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.

 

The Conspiracy of American Political Peril

page: 11
174
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


While I can agree with number 1... I struggle with number 2. So we are saying that the government knows what is best for our overall being, safety, and health?

I see the need to defend me from foreign countries, provide a justice system, etc but why can't we just be left to live and die by our own choices. Why should they be able to force us to be safe or healthy?

Where I live they are making kids under 100lbs ride in booster seats. Why? When we were kids we didnt even have to wear seat belts. Why not leave it to the parents, and if their kid dies they have to live with the consequence of their decision.

Why the nanny state?

Why should we be forced to buy healthcare? Why can't I choose to opt out and they just let me die if I get to sick. At least I would be free.

[edit on 13-10-2009 by StinkyFeet]




posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

It was all sent to AbovePolitics.com, which didn't work and resulted in the feeling that all political discussion was relegated to a back seat.

You seem to be another prime example of someone either unable to understand what I say, or sees different words than those I type.



As far as AbovePolitics . . . I did not even know that place existed. Fail for me. But if that did not work then, why try again now, ESPECIALLY when people are voicing the same damn concerns?

And no . . . I understand completely what you are saying.

Anything that is deemed as inflammatory will be sent to a little room off to the corner so no one has to see it.


Once again I say:

If one does not like to read that kind of thing, one does not have to click the link.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
 



Where was this new section from 2000-2008? ATS was awash in the anti-Bush crowd.


Though not exact, there was a new forum created during Bush's term due to all the political ruckus. It is known as the Bully Pulpit forum: 'The ATS Bully Pulpit is a special forum devoted to serious discussion of important contemporary political issues, without divisive partisan rhetoric.'

Somewhat different purposes but ATS has made efforts to calm down the tone before.


I call foul now on the silencing of political debate.


It's really not silencing political debate. It's simply a new forum. Just like creating a Middle East Issue forum was not silencing Middle East Issues. It was just to consolidate them into one place since the topics were all over the bored. Just like recreating the pandemic forum to accommodate the hubbub about swine flue was not silencing topics on swine flu. It was just to consolidate them into one place because they were all over the board. Just like the 2012 forum was not done to silence the 2012 issue. It was just to consolidate them instead of being all over the board.

To infinity.

If the new forum was in some part of the board where you had to purchase access with points, if it was relegated to BTS, or if it was in some type of 'dumping ground' forum, I could completely understand everyone's gripe. But it's highlighted at the very top- even pushing over UFO's and 9/11 conspiracies. It has 'marquee placement' so to speak.

I don't understand the problem.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by StinkyFeet
Other than that why does the government need to redistribute our wealth?

There are only two reasons:

1) invest in the future (education, infrastructure, etc.)

2) invest in the overall well-being of the society (health, safety, etc.)


Even Bush doubled the size of the Department of Education, and American children still have a hard time reading at a third grade level.

And it's not up to the government to decide my "well being".

You are an enigma Bill. On one post you rail against the size and ineptitude of government, and in this one you make a case for increasing it's size. Stealing from the general population in order to create more departments that would oversee these "investments", is not moral, nor is it investing. It is nothing more than government self preservation.

Seeing here that you do advocate for the redistribution of wealth obviously shows where your ideology lies, and makes it obvious now why you chose to create a "special" forum for people who disagree with the administration.


[edit on 13-10-2009 by aravoth]



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Anything that is deemed as inflammatory will be sent to a little room off to the corner so no one has to see it.


Once again I say:

If one does not like to read that kind of thing, one does not have to click the link.


This is not a change but a reinforcement of the T&C.

Terms & Conditions Summary: The below specific and itemized rules not withstanding, all members are expected to participate with the same common every-day social graces used in civilized mixed company. Our desire is to foster an environment of civil decorum that enables our members to discuss highly provocative and intensely speculative topics without concern over personal attacks or insults.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

There a few vocal members that couldn't abide by the T&C, which EVERYONE agrees to, so this move had to be made to get us back to the vision that ATS has had since it's inception.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by aravoth
On one post you rail against the size and ineptitude of government, and in this one you make a case for increasing it's size.

I did no such thing. You injected your knee-jerk partisan mindset into your own biased assumptions of what you believe my comments to mean.


So may people have spent so much time trying to express their belief I'm biased in favor of one side, while never considering I'm biased against all "sides." (Which is easily discerned from the actual content of my opinions.)

Pathetic.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by SpookHunter
 
Disclaimer: I'm a theist but not of the Abrahamic faiths. I have minor biblical scholar and scriptural skills. Also I am not a scientific/legal or medical expert in any field. Beware of my Contagious Memes! & watch out that you don't get cut on my Occams razor.All of this is my personal conjecture and should not be considered the absolute or most definitive state of things as they really are. Use this information at your own risk! I accept no liability if your ideology comes crashing down around you with accompanying consequences.

Explanation: FYI you signed up for this control!


RE: T&C

RE: Actions for T&C violations.

Personal Disclosure: As for No#6.....Do you actually think that the owners of ATS actually NEED to gain full control when they had it to begin with?


P.S. As for No#1....it seems to me that your posts to this thread is a direct attempt to slide it....SEE ABOVE Explanation and links for my PROOF of this!



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by StinkyFeet
Other than that why does the government need to redistribute our wealth?

There are only two reasons:

1) invest in the future (education, infrastructure, etc.)

2) invest in the overall well-being of the society (health, safety, etc.)


The phrase "redistribution of wealth" exhausts me.

I would dismiss that phrase as over-used partisan "socialist" rhetoric.

We need to incentivise and prioritize the things in this country that will make us strong 10 years from now. Those things that we are sorely lacking, like you said...Education, health, safety, infrastructure and examine closely what mechanisms direct Billions of dollars to frauds like Madoff and the thousands of ilk.

Schools are failing, bridges collapsing, levy's breaking, people dying and every week there is another story about some Billionaire who stole and squandered everyone's retirement money by simply lying...in America's modern financial system it's not about hard work..it's about how big of a lie you can tell and get away with it.

NOT a "redistribution of wealth", but an examination of our priorities.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
I did no such thing. You injected your knee-jerk partisan mindset into your own biased assumptions of what you believe my comments to mean.


Whats this then?


Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

The problem we have now is that the "governing entity" is so large and dysfunctional, it's not that no societal problems can be properly solved, there is no inherent desire to find solutions. A major part of the barrier to solutions is the overwhelmingly acidic atmosphere of one side versus the other.


then you replied...


Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by StinkyFeet
Other than that why does the government need to redistribute our wealth?

There are only two reasons:

1) invest in the future (education, infrastructure, etc.)

2) invest in the overall well-being of the society (health, safety, etc.)



Must have been someone else then............. my mistake.


Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Pathetic.


Indeed.

Maybe if people have a hard time understanding you and your opinions, an attempt should be made on your part to explain yourself better. Rather than using half-witted attempts at insinuated insults.


[edit on 13-10-2009 by aravoth]



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 12:13 PM
link   
I am a Bit confused I guess.
Am I still able to respond to a post in a negitave way?
Will I be able to give my opinion on something posted if it is considered negative?

Are we restricted from open and honest dialogue if it considered negative toward the current administration?

Am I right in assuming that the opinions of those that do not like the current administration are upsetting those that Love it?

???????????????



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by maybereal11
The phrase "redistribution of wealth" exhausts me.


I think it's like "left wing' and "right wing". There are so many negative connotations, that the real and original meaning is lost. I try to read it without the attached underlying insult. That way, I don't get so exhausted.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Well what else would you call it when they take our money and give it to somebody else? Stealing?



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by aravoth

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by StinkyFeet
Other than that why does the government need to redistribute our wealth?

There are only two reasons:

1) invest in the future (education, infrastructure, etc.)

2) invest in the overall well-being of the society (health, safety, etc.)


And it's not up to the government to decide my "well being".

[edit on 13-10-2009 by aravoth]


Then I imagine you have no intention to avail yourself of the Police Department, Fire Department, Emergency services of any kind? Public roads?

The government does not "decide" your well being. They should give you the tools to be well if you so choose though. Maybe show up if your house catches fire or send a few guys to help if you are broken into, Or send an ambulance if you crash into a tree on those roads that they built for you or make sure your local bridge isn't on the verge of collapsing, or take a look at that Billionaire who seems to offer returns that are too good to be true.

Not "decide" your wellbeing..That is up to you.



[edit on 13-10-2009 by maybereal11]

[edit on 13-10-2009 by maybereal11]



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 


Actually public roads are a disaster, drive in LA during rush hour if you don't believe me.

That aside, the federal government does not provide for police and fire, that is from local levies and property taxes mostly. Something I am fine with. What I am not OK with is the Federal Government taking 30% of my paycheck to bomb kids in Pakistan, and line the pockets of every billionaire in the country.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 12:35 PM
link   
I'm continually frustrated by an apparent inability to read what is being posted.



Originally posted by Iseekthetruth!!!!!!!!
Am I still able to respond to a post in a negitave way?
Will I be able to give my opinion on something posted if it is considered negative?

Yes. No one ever said otherwise.



Are we restricted from open and honest dialogue if it considered negative toward the current administration?

No. In fact, our members have been encouraged to do so in this very thread.



Am I right in assuming that the opinions of those that do not like the current administration are upsetting those that Love it?

You are wrong and are doing little more than demonstrate either your lack of desire to read what is posted, or your inability to understand what is posted.


[edit on 13-10-2009 by SkepticOverlord]



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by lucentenigma
 


This is website about conspiracy theories. Not a political discussion site. When the site was created back in 1997, the intention was not to include political discussion. It creeped in on it's own during the years beginning around 2003. Back then we (were forced to) create the first forum specifically created for political mudslinging (the mudpit). The political discussion has since grown on us (forced down our throats IMO), and here we stand today where we must create another forum about U.S. politics in order for the rest of the site to be focused on CONSPIRACY THEORY AND RELATED TOPICS.

[edit on 13-10-2009 by TheBandit795]



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by StinkyFeet
Other than that why does the government need to redistribute our wealth?

There are only two reasons:

1) invest in the future (education, infrastructure, etc.)

2) invest in the overall well-being of the society (health, safety, etc.)


Here I would have to disagree with you SO

redistribution of wealth is socialism
not a prob, it's not necessarily a bad thing

however, you saw how the bailout worked and stimulus packages
it went into the hands of big corporations not the people
this is not socialism, it is economic fascism

if we couldn't trust them the first time why trust them the second time?
especially when "them" is politicians

Socialism isn't a bad thing, it's just that it's now completely impossible
we might never ever have good honest politicians to honestly redistribute the wealth, it'll never happen!

Mark my words, govt. will somehow prop up big pharma just like GM, and then they will own a large part of it.

it will happen.

And it's not healthcare reform, it's "affordable" healthcare insurance reform
"affordable" = Not Really

It's time to go back to personal responsibility
investing into the future through education must be done by the people
investing in the health of the people must also be done by the people

otherwise you believe in big govt. which is not for your own good!

The consitution does NOT guarantee healthcare for everyone
if it did, govt. would have to take over to give it to you
you do NOT want that!

allow the free market to take care of healthcare
Shriners does a way better job than govt. healthcare could ever ever ever do!
And that says ALOT



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by aravoth
reply to post by maybereal11
 


Actually public roads are a disaster, drive in LA during rush hour if you don't believe me.

That aside, the federal government does not provide for police and fire, that is from local levies and property taxes mostly. Something I am fine with. What I am not OK with is the Federal Government taking 30% of my paycheck to bomb kids in Pakistan, and line the pockets of every billionaire in the country.


So you want the federal government to exit Afghanistan, and spend the money improving infrastructure and cracking down on the countless frauds like Madoff who steal the public's wealth without earning it....?

This is what you want, but at the same time it smells like redistribution of wealth to you? Let the system stand as is? Less investment in Infrastructure, schools, homeland priorities? Less regulation of Madoffs?



new topics

top topics



 
174
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join