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.

 

Question Insanity: What to Ask Progressives

page: 5
20
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by glome
 


Let me REITERATE something you folks do not understand. It is quite PLAIN.
Even though it is over O ver 100 years old-actually 235 years old it was written QUITE eloquently and forthright.

From here-www.constitutionallibertarian.co.cc...


Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


So tell me, where is the RESTRICTION on the citizen?
Where is the part that allows the government to do ANYTHING not in the Constitution?
Show me, as they say in Missouri. Called the Show Me state.

edit on 31-12-2010 by saltheart foamfollower because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by MMPI2
 


Dishonest questions merit dishonest answers. Deconstructing these dishonest questions is not 'denying reality,' it is denying you the satisfaction of having someone like glome fall into your trap.

Loaded questions are not a productive means of debate. You could be right about progressivism, but your method is awful. Your questions do not merit direct responses because they are obviously calculated to put you in a position where you can gloat.

Aggressive and dishonest political discourse is destroying democracy. Tell me; why do you hate America?

[see what I did there?]



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by SmedleyBurlap
 


I NOTICED, you have NOT yet addressed the OP.

Is that purposeful? By the way, the member everyone like you has been addressing is NOT the OP, that would be me.

By the way, we missed you at Breitbart, it is always fun to have you ignore everything presented to you.



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 


As I said in my first post in this thread, I am not interested in falling into a trap. I do not know what Breitbart is, you must have mistaken me for someone else.



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by SmedleyBurlap
 


So why are you EVEN posting on the thread, did you not just admit that you ARE NOT addressing anything in the OP?

So anything you say on the OP could be considered to OFF TOPIC.

Hmmmm, would that NOT BE AGAINST THE terms and conditions of the site?

By the way, do not post any longer please, if you are going to go against the terms and conditions. Buh bye.



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 03:58 PM
link   
# 1 If all cultures are equal, why doesn’t UNESCO organize International Cannibalism Week festivals?


As is stated on the quote below, from Unesco's website.

"UNESCO works to create the conditions for dialogue among civilizations, cultures and peoples, based upon respect for commonly shared values." www.unesco.org...

It says "based upon respect for commonly shared values". Cannibalism is not respected, nor is it a commonly shared value among 99.999% of the world cultures.

This has to be the most idiotic question ever used, to try and score points for someones blind partisan B.S.


# 2 Why has no politician ever run on men’s issues or promised to improve the lives of males?


Why should any politician have run on "mens issues" In the early days when only men could vote?

And now that women can vote (Thanks to stinky, liberal and evil progressive types) why on earth would any sane politician (Male or Female) piss all over 50% of the people who could vote for them?

2 dumb questions answered.. On to another stupid one..


#3 If all beliefs are equally valid, how come my belief in the absurdity of this maxim gets rejected by its proponents?


I have never heard anyone say that all beliefs are equally valid, but i have heard people say "We should try and respect others beliefs, so long as they do no physical harm to us"

Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true.(From wiki)

Show me anywhere in the fact based, non religious world(Science, Math, Astronomy etc) where someone believes that 2+2 = 5 and it is considered a valid belief. Or that the Moon is made of cheese, or that the Earth really IS flat, who is considered to have a valid belief. You can belive what you want, but that does not make it TRUE!

"Absurdity" is is the right word to use in question number 3.


#4 Ever noticed that for the past thirty years, we’ve been hearing we have less than ten years to save the planet?

Nope! Sorry i never noticed. I have heard it said that it may rise a few+ degrees over the next 30-50 years.


#5 Once a politician labels the truth as hate speech, can anyone trust him to speak the truth afterward?

Nope! Nobody should trust him again. But i would need to look at what is being labeled the TRUTH. Because like in question 3 above, you can believe what you want, but that does not make it TRUE!


#6 If a politician gets elected by the poor on a promise to eliminate poverty, wouldn’t fulfilling his promise destroy his voting base? Wouldn’t he rather benefit from the growing numbers of poor people? Isn’t this an obvious conflict of interests?

Yes.


Because as we know "Every" politician always fulfills every promise they ever made.
edit on 31-12-2010 by Nomadmonkey because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-12-2010 by Nomadmonkey because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-12-2010 by Nomadmonkey because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-12-2010 by Nomadmonkey because: Made post in wordpad and it got messed up.



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Nomadmonkey
 


Wouldn't it be nice though if politicians stopped making promises and started doing their jobs as demanded by the Constitution?

One day... one day.
edit on 31-12-2010 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
reply to post by glome
 




So tell me, where is the RESTRICTION on the citizen?
Where is the part that allows the government to do ANYTHING not in the Constitution?


OK

Please give me the definitive list of what constitutes General Welfare?

Itemize this specific list and then we will talk



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 


I am addressing the OP. It is full of loaded questions and I have criticized their rhetoric. They are contributing to the decay of political discourse in America and worldwide.

I asked you a question earlier that was not answered. Do you really think that the OP contains fair and honest questions, or are you just trying to rile up progressives, or both? Do you think that political discourse should reflect the kind of tone and rhetoric used in the OP?



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower

If you hated Bush soooo much-
Why would you give more POWER to the very government that someone like him, could become in power again, hell his brother Jeb is thinking of running.

Hmmmmm?




If you hate the Federal Government, why do you support letting the companies that influence the federal government operate without restriction?

Hmmmmmmm?

"cough" citizens united ... ummm

I am not a rightwinger I just think that way



edit on 31-12-2010 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 


General Welfare Wiki


James Madison advocated for the ratification of the Constitution in The Federalist and at the Virginia ratifying convention upon a narrow construction of the clause, asserting that spending must be at least tangentially tied to one of the other specifically enumerated powers, such as regulating interstate or foreign commerce, or providing for the military, as the General Welfare Clause is not a specific grant of power, but a statement of purpose qualifying the power to tax



Thomas Jefferson said of the General Welfare clause, "To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please, which might be for the good of the union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of the power completely useless."


Original intent is what's important here. That's what everyone seems to want to argue, I find it ridiculous that people assume no one knows what the founders wanted when we have so much information to work on.
The General Welfare clause cannot be the only authority sought to pass legislation in which money is spent. Because doing so would violate the other enumerated powers of the US Constitution.

Amendment 9:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The ultimate power always rests in the people. Government does not have authority to grant or remove rights, that is up to the people, and there is a process for that too, it's called the amendment process.



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by SmedleyBurlap
 


Yes, I think the questions asked are fair.

I did a breakdown of them just a few comments back.

They are NOT hard at all to answer, if you have the ability to see them for what they are. They are questions to expand the box that we are placed in. If you cannot see that, this is not my fault.

I will look for the question you asked me, of course that has NOTHING to do with the OP.

Question for you, why is it that I create an OP and you are asking me to address your issues and you are not addressing MINE!?

Is that not how this is supposed to work in conversation. Or am I just lost? No, I think you are just a TROLL and expect others to subvert their ideas and thoughts to your ideals. Like I said earlier, if you want answers or feedback, why not start your own darn thread?



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 


Now, I need some clarification. Do you honestly not see how these are loaded questions that cannot be fairly answered without deconstructing them, or are you trying to get a rise out of people? You certainly seem to enjoy getting a rise out of people, so I am inclined to think that this is the reason you posted this thread. I am giving you (and others) the benefit of the doubt and considering the possibility that this is just a failure of communication. Maybe neither "side" knows how to ask fair questions of the other side, maybe every "side" is completely unable to see things from their opponents' perspective. That would go a long way towards explaining why political discourse in America is so terrible.


Of course they are loaded questions. Have you EVER heard the questions given by the LSM? Do you NOT THINK they are loaded? Of course I am attempting to get a rise out of people, I expect to get people to question the validity of their beliefs. Is that a problem?

No, you are attempting to limit the conversation to a plain benefited by your limitations. If you cannot and will not see history as a relevant issue, we have nothing further to say. If you attempt to disenfranchise people saying that history is irrelevant you will ALWAYS lose the argument. ALWAYS.

History is to be learned from or you are doomed to repeat it.

Tell me again, how many bankers does it take to destroy the value of the dollar? That would be one privately owned bank controlled by the government. Little joke.



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 


Your answers to the questions aren't implied by the questions. For example, the cannibalism one. A progressive or multiculturalist or whoever it is that is supposed to respond to it is not going to come to the conclusion that multiculturalism is bad. They can find other answers to it. For example, I will out and out say that cannibalism is good, if you believe it is good. Why isn't there an international cannibalism week? Why should world government be dictated by the mores of Western society to the exclusion of all other moral traditions?

As Nomadmonkey has shown, it was also a poorly constructed question if the intended purpose was to make liberals question multiculturalism. By referring to UNESCO the question distracts respondents from questioning multic. and instead directs them to consider UNESCO policy. Nomadmonkey provided evidence that UNESCO is not attempting to be a universal cultural authority but one that promotes the common values of most people.

If you wanted to criticize multiculturalism, why didn't you just address the issue outright? Why go through the unnecessary sophistry of these questions? It's the same issue with the other questions. Why didn;y you just come out and criticize feminism, or criticize welfare users, or criticize moral relativism?

It seemed to me, as soon as I had read the OP, that you were trying to cause as much of a ruckus as you could instead of making straightforward arguments. It seemed that you were trying to set up no-win scenarios for 'progressives' to respond to so that they could not answer directly. If you wanted direct answers, why didn;t you ask direct questions or give direct critiques?



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 04:59 PM
link   

# If all cultures are equal, why doesn’t UNESCO organize International Cannibalism Week festivals?


Because it's universally repugnant among the majority of cultures and is in violation of natural law; it'd be bad PR. In the sense that all cultures are "equal" -- it means that people have the freedom to live as they choose in accordance to their cultural values and system of Government.


# Why do those demanding “equal pay for equal work” never protest against “equal pay for little or no work”?


Define this. If you're talking about welfare -- that's a necessity, especially in times of economic depression. Since it provides a social safety net to those affected in society and decreases the chances of them turning to a life of crime in order to make ends meet. Otherwise, I'd label this as a strawman.


# Why has no politician ever run on men’s issues or promised to improve the lives of males?


The entire sum of one's existence is a result of the systemic, worldwide oppression of others who is non-white, non-straight, and non-male. Any attempt to extricate one from a lifelong process of indoctrination meant to put that particular individual into power -- is futile. It is one's responsibility to better understand the concept of privilege and the benefits derived from the patriarchy. It is only then, that one can actively work to dismantle patriarchy from within.


# If all beliefs are equally valid, how come my belief in the absurdity of this maxim gets rejected by its proponents?


You can believe in its absurdity all you want. I'm free to reject your beliefs but I wouldn't force my worldview upon yours. I'd agree to disagree. Strawman.


# Ever noticed that for the past thirty years, we’ve been hearing we have less than ten years to save the planet?


That's due to the fact that those in power control the unwashed masses through fear and negative framing instead of a more optimistic one. That has nothing to do with progressives in general.


# Once a politician labels the truth as hate speech, can anyone trust him to speak the truth afterward?


All politicians are liars, in case you haven't noticed. It takes a certain amount of social savvy and bending of words in order to get to such a position in this day and age. Hence why they're often referred to as "professional liars" just like lawyers. In case you haven't noticed, the majority of the Governing body who are our elected representatives are lawyers. No wonder.



# If a politician gets elected by the poor on a promise to eliminate poverty, wouldn’t fulfilling his promise destroy his voting base? Wouldn’t he rather benefit from the growing numbers of poor people? Isn’t this an obvious conflict of interests?


No, because people who have jobs and can pay higher taxes benefits both said politician in the ability to allocate funds and make a bigger budget. Not to mention having funds available to improve things for the betterment of society. Argumentum Ad Absurdum.


If you hated Bush soooo much-
Why would you give more POWER to the very government that someone like him, could become in power again, hell his brother Jeb is thinking of running. Hmmmmm?


This is a strawman. Not all progressives were for expanding the powers of the Federal Government or do we actually believe in the "unitary executive"
edit on 31-12-2010 by DankNugs because: Messed up tags



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by SmedleyBurlap
 


Okay, you set up this entire comment on the first question.

Did you read the OP? It was not my article, it was written by a former USSR citizen. He writes about numerous things.

How bout answering MY QUESTION!?

See, this is the technique of those that do not want to address the issue, you pick the weakest and attack. Does Christine O'Donnell ring a bell?



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by DankNugs
 


I will have to get back to you. I have another component to write to. Thank you for responding to the OP!



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 


I am aware that these questions come from a former USSR citizen. I don't think that this makes them especially valid questions and I think that you could have raised these same issues in a much more clear and useful manner. I don't know why you sort of dropped them there and waited until the fourth page to explain why you thought they were meaningful. Your OP didn't initiate any discussion of the questions' relevance, and it added another loaded question.

Your rhetoric is very effective at pleasing people who already agree with you, but it is very ineffective at winning over converts.
edit on 31-12-2010 by SmedleyBurlap because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by MMPI2
Author and commentator Michael Savage suggested that "liberalism is a Mental disorder."

I think he is dead on. To be a "progressive"/statist liberal, you really have to be not only a narcissist, but also a textbook psychopath.

For folks like bill clinton, harry reid, barney frank, etc., you have to be a narcissist, a psychopath and delusional. You MUST be able to avoid objective reality to the point that you almost (and perhaps sometimes completely) lose contact with it.

The questions we've presented here will not be answered in a logical manner. They will be met with invective, ad hominem slop and poorly thought-out attack.

STAR AND FLAG!!





so, if you KNOW the answers to your questions will be illogical, full of slop, and poorly thought out, why do you even ask them? logically, any response to your questions will automatically be wrong, so why would anyone even bother?



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by SmedleyBurlap
 


Hey, I did not appreciate someone jumping in. But if you are you going to whine about my presentation, you are right. I have always been an #.

I have a hard time dealing with convincing anyone of anything, unless of course if they know me. I am the best at what I do, which is build things, that is a completely different thing.

Maybe I should learn how to be more persuasive in my writing style. Problem is, it did not help with someone else taking over and pushing the folk. I actually appreciate the enthusiasm, but it was not me..

As for the rest of it, how bout addressing the darn OP>



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join