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.

 

Why are American Republicans so moronic?

page: 5
18
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 08:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


How many times do you need to get your clock cleaned in this thread?




posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 08:11 AM
link   


Wow, what a right winger that guy was!


Actually, he was. In the original sense of the word.

He was intensely anti-communist for example.

You are all however missing the decisive point.

Hitler was not a socialist, he was a National-Socialist.

They are only losely related.

In 1930, Hitler said: "Our adopted term ‘Socialist’ has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true Socialism is not." In 1931, during a confidential interview with influential editor Richard Breiting of the Leipziger Neueste Nachrichten, a pro-business newspaper, Hitler said:

I want everyone to keep what he has earned, subject to the principle that the good of the community takes priority over that of the individual. But the State should retain control; every owner should feel himself to be an agent of the State ... The Third Reich will always retain the right to control property owners.

en.wikipedia.org...

None of you can really win the argument when you are talking about something entirely unrelated to Hitler.



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 08:21 AM
link   
reply to post by ReluctantShaman
 


Yes, Hitler was anti-communist. In practice, Nazism was a mess of conflicting ideas. But the point I'm making here is one of how they viewed themselves. They very clearly saw themselves as anti-capitalist, and often flat-out referred to themselves as socialists and defenders of labor over capitalistic interests.

[edit on 24-6-2010 by vor78]



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 08:33 AM
link   
reply to post by ReluctantShaman
 


“He was intensely anti-communist for example.”

Right. Two power mad, statist behemoths [Russia-Germany] competing for all of Europa will typically be at odds. Similarly, Oligarchs will compete viciously for control yet they are not opposites. Being “at odds” with something does make you its opposite [In fact, opponents are often times rival members of the same faction. In this case, the national socialists vs. the international socialists].

“Hitler was not a socialist, he was a National-Socialist…They are only losely [sic] related.”

No. No, they are not. They are derivative of the same font of ideological statism.

You provided the quote:

“I want everyone to keep what he has earned, subject to the principle that the good of the community takes priority over that of the individual. But the State should retain control; every owner should feel himself to be an agent of the State ... The Third Reich will always retain the right to control property owners.”

Which is the essence of socialism. You have private property…until you don’t. Everything within the state, nothing without. This is socialism in practice.



“…entirely unrelated to Hitler…”

Utter nonsense.



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by tetrahedron
reply to post by Misoir
 


How many times do you need to get your clock cleaned in this thread?


I don't recall receiving a clock cleaning.

I have better things to do than arguing with a wall, it's quite pointless anyways...



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 08:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


"I have better things to do than arguing with a wall..."

Seeing as how you're incapable of mounting a counterargument, I'll take that as a compliment.



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Romantic_Rebel
 


As of late, I have observed something which, to me, expresses this point exactly.

Republicans, Libertarian and the Tea Party are all very big on personal responsibility.

The Supreme court recently "bestowed""personhood" onto corporations.

B P is a corporation and has thus been given "personhood".

Top Republicans are now telling us that BP should not be held responsible for the damages and effects of the disasterous results brought about largely by their own haste and greed while drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.

I can't help but think that I am in need of help trying to understand the logic which they use to come up with this line of thinking.



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by hdutton
 

The simplest way I can explain it is this way. (For the simplest explanation of left/right ideology, look at Endisnighe's post a couple of pages back



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Stewie
 


Stewie. I sincerely like your NASCAR = POLITICIAN analogy and I take no issue with the sentiment of your post. (for a change) However, unfortunately it takes dough to fund both. Sad but true, you gotta pay to play. Ford vs. Chevy, Left vs. Right.


With overall team budgets closing in on $20 million a year....

sports.yahoo.com...

Right in line with Political contributions and funding. Perhaps if Ron Paul was funded by the folks in the stands he could participate.

But I do like your metaphor about accountability / sponsorship. Well said.



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by kinda kurious
 

Thanks K.K.
I appreciate that.

Let me say, posting comments is probably the worst way to get a simple point across, much less an idea or a viewpoint. Every star in the sky has a story to tell, and it will be colored by their particualr reality in their practically empty neck of the solar system.
I like that analogy more than the grain of sand one...we are STARS!!!

I think my delivery style causes a defensive reaction because I do not work hard enough on presentation. I am actually quite tolerant of the viewpoint of others, but I come across as a know it all. I will have to work on that.

I will see you in the night sky, KK.



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 10:30 AM
link   
Probly the same reason most democrats are moronic as well!

General ignorance. "my side is right, your side is wrong BS"



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 10:49 AM
link   
republicans are so moronic because democrats are even more moronic so they feel the need to compete for top moron. looks like democrats are winning



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by hdutton


Top Republicans are now telling us that BP should not be held responsible for the damages and effects of the disasterous results brought about largely by their own haste and greed while drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.



can you show proof that one republican has said that? because i have not seen it.



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Helghast1

Originally posted by hdutton


Top Republicans are now telling us that BP should not be held responsible for the damages and effects of the disasterous results brought about largely by their own haste and greed while drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.



can you show proof that one republican has said that? because i have not seen it.


Much like Will Rogers, "All I know is what I read in the newspaper".

It would seem you have not been keeping up with the "apoligies" about the "shake down" which the president subjected BP to at their recent meeting.

I don't think I would call it a "shake down".

I would think of it more in line of being sure the money was made available before BP had a chance to declare bankruptcy in order to get out of being held responsible for all this mess. These funds are for the people who have been harmed.

All the government can claim from this are the pollution fines which are piling up minute by minute.



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by hdutton
It would seem you have not been keeping up with the "apoligies" about the "shake down" which the president subjected BP to at their recent meeting.



That was an issue about presidential power, not about BP's responsibility or lack thereof. What Barton was really trying to say is that the president has no legal authority to force BP to set up a compensation fund and that, presumably, its the job of the judicial branch and its court system. Whether he was right or not is a perfectly valid question and something worthy of discussion.

Unfortunately, Joe Barton couldn't formulate that argument without sounding like a complete idiot.

[edit on 24-6-2010 by vor78]



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 01:08 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by ActuallyActuary
 


Is that the best you got? You seem to take your sweet time to reply.



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Romantic_Rebel
reply to post by ActuallyActuary
 


Is that the best you got? You seem to take your sweet time to reply.


I was not addressing you. There are respectable people on this dicussion.



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by ActuallyActuary
 


So I'm not a respectable person. That's really conservative of you to say to me. Really shows your generously.



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Romantic_Rebel
 


You couldn' t be more disingenuous. Is it the two party system or are republicans morons?

That was 15 minutes I'll never get back...




top topics



 
18
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join