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.

 

non-flame questions to liberal americans

page: 11
4
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2008 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by jetxnet
Redmotion, that is totally inaccurate.

Extreme Liberalism IS Marxism and Marxism IS Communism.

Communism = bigger disfunctional government. The government provides for all its children.

Liberalism = bigger disfunctional government. The government provides for all its children.

Conservatism = Smaller government. Make your own way. Free enterprise and competition.

In all systems, there is the top "eilite" tier with most of the money and then there is the rest. In Capitalism it is the Corporate Officals at the top. In Communism it is the government officials at the top.




What you have forgot to mention is when government *has* to get larger to enable free markets and competition.

For example, we created the FDA because the world stopped buying our meat.

Any form of economy or government leads to the formation of it's opposite, it's just a natural law. No form of government is better than another in the long term, it all depends on who you are and where you are.

btw, I'm so disgusted by the so-called conservatism of today. A true conservative has no regard for spreading their religious beliefs, because as you mentioned "Make your own way" is the mantra, but today conservatives want to tell you how to live, who to marry, etc.

Conservatives today have become exactly what the true conservatives despise. Such a pity.




posted on May, 31 2008 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by ybab hsur
reply to post by HeadFirstForHalos
 


Hahaha. the bill of rights does nto apply to the president of Iran.




Yes it does. Did you read "We believe that *ALL* men are created equal and endowed by their creator with these basic rights"

Last time I checked, that includes *ALL* men. Which includes the Pres of Iran. Does this protect his right, no, but it does state that constitutionally he has that right.


Next time you should actually read the documents you are referring to.



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by WyrdeOne
 


1.) When a 250 point penalty is the standard outline set forth in another post by another super moderator, and a 1000 point penalty is infringed upon me for lashing out against a racial comment by calling that person a racist by a moderator who made it abundantly clear that he totally disagrees with my opinion.
Then to make matters worse i go to prove this moderators own disregard for fair moderating, i report all the other instances of name calling and flamming in this very topic, and WOW, guess what? Nothing happens.

I dont care about the points, i care about the misuse of power. Calling me a martyr? Martyrs have to die first, are you telling me if i dont shut up about this that you'll ban me? Sounds like another attempt at suppression.


2.) So you're telling me that Hitlers words were not dangerous? You're telling me that words bear no indication on a persons intentions and should be the basis for a preventative action to be taken? If that is what you're telling me...wel.....okay, then i have to say that people like you were responsible for the holocaust. People like you did nothing when hitler was slaugthering millions. Only when the war came to our doorstep did we intervene and save the entire planet with the help of great britain.

3.) Here is how my reply was supposed to read (sorry that my feeble member status doesnt grant me super mental abilities at 3 a.m. like you mods)
No. its not. Its not common sense. I agree with you that it SHOULD be that way - but should and shouldnts isnt the argument. Reality is the argument. And the reality is, what i spelled out is true.

Im sure you knew that already - you're just buying extra time to come up with a rebuttal. Not really one you can come up with to argue that point, because im agreeing with you to an extent. But the difference is, your head seems to be in la la land, and mine is in the real world.


you say "since the discussion hinges on law and sovereignty, the only definition of American that's worth a crap in this context is citizenship. "

I disagree with you about your opinion in the definition of an american. When an ex-marine goes nuts on top of a water tower with a sniper rifle killing innocent lives, that person has gone against the oath they took to uphold the laws of this country. They were given tax-payer paid-for training, the greatest in the world, and they used it to terrorize americans.
So you're telling me that being part of an american should encompass terroizing your own fellow citizens? Maybe in liberal land that holds true, but not in my book. And even if you want to play by your rules (and we probably should right? Dont wanna get more points docked
)

When an 'american' violates antoher americans right (be it, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, what have you) then the violator has just forfeited their basic rights and entered into the rights of a criminal. Personally, i feel that blatant criminals should have zero rights, and only people who have cases where reasonable doubt can be assessed, should due process be allowed.

What i mean is, if a guy shoots up a mall, the police should end him on the spot, not put him through a long drawn out court case where some sleeze ball defense attorney will try to get him off the charges.

But i guess you got me, im living in a fantasy world on that one too, im saying "should be" you're saying "as is"

Cheers on that one.

[edit on 31-5-2008 by ybab hsur]

[edit on 31-5-2008 by ybab hsur]

[edit on 31-5-2008 by ybab hsur]

[edit on 31-5-2008 by ybab hsur]



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Quazga
 


No. it doesnt.

Freedom of speech doesnt apply to anyone who violates another human beings rights to freedoms as well.

The freedom of speech in the bill of rights (if YOU would actually read it) does not give anyone the "right" to attack or commit hate crimes

(refer to my post earlier about a white guy getting in a figth with a black guy if you need another example)

Why do you so insist on sticking up for individuals like Ahmenijad? Can you explain it to me? You clearly don't think he's a threat......why?



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 12:27 PM
link   
I cant believe it took me this long to realize this:

To those of you who are saying that words mean nothing, and action is what causes change....wow i gota laugh

you just completely contradicted yourselves. Earlier in this topic, you claim that action is not the answer, You claim that diplomacy is. Diplomacy is.....words


yet another prime example that liberals and liberal-like people are nto interested in the actual issues at hand, instead, are interested only in trying to disprove a person who's opinions differ (typically, conservatives) and will do so at the expense of truth and their own credibility.

Only difference is, i admit when you've gotten me, you never admit when i've gotten you. Kind of......ironic.

[edit on 31-5-2008 by ybab hsur]



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ybab hsur
reply to post by harvib
 


okay i see the distinction you're pointing out now.

But i have to agree with this bill...



So can we put it to bed that we have lost civil liberties... and a far as the debate goes on the exchange of liberties for safety:

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety,” Benjamin Franklin.



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by harvib
 


No, you're wrong. We are not loosing liberties. We are not loosing anythig. This is closing the gap on those people who would choose to EXPLOIT those liberties.

this is saying if you want to go on a lucatic rampage and kill people, then these liberties don't apply to you...and quite frankly, why the heck should they?



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ybab hsur
reply to post by harvib
 


this is saying if you want to go on a lucatic rampage and kill people, then these liberties don't apply to you...and quite frankly, why the heck should they?


And where in the bill do you gather that it can only apply to "lunatics" that kill people. In reading the bill it seems that it is ambiguous as to who it could apply to.

BTW is a liberty that can be taken away at the will of the government really a liberty at all.



[edit on 31-5-2008 by harvib]



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by ybab hsur
 




1.) When a 250 point penalty is the standard outline set forth in another post by another super moderator, and a 1000 point penalty is infringed upon me for lashing out against a racial comment by calling that person a racist by a moderator who made it abundantly clear that he totally disagrees with my opinion.
Then to make matters worse i go to prove this moderators own disregard for fair moderating, i report all the other instances of name calling and flamming in this very topic, and WOW, guess what? Nothing happens.


Your reading comprehension skills need work. 250 points is the standard penalty after the application of a warning flag. You were not warned, were you? I see no little red flag.

You had an ill-mannered post deleted, that carries a different penalty. Please, don't presume to educate me on the workings of the site if you haven't taken the time to educate yourself, k?



I dont care about the points, i care about the misuse of power. Calling me a martyr? Martyrs have to die first, are you telling me if i dont shut up about this that you'll ban me? Sounds like another attempt at suppression.


Ugh...

Misuse of power is in the eyes of the beholder. Your baiting and trolling are a blight on a forum that attempts to engender civility and decorum - it would be a misuse of power, I think, to allow that to continue.

As I said though, my hands are tied because we're talking to one another. Actually, the staff have showed a great deal of restraint in dealing with you up to this point.



2.) So you're telling me that Hitlers words were not dangerous? You're telling me that words bear no indication on a persons intentions and should be the basis for a preventative action to be taken? If that is what you're telling me...wel.....okay, then i have to say that people like you were responsible for the holocaust. People like you did nothing when hitler was slaugthering millions. Only when the war came to our doorstep did we intervene and save the entire planet with the help of great britain.


Yes, his words were dangerous in the sense that he was manipulating a vulnerable and terrified populace. That doesn't mean we should ban words, or even certain words.

Now, you mistake my love of words for an inclination toward inaction, and that's a logical fallacy. He should have been engaged much, much earlier. Not because of what he was saying, but because of what was HAPPENING in Germany at the time.

There was a great deal of hand-wringing in the wake of his early moves against his neighbors, and that was a product of wishful thinking as much as anything else.

People like me were responsible for the holocaust?

Now you're really reaching in an attempt to insult me, especially considering the fact that my distant relatives were on the OTHER side of the barbed wire.

You know who was responsible for the holocaust? The soldiers and citizens who made it their business to exterminate people. How can you blame anyone but those who were filling the trains and pulling the trigger, so to speak?

I suppose you'll say that America was responsible for the Rwandan massacres, after all, we did nothing when all the talk in that country was focused on extermination? How about the Chinese, who sold them the machetes? How about the Belgians who instilled the racial animosity in the first place?

No, it's the killers and their superiors who are responsible. Punish the guilty, not the uninvolved. Christ, but this seems so simple a concept to me - why don't you grasp it?



Im sure you knew that already - you're just buying extra time to come up with a rebuttal. Not really one you can come up with to argue that point, because im agreeing with you to an extent. But the difference is, your head seems to be in la la land, and mine is in the real world.


Now that's funny.

Your questions starting this thread did NOT PERTAIN to what is real and what is not. You were not asking for us to clarify reality. You were asking for us to defend the minority position that we have lost rights as citizens, and when confronted with evidence speaking to that, you toss it aside, saying 'well that's just reality'.

It's like you asked for a tally of sports scores, and when presented with them, threw them away, saying 'well that's just the reality, I wish it was different' - what's that got to do with your original questions? NOTHING!


Illogical is the rule with you, isn't it, not the exception?



So you're telling me that being part of an american should encompass terroizing your own fellow citizens? Maybe in liberal land that holds true, but not in my book. And even if you want to play by your rules (and we probably should right? Dont wanna get more points docked )


The logical fallacies are strong with this one...

Citizenship is not conditional on good behavior (except in very rare circumstances), despite what you may think.

If what you meant to say was 'Law-Abiding Citizens have nothing to fear, only criminals are targeted by the new policies' then that's fine. You should have said that at the beginning.

It's still a pretty nonsensical argument, if you ask me, because the definition of criminal can change overnight, and you may find yourself on the other side of that divider with a quickness.

You seem to love talking about Nazis, so let me give you an example from that time period. After the night of broken glass, the blacks, gays and gypsies in Germany said to themselves and one another - well, I haven't done anything wrong, I have nothing to worry about. That didn't last long, did it?

If America is to survive it must cling to the ideals that are its foundation - liberty and justice for all. Those aren't just words, they're a creed to live by, and a damn good one in my opinion.

If you're so concerned with the misuse of power, I ask you - when has a government EVER held this much power at home and in the world, and not misused it? The answer is, unfortunately, never.

If people are to be kept in check, you needn't silence them, just neuter them. If Hitler had been kept in check in his own country, the holocaust would not have happened. Unfortunately, the citizenry were scared and desperate, and he promised them safety. Sound familiar?



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by harvib
 


interesting question.

Allow me to re-evaluate our argument here....(i wanna make sure that im not mistaken) ive been involved in a lot of topics, and all the conversations are starting to turn out to be identical

So my stance is to the effect that i believe the govt is asserting their power into the bill of rights and closing the loopholes that get exploited by criminals. I've used the scneario of a man shooting up a mall (he has no rights)
I believe that you have a right to everything in the bill of rights, until your right infringes on another persons. IE: Freedom of speech until you turn racist (going to jail for using the "n-word")

you believe that even the criminals should have the same rights as the law-abiding citizens of this country. Do you also believe that Ahmenijad has the same rights to spew his hateful rhetoric, or do you believe that intervention is the only answer to stop another attempted genocide?

Also - i never heard a response (if im still in the right topic?)
You say that diplomacy is the answer to violence, i say the gun is the answer when we're talking about Iran, Iraq, etc.

When we're talking about anything else, you say action is the answer and words mean nothing? Forgive me if im mixing things up, and i'll apologize if im wrong, but you say that words are harmless and action is what is needed for ...change?



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by WyrdeOne
 


Well i can see that this is starting to turn into a pee'ing contest about moderators v.s. ybab

I dont wish to take part in that, because its impossible for me to win, no matter how i feel about the situation. My "beef" was never with the rules. i'll admit my ignorance to them in the beginning, but my beef has always been about equal application of the rules to everyone. And since those rules were not applied equally to all in this topic alone, naturally i am frustrated. But hey - whatever, right? its just a forum. You're a person on that side of the screen, im a person on this side. Ill drop it, i just wish you'd do a little more investigation and actually look at the REAL reason im angry, and not assume you know based on what another person has told you.

Harvib, its been great debating with you man. Its not very often in my RL that i get to talk with someone who can keep up

Cheers to ya there

WyrdeOne, thank you for not taking advantage of any mod privs you have, though i still think you should look deeper into it before forumlating an opinion.

The greatest thing about debating is it keeps peoples mind stiumulated with the idea of different beliefs. While i dont share the same ideals that you do, harvi, or Wyrde, we do share the same common goals. We just differ as to how to get those goals accomplished.

But the worst thing about debating, is that it sometimes brings out the worst inside of, otherwise normally, good people.

I have to admit i've lost enthusiasm over this debate..again.

We've discussed everythign so much that i dont think there's anything else to discuss.
harv, if you were here, i'd go buy you a beer man.

See you all on other topics.

[edit on 31-5-2008 by ybab hsur]



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 02:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by ybab hsur
reply to post by harvib
 


So my stance is to the effect that i believe the govt is asserting their power into the bill of rights and closing the loopholes that get exploited by criminals. I've used the scneario of a man shooting up a mall (he has no rights)
I believe that you have a right to everything in the bill of rights, until your right infringes on another persons. IE: Freedom of speech until you turn racist (going to jail for using the "n-word")

you believe that even the criminals should have the same rights as the law-abiding citizens of this country. Do you also believe that Ahmenijad has the same rights to spew his hateful rhetoric, or do you believe that intervention is the only answer to stop another attempted genocide?


My friend I am afraid you lack fundamental understanding of the ideals around which this country was created. The right to Freedom of speech, the right to freedom of civil jury, the right of protection against improper search and seizures, cannot be called rights if they can be taken away. The bill of rights was created for a purpose let us not forget what that purpose was.

The so called terrosist do not frighten me. Our government does not frighten me. But the individuals in this country that are so willing to destroy the ideals of it and to give up their liberties frighten me. I hope that these individuals are able to stop thinking through fear and start thinking through perspective.

I hope the powers to be that you so willing abondon your rights to continue to serve in your best interest. Because if they don't you wont have anything left to protect yourself agianst them.



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by ybab hsur
reply to post by Quazga
 


No. it doesnt.

Freedom of speech doesnt apply to anyone who violates another human beings rights to freedoms as well.

The freedom of speech in the bill of rights (if YOU would actually read it) does not give anyone the "right" to attack or commit hate crimes

(refer to my post earlier about a white guy getting in a figth with a black guy if you need another example)

Why do you so insist on sticking up for individuals like Ahmenijad? Can you explain it to me? You clearly don't think he's a threat......why?



Yes, Freedom of Speech is just that, Freedom of Speech. The only limitation is yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theatre. Although "hate speech" can be likened to this in respects of being reckless, interpretation is left to the judicial branch. Not you, not I.

I defend anyone's right to say anything. It is Actions which have restrictions laid on them, not speech.

I don't care what anyone is saying, even if they are calling for my own death, Freedom of Speech is a basic right which our constitution states is an "Inalienable right" bestowed by our "Creator". Which means it applies to every man, woman, and child.

Anything else is unconstitutional... PERIOD.



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Quazga
 



Please Read this debate on freedom of speech and you'll realize that what you're saying is just a pipe dream

Lastly - i have already said this discussion is closed to me, but Quazga, you left me no choice.

A thank you is in order for those whom have answered my questions and actually carried out a debate. To the rest of you - well...nothing i can really say besides thanks for nothing.

Your opinion can only be taken as seriously as you take the discussion at hand. If all you did was come here and make a doofus of yourself, well...that says something for your opinion


Happy debating.


[edit on 1-6-2008 by ybab hsur]



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 06:20 PM
link   

5.) If Sadaam didtn have WMDs, then give me a good reason why you think Sadaam delayed for weeks, and never let in the United Nations weapon inspectors.


This question is very easy to answer. It was imperative to Saddam, that his primary enemy "Iran" think that he had WMD's. If he fully cooperated with the inspection teams and they determined that he had no weapons of mass destruction and little or no means of producing them effectively then Iran would really have nothing to fear. Saddam believed that Iran would attack him if they didn't think that he had chemical weapons, he said so in his prison interviews before his execution.

Mod Edit: Fixed quote tags.

[edit on 2-6-2008 by GAOTU789]



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 06:42 PM
link   


Case in point - slavery does not exist. if you think it does, then you are just arguing with me because im conservative and if you agreed with me, your world would come tumbling to an end.



Slavery most certainly exists, right now, worldwide. Or maybe all those international organizations are just arguing with You to be contrarian.

A simple Google search will reveal plenty of sources about Slavery in the modern world.

Here is one organization www.iabolish.org...

You can also find references on the U N's website, but they are just a bunch of bleeding heart liberals anyway, so what do they know?

Of course it is also difficult to ignore that even the Media in the US has reported on cases where people in the US were tried and found guilty of keeping a slave, both sex slaves and domestic help.

One can turn a blind eye to slavery, but one has to be blind in both eyes to claim that it doesn't exist.



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ybab hsur
reply to post by Quazga
 



Please Read this debate on freedom of speech and you'll realize that what you're saying is just a pipe dream



[edit on 1-6-2008 by ybab hsur]



This has nothing to do with what we want, no pipe dream or anything. This has to do with what the Constitution says. PERIOD.

As is easy to tell by the pseudo conversations you have had on this thread, you are way off base.

Thanks for showing this fact for us.



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 10:39 PM
link   
I feel that anyone has the right to speak freely and openly. No matter if the subject is racially inflammatory, obscene, or dangerous. It is up to the listener to leave if they lose interest or take offense. Words are nothing more that air that vibrates your ear canal. If you are so flimsy you are unable to endure them, Darwin needs to pay you a visit. Show you what's what and how.

If I want to yell "FIRE" in the theater while Rambo is aiming a weapon and squeezing a trigger, who are you to say I shouldn't be allowed to do so? If I want to cheer the man on and encourage him to "FIRE", dammit, why should I or anyone else be restricted.

Anyone who ever feels their rights are being infringed and want to stop another from infringing - well they are infringing on the infringer's right to do so. You don't like me smoking in public (still legal in a few remote areas), then YOU go inside. You don't like my distaste for certain political or racial topics, then plug your ears and flee. You have no right to take away my right to do my thing.

Now, if I pursue you into your own domain (your home), you have all the rights and I have none.

[edit on 2-6-2008 by GAOTU789]

[edit on 2-6-2008 by GAOTU789]



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Quazga
 



Oh God!!!... Now he's U2U'ng me....

Delete, without even a glance! I wonder if ignores work for u2u's as well?




top topics



 
4
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join