am not the type of person who hides behind "quotes which do nothing except degrade, demean and insult"...and then claim "they are academic papers"....

What exactly is there to prove against insults, and rhetorical comments which are trying to imply that conservatives are like Nazis, that all conservatives must be religious fanatics, etc, etc?...

In case you, and others like you haven't noticed, Nazis went after Jewish people, trying to deny their existance...if anyone is a Nazi is all those people who are trying to "deny the existance of Israel"....and are calling for the destruction of Israel. Then there is the excerpts of yours which "eloquently" name calls conservatives as "psychotic, religious fanatics, and a disease that is rampant," among other things you wanted everyone to quote and you so profounding agreed with.....

If you want to participate in any intelligent, and "erudite" conversation, you should begin by giving an intelligent argument, instead of quoting nothing but insults, demeaning rhetoric, and patronizing comments.


[edit on 8-6-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 01:23 AM
link   
And maybe this little argument you two seem to be transferring from thread to thread could be taken to the U2U realm, where such arguments should be kept. Please move back onto topic, and stop bickering.

TheBorg



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join