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.

 

Liberal New Years Resolution:: We Must Become The Scum Of Society and Promote That Jared Loughner I

page: 4
20
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

And armed insurrection is not treasonous. It is the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. How can it be treasonous when it was written into our Constitution?



These statements really do not help your case -

I am so tired of some of the rhetoric and tyrannical invite I read here I sure a hell feel like I could throttle
some folks. But I do not entertain the idea of getting a gun as a manner to resolve my own frustration.
If everyone has the RIGHT to go and blast officials based upon their dislike for certain politics what is the point
of any of this???

DO I get to pop certain politicians too, even if you think they are second to gods hand?

How does that work?




posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 12:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 


Well, that would be the difference between one nutjob vs a militia of a million citizens, you know?

I am not a violent person, either. But our founding fathers were very clear as to why the 2nd Amendment was placed there, whether you find it palatable or not.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 12:14 AM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


It is bothersome that either side of the political spectrum would attempt to blame the other in this situation. This isn't some black and white scenario, this isn't John Wilkes Booth as a known Southern sympathizer taking out Lincoln, this is much more ambiguous. At a time when people should be putting politics aside and realizing the toxicity of the system itself instead they continue to play the partisan game.

Now I do think that people like Palin and Beck do add to the political division in this country however I don't think this tragedy should be blamed on them or on the second amendment. There is a tendency to find a scapegoat in a situation like this in order to rationalize the tragedy but I think in this case the blame game just adds to the division and division is not something this country needs more of.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 12:41 AM
link   
To be "fair and honest" I think what you are talking about is a false equivalency. Bush was/is a criminal who broke the law. I think people were outraged when they saw him get away with murder. Obama is complicit with his crime by supporting the illegal wars based on lies. There I said it... lets not pussy foot around. It's not about left vs right. The corporatist/oligarch agenda is divide and conquer. They throw us common people into the pit to fight while they laugh and continue their criminal enterprise. Fascism will come to the US draped with the flag and carrying the cross

That kid was a paranoid schizophrenic period. It was a tragedy. We ALL need to dial it back more than a few notches.
Personally I view right vs left as liberty vs equality in an ongoing search for balance. I don't want total liberty or total equality. I am looking for middle ground. You know a decent job, a home, put the kids through school, healthcare, and a dignified retirement and old age. That's my radical agenda.



Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Lilitu
 



First, to be fair and honest, the vitriolic hate speech really began with the liberals when they wanted Bush dead. It was everywhere. It is what made me defend Bush. Not because i liked him, but because the hate was so strong as to make me ill. It is funny how the liberal news shows completely miss that point, and take the opportunity to disgustingly politicize this as a "right wing" issue. As Modern Academia said, they are blaming an ideology that the shooter had nothing to do with.

And armed insurrection is not treasonous. It is the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. How can it be treasonous when it was written into our Constitution?

Perhaps your misunderstanding of the two above realities could indicate a need to rethink?



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Lilitu
 



First, to be fair and honest, the vitriolic hate speech really began with the liberals when they wanted Bush dead.


There is a humongous gulf between "telling" Bush to have another pretzel and threatening revolution simply because you dislike the outcome of a free election.


Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
It is funny how the liberal news shows completely miss that point, and take the opportunity to disgustingly politicize this as a "right wing" issue.


Please read my post above.


Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
And armed insurrection is not treasonous. It is the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. How can it be treasonous when it was written into our Constitution?


It most certainly is treasonous. Obama was elected to the presidency by the people. His policies are all things he campaigned on and were well known prior to his election. The people voted their conscience. You may not like the outcome but that doesn't give you the right to force change at the point of a gun. And I would remind you sir that one definition of domestic terrorism in the USA Patriot Act is "...activities that appear to be intended to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion". And don't think for a minute that the Republicans in the House & Senate will support your dodgy view of the constitution. As Speaker Boehner just said with regard to the assassination attempt on Gabrielle Giffords, "An attack on one who serves is an attack on all who serve."



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 01:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Janky Red
 


Well, that would be the difference between one nutjob vs a militia of a million citizens, you know?

I am not a violent person, either. But our founding fathers were very clear as to why the 2nd Amendment was placed there, whether you find it palatable or not.


So who would you kill???

After the first thirty???

Who is number 31 on the list?

this is the point where you might scratch your head and rightfully so

I find it is what it is... part of me really hates the system we harbor, the other part of me recognizes that America could not be more "successful" if it tried, we ARE the Nation to be and to beat.

I am damn sure you could find a million citizens who could agree on smoking politicians regardless of the politician we are talking about, you know?

I question the intelligence of starting a civil war here strictly because all the killing in the world would not address of fix what is wrong with America. You could kill EVER liberal here and you know what??? There would be liberals born the very day you got rid of all of em... And you wouldn't change the fact that one man owns and garners entire state worth of wealth and influence... You would change the fact that our industry has no qualms with debasing the base of our economy... At some point a gun or blood sounds pretty glorious, but completely indiscriminate and pointless.

I myself wouldn't mind breaking apart the union some times - I am really tired of the corporatist who claim to
be for freedom... I am sure the corporatists are tired of me wanting to tyrannize corporate wonder.

Whatever the case I bet whole hog that we would quickly miss what we had, which was the most successful
Venture in history.
edit on 12-1-2011 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-1-2011 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 01:52 AM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


I remember it beginning in earnest during the Clinton years. I might be older than you.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 02:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Lilitu
 



First, to be fair and honest, the vitriolic hate speech really began with the liberals when they wanted Bush dead. It was everywhere. It is what made me defend Bush.


Let's really be fair and honest then, shall we? I am not defending any of the angry violent speech but lets not pretend it is even remotely the same.
Why did so many people hate Bush?
9/11. Iraq. Afghanistan. The Partriot Act. Katrina. A lot of good people died on his watch. Now before you even say that Obama is just as guilty of the wars and patriot act, that is not what the death threats to him are about, are they? Palin and Grassly spread this lie that Obama's healthcare reform was going to implement death panels and the goal was to "unplug Grandma."

Now if we are going to be fair. It seems a little disingenuous to compare all the dead Americans under Bush that fomented hatred of him compared to the same or greater level of hate over something made up like "death panels." The right does not get upset over the patriot act or the wars. They get upset over tax cuts and health care reform. Hardly equivilent. Let me state again. I do not defend that kind of speech from either side but there is a difference between assault and aggravated assault.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 02:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sinnthia
Hey, you said the left is JUST AS GUILTY so I wanted to see if you were just saying things that make you feel nice or if that was based in reality at all.




Originally posted by Jenna
You do realize that senators and representatives from both sides of the aisle get death threats and that articles can be found to show that the left is also guilty of vandalism, yes?


Nope, nowhere in there did I say "just as guilty", "more guilty", "less guilty", or whatever variation you prefer in your failed attempt to put words in my mouth. Read my post again and perhaps next time you could use your reading skills first so as to avoid embarrassing situations where you assume someone said something they didn't. You are the one trying to put numbers on it here as if that somehow makes one side better than the other, not I.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 02:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


I remember it beginning in earnest during the Clinton years. I might be older than you.



I recall during the Clinton years the Right called him a rapist and a murderer over and over and over again. A film was produced supposedly proving Hillary Clinton was a murderer. I distinctly remember those days because that was when I first realized that the right had no platform other than to demonize and dehumanize the left. They kept calling Clinton a rapist and murderer and they knew just what that kind of talk does. It mobilizes the fringe "christian" right nutjobs that bomb planned parenthood and take shots at obstetricians.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 02:24 AM
link   
double post sorry
edit on 12-1-2011 by Sinnthia because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 02:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jenna
Nope, nowhere in there did I say "just as guilty", "more guilty", "less guilty", or whatever variation you prefer in your failed attempt to put words in my mouth. Read my post again and perhaps next time you could use your reading skills first so as to avoid embarrassing situations where you assume someone said something they didn't. You are the one trying to put numbers on it here as if that somehow makes one side better than the other, not I.


Maybe you need to re-read your post.


Originally posted by Jenna
reply to post by kinda kurious
 


You do realize that senators and representatives from both sides of the aisle get death threats and that articles can be found to show that the left is also guilty of vandalism, yes?


What is the point you are trying to make then? Are you actually admitting that while the left does bad things as well, it is nowhere near comparable to the things done by the right? Sorry if I missunderstood but any explanation would be greatly appreciated. I took that post to mean that the left does the same things the right does so both are equally culpable. Now you are admitting it is not exactly even?



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 02:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Sinnthia
 


*sigh*

Reading skills aren't a strong suit I see.. I can't really rephrase it to make it any simpler. Both sides do it. Both sides receive death threats. Both sides commit vandalism. It doesn't matter who's is bigger, it happens to both Democrats and Republicans. I didn't make any claims as to who gets more death threats or who commits more acts of vandalism. And for the life of me I cannot comprehend how what I've said three times now is so difficult for you to understand.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 02:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jenna
reply to post by Sinnthia
 


*sigh*

Reading skills aren't a strong suit I see.. I can't really rephrase it to make it any simpler. Both sides do it. Both sides receive death threats. Both sides commit vandalism. It doesn't matter who's is bigger, it happens to both Democrats and Republicans. I didn't make any claims as to who gets more death threats or who commits more acts of vandalism. And for the life of me I cannot comprehend how what I've said three times now is so difficult for you to understand.


LOL, you are trying so hard to talk out of both sides of your face that is why. You have said both sides do it with no qualification. I have asked it such qualification exists. The answer is a simple yes or no but you seem to be trying so hard not to admit that that you just keep repeating something you seem to not really believe yourself. Sure, both sides say bad things. Now let me ask you this. Are both sides equally guilty or does one side do it a lot better than the other?



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 02:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jenna
reply to post by kinda kurious
 


You do realize that senators and representatives from both sides of the aisle get death threats and that articles can be found to show that the left is also guilty of vandalism, yes?



If your point was not to point out the level of sameness between the two sides, then what exactly is the point of this statement? Yup, it happens on both sides. Not remotely on the same levels though. We agree now?



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 02:35 AM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


TROLL ALERT, TROLL ALERT!

This poster here is exactly what I am refering to. People who will see the Loughner attack as an attack on the TPM as a whole.

The second liberalism or conservatism is introduced into the language instantly errodes and erases all credibility of the poster.
edit on 12-1-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 02:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jenna

Originally posted by Sinnthia
Hey, you said the left is JUST AS GUILTY so I wanted to see if you were just saying things that make you feel nice or if that was based in reality at all.




Originally posted by Jenna
You do realize that senators and representatives from both sides of the aisle get death threats and that articles can be found to show that the left is also guilty of vandalism, yes?


Nope, nowhere in there did I say "just as guilty", "more guilty", "less guilty", or whatever variation you prefer in your failed attempt to put words in my mouth. Read my post again and perhaps next time you could use your reading skills first so as to avoid embarrassing situations where you assume someone said something they didn't. You are the one trying to put numbers on it here as if that somehow makes one side better than the other, not I.


You often do this Jenna, you are trying to make like you have no ideology or allegiance to one side or the other...
The problem is your posts serve ONE SIDE time and time again. Your contribution here does defend one side
by leveling both, it is a common tactic in discourse. You cannot say it isn't so, but I have battled enough with your brick will to know your deal.
Just because you cannot pin that smell on someone, does not mean it does not smell - In a practical manner this is simple ego defense, have fun with it, it is human after all.


edit on 12-1-2011 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 02:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1

The second liberalism or conservatism is introduced into the language instantly errodes and erases all credibility of the poster.
edit on 12-1-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)


for you, that is your choice -

Liberalism and Conservatism have very large proponents in America and I thing it is a valid distinction to make.

These two idea may be used to divide us and enslave us under one banner, but the core ideas can be very contrary, distinction, generalization and diversity is not a mortal intellectual sin...

You make that call, I think you should add more considerations to your current notion, but that is only my opinion.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 02:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Sinnthia
 


reply to post by Janky Red
 



Yep, you caught me. I totally was not just pointing out that both sides do it because as we all know, it's not possible for anyone to have a point unless they completely agree with you about everything. It's also completely impossible for anyone to be able to see both sides of a situation and actually be neutral about something.
Actually I take that back, it's impossible for either of you to do those things. Me? Not so much. I'm just cursed with too much common sense for my own good I think.

Edit:

And no Sinnthia, my point was not to point out that it happens in equal levels. I don't know if it does or not because I've never cared enough to count them up. My point was exactly what I've said it was so many times I'm not repeating it again.
edit on 1/12/2011 by Jenna because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 02:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jenna
And no Sinnthia, my point was not to point out that it happens in equal levels. I don't know if it does or not because I've never cared enough to count them up. My point was exactly what I've said it was so many times I'm not repeating it again.
edit on 1/12/2011 by Jenna because: (no reason given)


I am not sure who you think you are fooling. Your statement is there for all to see. You said it happens on both sides, intimating and equivilency that does not exist. I asked you to clarify and instead of stand behind your words, you lash out angrily. If the point was not to level the field, what was the point of saying it happens on both sides at all? Why not qualify that statement with a touch of reality? I think you know why you said it the way you said and now you have not the conviction to own it.

Let me ask you again. Why claim something is done by both sides without qualification if not to put the idea that there is an equality between the two? I have asked you to clarify that statement twice now and instead you have only shifted and dodged. You know what you wrote and you know why. So sad to watch some people on ATS squirm under the weight of their own posts.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join