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.

 

"Hi, I'm a Tea-Partier"

page: 3
14
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 07:14 AM
link   
reply to post by hangedman13
 


I can't say I disagree with most of your post. Affirmative Action is ridiculous and doesn't work because it doesn't address the core issues, and i've always seen the lily-whiteness of most executive boardrooms as signs of nepotism, not racism. But, would you agree that companies shouldn't have the right to say 'Coloreds need not apply'?




posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 07:33 AM
link   
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask
 


I'm not so sure about the whole 'sanctity of marriage' thing being a valid argument considering the idea of marriage people are trying to protect basically boils down to women as property. Like the idea of teenager years, marriage for love is a fairly recent idea in the scheme of things.
And when people talk about same sex marriage devaluing the 'institution of marriage'... I dunno, I'd say our society's increasing acceptance of infidelity and outright celebration of spousal or familial abandonment (provided you're a woman, i'm looking at you Eat, Pray, Love) have more to do with the disintegration of those values than anything.
As far as I'm concerned the same sex marriage issue is purely a rights issue. Namely the rights denied to gay couples that legally married couples enjoy. And you're right, that could be handled in civil courts - I don't think many, if any, homosexuals are demanding churches be forced to marry them (And if they were I'd have no issue telling them to STFU about it, because they'd be in the wrong). But what about straight couples that want to be married outside the church? (I've been to a handful of really nice secular wedding ceremonies)
But defenders of traditional marriage are waisting their breath when they argue that same-sex couples shouldn't be able to use the term 'marriage' because you can't stop people from using whatever language they wish to use.



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by FuzzyDunlop
 



An awful lot, if that 24 year old kid still neck-deep in school is from a rural area and/or perhaps grew up on a farm or in a farming community. Last I checked the majority of post-secondary institutions are located in or near urban areas and have been known to have students from smaller or rural communities.


If.

The problem with this theory is that statistics still apply. While many of us in rural areas are known for family values and the like - we're still not going to have the majority of children in urban area colleges. Or anything close.


I'm sure homosexuals are completely cool with bigoted Tea Partiers telling them they can't get married, and shouldn't be allowed to raise or teach children. I'm also sure women who are pro-choice are cool with pro-life Tea Partiers telling them they shouldn't have any right to terminate a pregnancy and therefore really don't have any power or ownership over their own body.


You're sweeping the Tea Party, here. Most in the Tea Party simply avoid this subject - it's not a focal point of the Tea Party movement. However, for my opinion on this issue: www.abovetopsecret.com...


Yeah, probably better that they're constantly being assaulted by warnings from alarmists that the world is going to end because of muslims or gays or gay muslim socialists.


And, again, that's not what the Tea Party is about. Never has been, and never will be.



Sorry, but your post made me think 'And they say *liberals* are elitist..."


To be fair - I am superior to you, and most other people in almost every metric. You'll marginalize me for my statement - but it is supported through repeatable testing and statistical analysis. I am part of a group that less than 2% of the population are even eligible for - I damned well better hold myself to elite standards.

And what makes me elite among the elite? My understanding of the value of people. I can look at you and know where to put you and how to get you to your potential. The true masters of chess understand that, limited as the pawn may be, it is the most essential piece to the game. They also understand that it's not a sacrificial piece, but as the anchor of your team.

In other words - there are two elitists. Those who sing to the tune of Metallica's "Better Than You" ("You're holding me back 'cause I'm striving to be better than you!") - and those who manage the droves of aimless people.



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


You know, I'll have to admit that I reacted on a gut level and not a rational one to the rural v. urban issue. I'll still call BS on anyone trying to infer that one group or the other has some sort of value-based superiority on the other - I've met all stripes of people from all sorts of communities and backgrounds, but I do remember the (ongoing) problem the Ontario government caused for most of Northern Ontario, including my rural hometown when they outlawed the spring bear hunt. It's not uncommon for my hometown to be almost over run by nuisance bears 6 or 7 months a year.

I wasn't trying to make a sweeping generalization about Tea Partiers, but, rightly or wrongly, people are going to lump members of a group or movement in with the people chosen to represent said group or movement. There were a lot of Tea Partier candidates that made issues of homosexual and reproductive rights part of their campaign rhetoric. Maybe not the focal point of the campaign, but still an element of it. I certainly don't feel like Tea Partiers are trying to inadvertently destroy America through ignorance or hubris or anything like that - to the best of my knowledge none, or very few, of the clearly nutty/unqualified candidates got elected no matter how much they insisted that they weren't involved in witchcraft.

As for your superiority - It seems to me an amusing claim considering we know next to nothing about each other. It could very well be true, I just have no idea what you're basing that assumption off of. Assuming you are, why would I marginalize or attack you for that? I don't find it personally threatening. To be honest, I try to associate with, and consider many of my closest friends to be my betters. It's inspiring to surround yourself with people more intelligent, creative, compassionate, etc. Kind of forces you to continually challenge yourself to do better personally. People aren't equal in anything other than basic human value. I mean... everyone in the world who have never raped or molested another human? definitely superior to those who have.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 11:09 PM
link   
The text-to-speech engine for the dialogue makes it incredibly annoying to try to watch. But, the info. is really good.

Just my two bits,for what it's worth...




top topics
 
14
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join