Glenn Beck Exposing Progressives, your Chavez is showing!, page 2
Pages: <<  1    2  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 1 times


reply posted on 15-2-2010 @ 03:41 PM by MikeNice81
Originally posted by Locoman8

Why elect senators? The constitution dosn't call for that in the first place. We see how well prohibition worked out. Progressives want to control our lives, just face it. No matter how buttered up it is. We get less individual freedoms and more control through progressivism and socialism.


Why end slavery? The constituion doesn't call for that. Why ensure the freedom of speech? The constitution didn't call for that. Why ensure the right to bare arms? The constitution didn't call for that. Why allow women to vote or abolish poll taxes? The constitution doesn't cll for that.

I hope you get the point. The amendment process is there to ensure the constitution doesn't become a useless scrap of paper. To say something shouldn't be considered because the original constitution doesn't call for it is idiotic. If the constitution can not grow and change to fit the times then it dies.

Yes socialism results in less personal freedom. So does an over active military industrial complex that imposes upon the people in the name of security. It also limits freedom when you say anything goes and remove all regulation. Take a look at the average life of urban Americans before the 40hr work week, the regulation of child labor, or basic air and water pollution laws.

Moving forward (progressing) doesn't mean you have to march in to socialism. It is all very nuanced and people like Beck use fear to negate the nuance and create division. It leads to ratings and more money in his pocket.

Read the book Blinded By The Right. The type of stuff he talks about in that book is carried out by both sides. The rise of the political "commentator" as news source is every bit as detremental to democracy as the supposed evils they decry.

[edit on 15-2-2010 by MikeNice81]


reply posted on 15-2-2010 @ 05:06 PM by Locoman8
reply to post by MikeNice81


I understand having to change with the times but at the cost of my personal liberties, I say, "Hell No!!!" What was the point of letting the people vote for senators? That was the job of delegates... the people we voted on. It's not that I don't think people shouldn't vote, but now senators have an unlimited amount of time in office when before, they were limited to 6 years.


reply posted on 15-2-2010 @ 05:22 PM by concernedcitizan
reply to post by Locoman8


The talking heads on the right are going to talk about how the essence of Conservatism is Freedom. Ron Paul will talk about Freedom. Then someone will pipe up that Marx, Engels, Mao, Clinton, etc. promised freedom too.

And this whole time, no one will have bothered to give a working definition of "freedom"!

One reason for this is that freedom is impossible to define without an object. Freedom from -- mosquitoes? exhaustion? bad smells? jobs? -- well, we don't know. If you're free you just know you are, I guess. Freedom requires an oppressor to be freed from, otherwise you weren't unfree in the first place. Who's trying to stop you from doing what? No one is going to open that can of worms.

Even more, freedom is a vernacular term for feeling like you could do anything. I feel free to do what the heck ever. But because all terms decay to the lowest common denominator through use, the most common meaning of the word freedom is this: no one telling me what to do. Of course, since those telling you what to do could be in some cases right, what we mean when we say "freedom" is "no oversight."

What's your definition of freedom?


reply posted on 15-2-2010 @ 06:25 PM by MikeNice81
Originally posted by Locoman8
reply to post by MikeNice81


I understand having to change with the times but at the cost of my personal liberties, I say, "Hell No!!!" What was the point of letting the people vote for senators? That was the job of delegates... the people we voted on. It's not that I don't think people shouldn't vote, but now senators have an unlimited amount of time in office when before, they were limited to 6 years.


Well they could still be limited to six years. The only thing that has to happen is that people have to participate. Show up and vote in the primaries, then vote come election day. The reason they are in congress longer is because the American people are too lazy and distracted to kick them out.

How is the freedom to choose your elected officials a loss of freedom?

How about we focus on concrete things like airport scanners, warantless wire taps, roving wire taps on cell phones, and things like this. Focus on concrete things and fight them. When you focus on abstracts like "progressivism" you chase your tail and get nothing acomplished. When you argue against something with progress as the root word people will label you a luddite and keep moving. Go after specific and concrete things.

I'm all for personal freedom. On the political map I am more than half way to social libertarian. However, I never confuse the first amendment rights of citizens with the first amendment rights of corporations. One group has rights the other is a cover for bribery.

Freedom of the people is more important than freedom of the corporations. Government is required to equalize the playing field. A corporation's only legal responsibility is to maximize profits for the share holders. That means that it must externalize as much of the cost of doing business as possible. If a regulatory force doesn't set some basic guidlines consumers will pay the actualized cost. They will bear the brunt of the ecological, social, and finacial cost.

I do think that government has gone to far in some cases. However, I think if we pull them completely out it will damage personal freedom. Ask the rail road employees that worked 80 or 100 hours a week, just to get paid in company script. Ask the coal miners that were required to rent their house from the company at the rate of $6 a day when they only made $5 a day.

[edit on 15-2-2010 by MikeNice81]


reply posted on 16-2-2010 @ 02:09 AM by Locoman8
reply to post by concernedcitizan


My definition of freedom is as follows:

Giving an individual the full responsibility of taking care of his/her self and letting him/her reap the benefits or the consequences. This goes for the free market as well. Companies are not "too big to fail".


reply posted on 16-2-2010 @ 08:58 AM by GuyverUnit I
Originally posted by Locoman8
reply to post by concernedcitizan
My definition of freedom is as follows:
Giving an individual the full responsibility of taking care of his/her self and letting him/her reap the benefits or the consequences. This goes for the free market as well. Companies are not "too big to fail".

WIN!


reply posted on 16-2-2010 @ 09:31 AM by GuyverUnit I
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

So you are suggesting freedom and civilized society are mutually exclusive?


reply posted on 17-2-2010 @ 04:21 PM by Benevolent Heretic
Originally posted by GuyverUnit I
So you are suggesting freedom and civilized society are mutually exclusive?


Complete, unrestrained freedom? Yes. That's called anarchy. Which wouldn't be bad if people were honorable. But people are not.

Originally posted by Locoman8
Why do I have to buckle my seat belt if it doesn't harm the other person in the accident? Why should I have to wear a helmet when I ride a bike if I don't want to?


Seat belt and helmet laws are state laws.

BUT people who don't wear helmets and seat belts are more of a drain on the social structure unless they have sufficient insurance. Also, if you are thrown through your windshield, in general, it's takes more resources to put you back together than if you had done your part in protecting yourself. The problem is that the current insurance structure doesn't charge more for choosing NOT to wear them. If it did and could enforce it, that would be a better choice.

One of the fundamental realities of a social civilization is that people have to give up some individual liberties in order to have that social civilization function smoothly around them and for them. The complication is finding a balance. Most people want maximum individual liberties, but they also want a smoothly-functioning civilization. These laws are a way to achieve that balance.


Why should I have to pay in to a Social Security I'll never see or if I don't want to take part in SS benefits?


The reason SS exists is because, as the culture changed from agrarian to industrial, the older people, who were no longer living out their entire lives with their families, needed to be taken care of. SS was created to take care of them. The fact that you're not going to see SS benefits is not the result of the system itself, it's a result of the government stealing out of it for decades and using the money for other things. The reason you should pay into it, however, is that you are protected by it just like every one else. If you get hurt on the job, you will collect disability, and should you need it, it will be there. People don't plan to use the system, but many times, they end up needing it.

It's one of the things we do to keep the civilization running smoothly around us.


You are making a pointless argument by picking and choosing what government oversight is part of a society's necessity.


No. I was asking for clarification on your "definition of freedom" which said:

Originally posted by Locoman8
My definition of freedom is as follows:

Giving an individual the full responsibility of taking care of his/her self and letting him/her reap the benefits or the consequences.



reply posted on 17-2-2010 @ 04:22 PM by blaws572
reply to post by Locoman8


i swear one of the dopest topic names i heard. you ats'rs never cease to amaze


reply posted on 18-2-2010 @ 01:17 PM by projectvxn
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


This is where knowing the limits of Constitutional authority come in handy. The commerce clause and the defense clause gave birth to the interstate system. Roads, schools and other services are not Constitutional so it falls under the tenth amendment, whereas states deal with their own infrastructure needs.
I want total freedom. But(as you posit) this does not mean anarchy, it means we have the right to be free, to do with our lives as we see fit, and to protect our lives as we see fit, but we DO NOT have the right to deprive someone else of the opportunity to enjoy their freedoms either.

Don't equate freedom with chaos, it's an outdated argument used only by tyrants to continue to strip freedom from the individual.

[edit on 18-2-2010 by projectvxn]


reply posted on 19-2-2010 @ 09:06 PM by Locoman8
reply to post by blaws572


Thanks. I think I'll use that line when someone's crack is showing or something. "Hey, your Chavez is showing!" All corrupt politicians have their metaphoric Chavezes showing. All I want is corruption out of our government and keep us in the limits of the constitution.


reply posted on 19-2-2010 @ 09:17 PM by Locoman8
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


As I said just above, I want our government to stay within the bounds of our constitution. Certain powers are granted to the Federal Government. Certain powers are granted to the state governments. Powers not identified or given to the Fed or States are given to "We, the people." That's what I want. Not pure anarchy or complete government control. The founders set up a government that stayed just far enough to the left of pure anarchy and to the extreme right of tyranny. Example.....


Tyranny<---------------------------<->-------------USA----------->Anarchy

No lie. This is where we should be ^


_____________________________________________________________

This is where we are....

Tyranny<---------------------------<->USA------------------------>Anarchy

And going further to the left of that scale every passing day.


reply posted on 21-2-2010 @ 01:35 AM by links234
reply to post by Locoman8


Let me first say I love your diagram. Left=tyranny while right=anarchy. I suppose you haven't paid much thought to a real political compass?

Anyway, I mentioned here that socialism doesn't necessarily have to result in the loss of freedom, regardless of what your history tells you.

Edit: I don't mean to sound facetious, I really do like your diagram.

[edit on 21-2-2010 by links234]


reply posted on 21-2-2010 @ 09:09 AM by Locoman8
reply to post by links234


The left and right of that diagram does not depict liberal or conservative in any way. It's just tyranny on one side and anarchy on the other side. I'm just noting this... no relation to the left/right political scale for dems or gop.
Pages: <<  1    2  >>    ^^TOP^^



Memorial day thoughts.
  Posted 3 days ago with 11 member flags
Global governance and the challenge to the American Constitution
  Posted 11 days ago with 5 member flags
Abraham Lincoln Filed a Patent for "Facebook\' in 1845..? (HOAX)
  Posted 19 days ago with 3 member flags
Explosive Scoop on Obama from Breitbart.com
  Posted 10 days ago with 1 member flags