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 do Republicans always embrace the reptilian side of things?

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by monkeySEEmonkeyDO
My question is why are Democrates are like Klingon women?



If the question is limited to just the democrat politicians, the answer would be:

looks/appearance.



Don't make me post pictures as proof!

Had to ...

pictures tell the difference


[edit on 8/3/2010 by centurion1211]




posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 04:25 PM
link   
why do republicans tend towards the reptilian side of things?

is the pope catholic?
theres a joke in there somewhere......


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 11:05 PM
link   
"And at the end of it all, what difference is there? Tell me 1 key difference in the end result between the left vs right."

It's not about the end result... It's about you. It's about your own personal evolution as a human being living this strange existence. It's about what you think is moral and right and the direction you want to see the world move in.

Imagine a rat in a cage... now introduce a second rat. Will they fight? Will they get along? What will they choose? It doesn't matter that regardless, they will still be test subjects, they will still be exterminated when the test is over... that is irrelevant to the test.

Forget Left, forget Right... Imagine for a moment life was just a test of the human soul, to put a human being in a cage and see how it responds.

When you respond predictably to fear, aggression, inequality, what does that say about you?

Many of the ATSers would like to be the intelligent rat that says it doesn't matter, 'I'm just a rat in a cage'... but that's just evading the answer, and evading your own evolution, and taking the cynical approach.

Again... why do republicans seem to side so much with the fear, anger, inequality, cynicism and greed?

I just saw this news article:
Congressman Calls for Execution of Wikileaks Whistleblower
www.foxnews.com...
And predictably, the guy calling for execution is a Republican...


[edit on 3-8-2010 by spiritualzombie]



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 11:48 PM
link   
First you say ...


Originally posted by spiritualzombie


Forget Left, forget Right...


Then you say ...


Again... why do republicans seem to side so much with the fear, anger, inequality, cynicism and greed?

[edit on 3-8-2010 by spiritualzombie]


Is it spiritual or mental? Because, quite clearly, you are not staying true to your own words.

My answer to your last question will also be a question.

Why do democrats seem to side so much with the fear (Kerry and Murtha - the surge has failed and the war is lost. And Rangle repeatedly proposing a new draft bill to scare the public not because he is in favor of a draft), anger (obama wanting to "kick some a$$" over the BP mess-only because his own people said he acted too detached), inequality (democrats in congress force obamacare on all of us, but not themselves), cynicism (Pete Stark - "the federal government can do whatever it wants") and greed (Rangle and Watters ethics charges)?

Deny hypocrisy ...



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 02:30 AM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 



Deny hypocrisy ...


yoursignaturesayswhat?



Glass houses and stones and stuff.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by spiritualzombie
"And at the end of it all, what difference is there? Tell me 1 key difference in the end result between the left vs right."

It's not about the end result... It's about you. It's about your own personal evolution as a human being living this strange existence. It's about what you think is moral and right and the direction you want to see the world move in.

Imagine a rat in a cage... now introduce a second rat. Will they fight? Will they get along? What will they choose? It doesn't matter that regardless, they will still be test subjects, they will still be exterminated when the test is over... that is irrelevant to the test.

Forget Left, forget Right... Imagine for a moment life was just a test of the human soul, to put a human being in a cage and see how it responds.

When you respond predictably to fear, aggression, inequality, what does that say about you?

Many of the ATSers would like to be the intelligent rat that says it doesn't matter, 'I'm just a rat in a cage'... but that's just evading the answer, and evading your own evolution, and taking the cynical approach.

Again... why do republicans seem to side so much with the fear, anger, inequality, cynicism and greed?

I just saw this news article:
Congressman Calls for Execution of Wikileaks Whistleblower
www.foxnews.com...
And predictably, the guy calling for execution is a Republican...


[edit on 3-8-2010 by spiritualzombie]


Fear of Al Qaeda is not that much different than fear of no medical coverage.

They all use fear. Al Bore is a prime example of the use of fear to subvert the will of the people. Those idiots are still talking about Carbon Credits, as if the GW thing wasn't already flipped on its head.

It IS about the end result. You went on to say it when you talked about the direction the world moves in.

The direction the world has been moving in is towards totalitarianism and facism. This is a normal state for humanity, with freedom and liberty being anomolies in the big picture.

Regardless, like i said: tell me what the end result is between the two parties? One wants me to fear other men, while the other wants me to fear myself. One seeks to protect me from Al Qaeda, the other seeks to protect me from Bubba in his big 4WD.

Like i said, there are only two ways to lead people: through fear, or through respect. How many of your elected officials do you respect?



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by spiritualzombie
Again... why do republicans seem to side so much with the fear, anger, inequality, cynicism and greed?


I want to discuss this specifically.

I already addressed fear. Fear is part and parcel to political control. Without fear none of the world governments would accomplish much domestically.

But anger...that is something that is prime to the DNC approach. Keith Olbermann is a good example, but the comments made on Journolist really shore up my argument. This is logical, as the DNC base is a younger group, prone more to insults and brash wording. Youth tends to be angry. And the DNC plays into this quite well.

Inequality is a good one. The DNC does like its social programs and "gubmint cheddar". This does as much to breed inequality as anything. To give up on people and allow them to receive something for nothing foments the behaviors that lead to inequality in the first place. The tendency of man is towards entropy. If you give them an easy out, they soon expect it.

Cynicism is something barely worthy of discussion due to the "pot meets kettle" situation created by your post as it relates to cynicism.

And greed is something that is (unfortunately) a normal part of human nature. it is what fuels just about all action.

The point I make here is that you choose one group of scoundrels over the other, as if there were no other option. Of course the GOP sucks. I would never argue that, nor would i argue that what you assert is untrue as it relates to them. What i DO argue is that it is a phenomenon that the DNC is immune to. They are as much a problem as the RNC.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by centurion1211
 



Deny hypocrisy ...


yoursignaturesayswhat?



Glass houses and stones and stuff.


My signature is nothing more than a graphical (and somewhat comical) representation of the fact that obama seems to want to spend his time and energy blaming Bush instead of actually doing something to fix the problem.

Sadly for obama, even though polls are showing that people have had enough of obama's blame game, he doesn't yet get it and was still doing it in a speech he gave yesterday.

Now if you don't like my signature, I propose that the reason is that you too are finally seeing the same and it hurts you because you've put so much time and effort into supporting this failure.

I understand your pain. No one likes to find out they've been wrong. And especially no one wants to find out they've been wrong this badly.




posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Fear of Al Qaeda is not that much different than fear of no medical coverage.


These are the kind of arguments that don't make any sense to me. It requires such a stretch to equate lack of healthcare with fear of Al Qaeda. I suppose we could compare the numbers of how many Americans die from Al Qaeda vs how many Americans die from lack of healthcare but I doubt that would help your argument.



It IS about the end result. You went on to say it when you talked about the direction the world moves in.


It's about what you think the right thing to do is. If you believe the end result is fixed, then your vote becomes a vote of what you believe is the right and moral choice.

This site likes to place blame on MSM and TPTB, but take a look at the healthcare issue. Not much changed, and you know why? The opposition spin was so great and so loyal to the insurance companies that they used propaganda to make half the country equate healthcare with nazi germany. It's difficult to reconcile paranoia of healthcare as an enlightened choice, but it worked. They offered us healthcare and we said no thanks, but when it comes to war, the president can never move fast enough or be tough enough. And that is the reptilian nature of the Right.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 01:01 PM
link   
Its not that they embrace all that is reptilian it just that the Dems are so far to the candy left, so utterly weak, that heck hard boiled eggs look reptilian.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock
Its not that they embrace all that is reptilian it just that the Dems are so far to the candy left, so utterly weak, that heck hard boiled eggs look reptilian.


To view a desire of peace over war as weak, or a desire to help those without jobs or those without healthcare as weak, or to view a push toward equality as weak, is the reptilian response to the Ego that must always be tough and cold and without empathy.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by spiritualzombie

Originally posted by Logarock
Its not that they embrace all that is reptilian it just that the Dems are so far to the candy left, so utterly weak, that heck hard boiled eggs look reptilian.


To view a desire of peace over war as weak, or a desire to help those without jobs or those without healthcare as weak, or to view a push toward equality as weak, is the reptilian response to the Ego that must always be tough and cold and without empathy.


No no no and no. Those are your words there the words of a stinking hypocrite. You no better than the dammed republicans.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 01:43 PM
link   
Call me what you like, I am not pulled in by the propaganda to fear the terrorists at the expense of morality and civil liberties, to fear illegal immigrants at the expense of racial profiling, to fear the homosexual at the expense of inequality...

I don't know if Republicans have always been this way, or if it was the Neocons and FOX News that twisted their ideals into what it is today, but whatever the case, I can't help but view the hatred, inequality, love of money, and desire for bloodshed as anything less than reptilian.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by spiritualzombie
 




These are the kind of arguments that don't make any sense to me. It requires such a stretch to equate lack of healthcare with fear of Al Qaeda. I suppose we could compare the numbers of how many Americans die from Al Qaeda vs how many Americans die from lack of healthcare but I doubt that would help your argument.


They take no stretch at all. The fear being used is the fear of death and suffering. That is what the threat of Al Qaeda brings, and that is what the threat of no medical care brings. They are very, very similar.

It does not matter that Al Qaeda is not a very good killer compared to poor health. Logic and rationality are not part of "their" use of fear. It is the looming threat and anxiety that takes the place of logic. Once you turn The People into Chicken Little, it is all over. Once fear has set in, responses are rooted in panic. and that is how the wool gets pulled over our eyes (see the Patriot Act, as well as the various bailouts and the HC debate).

Yes, one may be a real problem, while the other may be less "real". But from the control standpoint, their reality is irrelevant.

Now, lets talk about the real conspiracy there: that even if we get healthcare coverage, we end up getting a science of death. How much money gets donated each year for studies in treatment that have not produced a single CURE in 60 years?

So, while the threat of Al Qaeda is not real, the expense of healthcare is no more real. Neither one is a valid driver of fear, if you truly examine them. But i digress....




It's about what you think the right thing to do is. If you believe the end result is fixed, then your vote becomes a vote of what you believe is the right and moral choice.

This site likes to place blame on MSM and TPTB, but take a look at the healthcare issue. Not much changed, and you know why? The opposition spin was so great and so loyal to the insurance companies that they used propaganda to make half the country equate healthcare with nazi germany. It's difficult to reconcile paranoia of healthcare as an enlightened choice, but it worked. They offered us healthcare and we said no thanks, but when it comes to war, the president can never move fast enough or be tough enough. And that is the reptilian nature of the Right.



As a fair warning, calling up images of Nazi Germany in comparison to your opposition is a prime way to marginalize yoruself and your viewpoints. While you were skirting the line in your post, be wary of this in the future (or not....at your own cost).

The insurance companies have VERY little to do with the costs of healthcare. Their impact is secondary. Let me explain:

When you go to the doctor without insurance, your office visit will cost, say, 160. This is VERY expensive. It is a 300% increase from the costs 12 years ago (i am using costs at my own local physician as my examnples). Add to this things like a shot of Rocephin for another 100, even though it costs the doctor only about 5 to administer (the rocephin is very cheap, despite popular conception...my wife was a nurse for 3 years for my doctor, so i know the costs).

Why do you pay this much? Simple...and this is where the insurance companies come into play. The insurance companies expect a discount. So your 160 visit will bill for only, say, 120. This is still a 200% increase over 12 years ago. They cannot very easily go and charge you less, and lie to the insurance companies. If they do this, the insurance company will drop them from the network.

the only way that insurance companies drive costs is by asking for discounts on the bills. They offer to settle a bill for 20% less if paid all at once. Often, if you have a procedure done and are billed by the hospital, they will offer you the same discount for paying it all at once. But if you pay it out, you pay the nondiscounted price.

The problem, then, is first in greedy doctors and providers. A 200% increase over 12 years is beyond the pale, and far exceeds the rate of inflation. they often blame things like malpractice insurance. Know what my doctor pays for his? 15k per year. Not too bad for a practice that generates a little over 1mil a year in revenue, right?

The insurance companies are publicly owned. The profits are paid out to shareholders. They have a legal responsibility to provide the best returns that they legally can. However the doctors only responsibility is to provide adequate treatment.

Look at the forest. The problem lies with greedy doctors, not insurance companies. At least, not as much with insurance companies. The insurance companies don't require your charges to be ridiculously high. They would rather the opposite happen. it is common sense, if you examine the situation.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by spiritualzombie
Call me what you like, I am not pulled in by the propaganda to fear the terrorists at the expense of morality and civil liberties, to fear illegal immigrants at the expense of racial profiling, to fear the homosexual at the expense of inequality...

I don't know if Republicans have always been this way, or if it was the Neocons and FOX News that twisted their ideals into what it is today, but whatever the case, I can't help but view the hatred, inequality, love of money, and desire for bloodshed as anything less than reptilian.


you sound intelligent, and like you have an eastern philosophy. if these are both true, then consider that your distaste for what you percieve as an unsavory and unseemly group has allowed you to align yourself with people who are no better, even if they are approaching their hatred and fear mongering from a more "soft" angle.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by spiritualzombie
To view a desire of peace over war as weak, or a desire to help those without jobs or those without healthcare as weak, or to view a push toward equality as weak, is the reptilian response to the Ego that must always be tough and cold and without empathy.


no rational person wants war. the philisophical difference is that conservatives/Republicans are more willing to spend money and resources for a military (and in some cases more willing to use that military). si vis pacem, para bellum. liberals/democrats are less willing to use military means. this is a difference in philosophies. some enemies (al-Quaeda) will not negotiate (see Hitler, Adolph and Chamberlin, Neville).

it is simplistic to say 'they have no health care, somebody should provide it'. adding health care to government is a bad idea with innumerable ramifications, almost all of them bad. reconsider the 'golden rule'; whomever provides, controls. if we allow the gummint to 'provide' health care they will 'control' it, and will determine who gets what, etc. the current system allows patients and doctors to determine courses of action, not T. Jefferson Snavely in the US Dept of Health Provision Beauracracy Office.

no one on the right is opposing 'equality' (except in terms of sexual male/female differences, which God, or Darwin if you prefer, has already made different).

conservatives believe in allowing businesses to operate more freely, which will enlarge opportunities. businesses provide jobs, not government programs, no matter how empathetic.

give a man a hamburger and you feed him for a meal; give him a job and he can feed himself for a lifetime.

to look after ones self is human nature. capitalism works because it's in peoples self interest to work and produce. liberal redistribution practices mean well but never work.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 03:09 PM
link   
Stop all this partisan crap. a key backer of the bill was a republican from L.I.. The democrats could have asked for a simple majority vote but chose not to to prevent republicans from tacking on amendments they didn't want If the dems had really wanted the bill to pas it would have very easy but they used it as a a political tool.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by spiritualzombie
 


When the US government gives money to one person, it must first take it from another.

The question is, is it ethical to rob me at gun point to pay for the care of 9/11 workers?

That is the question.


The taxes paying for the 9/11 medical bill were going to come from international corporations..

So I guess, there's no gun point at you, but I suppose Uncle Sam is robbing Herr Rolf...



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 03:50 PM
link   
I'll just wait for the next issue on health, the next issue on human rights, equality, or the environment, or the next debate on war to see which side the Right takes.

I would love to know a moment in history or especially in current events where an undeniably good moral stance was taken by the Right over the Left. Enlightenment me please.

After 3 pages of discussion I have yet to see the non-reptilian answer for Republicans... Nothing but complex reasons to side with inequality, money or bloodshed.

[edit on 8-8-2010 by spiritualzombie]



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by spiritualzombie
Call me what you like, I am not pulled in by the propaganda to fear the terrorists at the expense of morality and civil liberties, to fear illegal immigrants at the expense of racial profiling, to fear the homosexual at the expense of inequality...



Well I am not a republican....but the above is why you may be a dem. These issues are really not that simple.....this way or that. Racial profiling...the truth is the opposite is far more expensive....not taking up for the profiling that isnt happening anyway as part of the recent law and you should know that but dont care.

Have you noticed that say like 1/3 of all pro baseball is latino? But we as a nation still must put up with this bashing. Have you noticed how large the number of american citizens are latino ect? And yet we stil hear this emotional stuff about profiling....that not even in the new law.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join