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: 8
4
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 30 2008 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by dariousg
 



Originally posted by dariousg



Prove that your right to vote has been taken away by Bush.

Not our right to vote because we can still show up. However, with the advent of 'electronic' voting there is ZERO accountability. Many many many witnesses have testified before congress and the justice department stating that the voting can be manipulated with zero trackability. There are so many stories you can simply search and do the research yourself. Of course most conservatives (I say most because I still view myself as such and DO NOT DISCREDIT THESE PEOPLE JUST BECAUSE THEY THREATON TO EXPOSE THIS ADMINISTRATION) will simply call these people nut jobs or cooks.

Prove that you cannot assemble peacefully.

Oh, you can assemble peacefully but the new laws instated since Mr. Bush has taken office allow cities to tell groups WHERE they can protest. This is essentially restricting this constitutional RIGHT. Here is an example:

Link to CNN story on protest restrictions in NYC

Prove that states rights are non-existent.

Oh no, yet again you are trying to argue a 'soft' point with a 'hard' statement. We are not saying that they are 'non-existent' just that they have been infringed upon.

He is a link explaining what this administration has accomplished in regards to the constitution:

Bush breaking the law to fit HIS interpretation of the constitution

Here is another link where his new laws allow him to do what no other president has had a right to do. Pretty much take over the national guard units for any given state. The national guard is supposed to be completely controlled by the state in which they served and NOT the federal government.

Political website link on Bush's law to usurp the states power

Another link describing what has happened



Don't just babble that "You have your head in the sand ". That means nothing to me.




posted on May, 30 2008 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by thefreepatriot
 


Okay, here's an idea.

The forum blanks out words like but wont blank out other words because they're not vulgar. So if the words that i used arent blanked out, and considered non-vulgar, then what is the point in docking me points for it?

Oh tahts right - its the typical liberal agenda. If you disagree with someone, ro someone is proving you wrong, you must squash them with any means necessary. The forums moderator has the ability to dock me, and does so, because they both disagree with everything im saying.

Great philosophy.

I'll probably be booted for saying all this, so if you dont see me around anymore, just know that my point has been proven.

Liberalism is a dying star. and its because of actions like this.


and by the way - this response is only proving my point about this topic. So you cannot say that im posting off-topic, because im not. IM using these actions against me to further prove my point.


[edit on 30-5-2008 by ybab hsur]

Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 31-5-2008 by GAOTU789]



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by harvib
 


Slavery. Not rampant. Not wide spread.
Communism, not rampant. not wide spread
Facism...yah thats pretty wide spread, but not rampant

Rampant, to me, says that its aggressive and a huge epidemic.
Wide spread says that a large percentage of the world is doing it.

So...my sig still holds water - sorry.



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ybab hsur
reply to post by harvib
 


Slavery. Not rampant. Not wide spread.
Communism, not rampant. not wide spread
Facism...yah thats pretty wide spread, but not rampant

Rampant, to me, says that its aggressive and a huge epidemic.
Wide spread says that a large percentage of the world is doing it.

So...my sig still holds water - sorry.


Your sig says that war has solved these. Do they still exist. If the answer is yes then you cannot make the claim they have been solved. And the statement that because something is illegal means it is solved is even more ridiculus. And the fact that facism is wide spread by your addmission would not be indicitive of a solved problem. Would it?

[edit on 30-5-2008 by harvib]



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by harvib
 


I should cease to respond to anything you liberals have to say....else i fear my account will be banned because you disagree with me.

This topic should be closed.

By the way -did you know that the "#" is now considered a cuss word?

Holy # that is amazing.

Signing off (probably for the last time)

Phsyically - you win
ideologically - i win

But thats the way the world works i guess.



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ybab hsur
reply to post by harvib
 


I should cease to respond to anything you liberals have to say....else i fear my account will be banned because you disagree with me.

This topic should be closed.

By the way -did you know that the "#" is now considered a cuss word?

Holy # that is amazing.

Signing off (probably for the last time)

Phsyically - you win
ideologically - i win

But thats the way the world works i guess.


BTW I do not consider myself a liberal. You have put that label on me and as a result have impeded your own ability to come to a consensous of certain topics of debate because they have been polarized in your mind. I would imagine that in your world a so called "consevative" and a so called "liberal" are polar opposites but isn't all of humanity after the same thing even if their philisopical ideologies differ. I am thankful that I do not have such limitations and am able to listen to others opinions with an unbiased ear.

Your sig does sadden me and I hope that people like you will realize that the "greates nations" in the world should have the greatest ability at diplomacy, tolerance, and compasion. These are words that describe greatness to me. "War is failed diplomacy" and to me anything that is alligned with failure cannot be great.



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ybab hsur
reply to post by thefreepatriot
 



Oh tahts right - its the typical liberal agenda. If you disagree with someone, ro someone is proving you wrong, you must squash them with any means necessary. The forums moderator has the ability to dock me, and does so, because they both disagree with everything im saying.

[edit on 30-5-2008 by ybab hsur]


You know what's funny? I always have seen this from the conservatives too. Listen to Rush when someone disagrees with him. Why does he shout at them? Because HE'S RIGHT AND YOU'RE WRONG! He even has that on his intro. Then you have Hannity, Savage and the best of them all Mr. Bill O'Reilly. Have you ever listened to them when they are challenged? Instead of listening to any type of facts that are brought up they cut people off and scream at them with names and insults.

Very American of them. Very Christian too.



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by ybab hsur
 


I really feel sorry for you falling into the trap of "liberalism" and "conservatism"
They are both created so that people like you pick a side and call people that do not fit the "values" of your side liberals... Thank god I am neither liberal of a conservative.. I am a humanitarian.. I see that war is not the solution for our problems because how can we go to war with ourselves? We need to wake up and realize that everyone in this world are our brothers.. if we attack someone we are really attacking ourselves.. You need to broaden your scope of view of this world instead of creating illusionist lines of divisions between people.. Because we are all the same. And we all suffer when there is war. I can suggest one thing.. If you like war so much then I suggest you sign up right away.. and Stop being a armchair warrior.. It's very easy to say war is good when you are not the one doing the fighting.

[edit on 30-5-2008 by thefreepatriot]



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 03:47 PM
link   
The post said non-flame questions but there should have been a legal disclaimer stating: However the op reserves the right to flame anyone as long as it is not in the context of a question



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by ybab hsur
 


when you make the statement that "liberals hate america", you disqualify yourself from any reasonable discussion. this is exactly why we don't need or want to have you republicans running the country. this standard "fox news", "neocon" statement shows the simpleminded, inflamatory, rhetoric that you people have relied on for too long. you don't want a substantive debate on any issue, you simply want to appease your [snip].
 

Mod Note: Courtesy Is Mandatory

[edit on 30/5/2008 by watch_the_rocks]



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 


thats quite the personal attack there, Jimmyx. Not really relating to the issue is it? Does not really follow ATS rules...

I asked if liberals would answer the questions, and not flame me for asking the questions, but- in those first few hours - they could not answer anything. THey kept throwing the same crap my way, and when that guy made his racist comment, i lashed out.

So my response to what i percieved as ignorance was that i believe that liberals hate america. You can interpret that any way you want it, i never said that it could be proven, i just said it is what i believed, and i was using my "answer these questions" as a basis for my argument.

But you can't see it that way.

[edit on 30-5-2008 by ybab hsur]



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by harvib
reply to post by ybab hsur
 


1.) Give me ample examples of which rights of yours have been stripped by bush since 9/11

It takes more then the president to strip rights away however understanding the context of your question... Through bills passed since 9/11 and there ambiguity exercising freedom of speech may result in prosecution. The right to peaceful protest. Right of protection against improper search and seizure. Right of trial by jury. Right to a speedy trial. Right to civil trial by jury. Prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments.

These rights are the rights prescribed in the bill of rights. To understand how these rights have been stripped or modified please refer to the patriot act, HR 1955, Military Commission’s Act of 2006, the military tribunals bill S.3930, H.RES.1054, H.R.6054, H.R.6166, S.3861, S.3886, S.3901, S.3929, just to name a few.

Although not as significant and certainly not prescribed in the bill of rights I am no longer able to play online poker in the name of protection against terrorism
.


2.) How is Iran's president ahmenijad (sp?) not practicing hate speech when he's talking about Jews?

Ahmadinejad clearly exercises hate speech against Jews and homosexuals however in my humble option I believe our focus as Americans should be on the hate speech of our own government and not be distracted by the sound of the beating drums. When your house is on fire should you look for other fires to extinguish before extinguishing your own???

3.) Except for ending Slavery, Nazism, Fascism, and Communism.....
WAR HASNT SOLVED ANYTHING



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by harvib
 


wow harvib

you are excessively using the quote feature there buddy.

if you go back and actually READ my response up there ^^^^ you will see that i said "in those first few hours"

you didtn respond in those first few hours, now did ya? yeah - you responded eventually - but "eventually" falls out side the realm of "the first few hours" as i describe it in my afformentioned reply.

*shakes head*



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by ybab hsur
 


I stand corrected however you have still failed to responded to my post. The debate you claim you are looking for seems to be about misinformned labels... good luck to you



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by harvib
 


i believe i did reply, and chose to talk about your final point when i pointed out that acting as humanitarians, you have to decide which is best for everyone invovled, and since no two people are going to agree on such terms, you have to be split into parties.

Example (again!)

If you think we should rid ourselves and our planet of volcanos because they kill innocent people and destroy homes, i would 1/2 way agree with you

The humanitarian side of me says i dont want people to die, but the other side of me would say "dont get rid of volcanos" because volcanos are there for a reason. Build your homes away from volcanos and dont let people inhabit the bases of such natural mounds.

You have your views
I have my views

The people who share you views with you would call themselves _____
and the people who share my views with me call ourselves ________

two different groups with the same goal in mind, but different ways of getting there

there's your response again, because i dont feel like drudging thru all those pages to quote it (better read up on those quote rules too, becuase they'll kick yer butt if you dont follow the quoting rule)



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by ybab hsur
 


And which of my views identify me as anything. As an individual and a freethinker I don't believe that anyone would share my views in there entirety. I also will not share anyone else views in there entirety. As a result I do not believe that any group is able to represent me. I have heard things from both self proclaimed liberals and conservatives that I agree and disagree with.



[edit on 30-5-2008 by harvib]



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by harvib
 


i didnt say that you CHOSE to share your views, im saying that there are a lot of other people who have said, identically and to a T, exactly what youv'e said, and those people label themselves liberal.

Naturally- i labeled you a liberal. If you deny that label, then you instantly recieve more respect from me, if that means anything to ya..

and it should....especailly if you knew who i was



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by ybab hsur
 


I deny any label. And I don't care who you are and am not looking for anyones respect. It is a mistake on anyones part allow themselves to be polarized. It results in meaningless partisan debates that have nothing to do with the issues but more about who is right and who is wrong. Drop the labels and use an unbiased ear. Let the points hold or not on their own merits or lack there of...



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by harvib
reply to post by ybab hsur
 


I deny any label. And I don't care who you are and am not looking for anyones respect. It is a mistake on anyones part allow themselves to be polarized. It results in meaningless partisan debates that have nothing to do with the issues but more about who is right and who is wrong. Drop the labels and use an unbiased ear. Let the points hold or not on their own merits or lack there of...



*hopes he wont get chastised for using a quote*

WOW. This statement i really like

It results in meaningless partisan debates that have nothing to do with the issues but more about who is right and who is wrong.

lets play a game, shall we? Lets play "point out that conundrum"
Ready...
Set....
Go!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A debate about who is right or wrong over any issue is a valid debate. Why? Because the people who are right are the ones who are going to sovle the issue.

If you have a debate about an issue, and have no solutions for it - then your'e really not having a debate, you're complaining.

Group A.) says our answer works
Group B.) says NO our answer works!!!!!!!!!!!

Group A.) Does their solution
Group B.) Does their solution
Whichever solution worked - ultimately solves the issue at hand.

SO! Debating about who is right or wrong so that the powers that be can make decisions is a worthwhile cause. Im not insinuating that govt officials are using OUR advice, but im talking about what we're doing here, on a much more national/worldwide scale.

Without debating who is right and who is wrong, how can you come to amicable means of resolution? Trial and error doesnt really work. I could point out 100 different liberal and conservative legislative decisions that prove just that.

Im really sorry i had to pick apart your horrible attempt at proving me wrong - but i just could not resist.


[edit on 30-5-2008 by ybab hsur]



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by ybab hsur
 


You miss understand my point. My point was that when you disagree with someone based on a preconceived notion rather then the issues you are not solving anything. Instead of reaching a conscientious the time is spent arguing over useless rhetoric. Such as we have seen in this so called debate



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join