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.

 

Scott Walker Believes He’s Following Orders from the Lord

page: 5
28
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cuervo
The last time I checked, there is nothing wrong with somebody in public office to practice his or her faith. The problem I see here is that it appears as if he is trying to gain a certain demographic's support by making sure people know it.

What I find more disturbing is the double-standard I see from both the left and the right on this



So, you are saying you object to political pandering?

You can't like the democrats at all then - unless it's just OK when they do it ...





Wow, you really are fooled by this whole left/right thing. Can't you just be a normal freakin' human?! You know, the kind with original opinions? The kind whose every thought isn't derived from the talking heads they hear on TV?


You think I'm fooled, but reality says you - and others that say the same things as you are the real fool(s).

Republican/Democrats - love them or hate them - but that's the political reality of what we have to work with.

So, you can either work within the system we have - as I do - or "pretend" it just doesn't exist - as you do. Like the kids who want to take their toys and go home because they don't like the game, it just ends up meaning you don't get to play, you have no say, and the world passes you by.

This Wisconsin issue is the perfect example. Listen closely. While some of you were happy "pretending" that maybe some union white knight would come riding in to save public employee collective bargaining, Republicans were working hard to find a way to break the impasse, and they did it by making all of you union supporters look "over there" at some rumors of concessions by the governor while the real issue was being solved "right here" in front of you.


If you are sold out to either side, you are losing the battle and are right where both sides want you.
edit on 9-3-2011 by Cuervo because: Sleepy


As I said before, wrong. Absolutely wrong. We are playing with the cards we are dealt. While you are left standing in the peanut gallery unable to do a thing except watch and moan when things don't go your way. That's called being powerless, and I for one don't ever plan to accept that for myself. Win or lose, at least I had the cojones to play. And so it makes far more sense to assume that "TPTB" would rather have people be the "sheeple" that pretend the two party system is a sham than they would have them actively take part in the decision processes.
edit on 3/9/2011 by centurion1211 because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


... and you think we are doomed to remain locked in a corporate bought, broken two-party system? If we were stuck in immoral systems, we would still have slaves and women wouldn't be able to vote, the USSR would still exist, etcetera, etc.

Your argument is "evil or not, you gotta play ball or I'll call you a baby".



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cuervo
No, I don't have any examples any more than I have specific examples of large people eating fast food; it's simply a theme I've noticed.


By "noticed" you mean completely made up, right? Are you suggesting it would be as impossible to find an overweight person that eats fast food?


I wasn't attacking anybody. I got the reaction I suspected, though: when I say something that's pretty in-the-middle, I get attacked by the left and the right at the same time


You said something about entire groups of people that I found highly dubious so I questioned it. Just because you attack everyone, that does not make it not an attack. I will let the people that get called conservatives worry about that part of it. I was specifically questioning the validity of your claim about what you call "liberals." Why would you be so defensive simply because I asked for even a little evidence of what you claim to be a truth?


It's all fake, guys!
edit on 9-3-2011 by Cuervo because: (no reason given)


Oh...ok then.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cuervo
reply to post by centurion1211
 


... and you think we are doomed to remain locked in a corporate bought, broken two-party system? If we were stuck in immoral systems, we would still have slaves and women wouldn't be able to vote, the USSR would still exist, etcetera, etc.

Your argument is "evil or not, you gotta play ball or I'll call you a baby".


I can tell this is a very difficult concept for you, but no, my argument is work within the system to fix the system, or you are simply "sheeple" standing on the sidlines, powerless.

And Republicans solved several of the issues you just raised - slavery and the fall of the USSR for sure - not people who pretended that politics just didn't matter.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinnthia

By "noticed" you mean completely made up, right? Are you suggesting it would be as impossible to find an overweight person that eats fast food?



Oh...ok then.

No, I'm suggesting that I noticed a theme that fat people eat fast food but I can't tell you names of any nor what they were wearing or when I saw them. I'm talking about liberal friends, I'm talking about conservative friends. Did you want me to just answer you with "Bob down the street"?

I noticed that's a habit here lately. Any time somebody doesn't like something they here, they start asking for the person to do a bunch of footwork to justify their observations and opinions. And, no, I'm not giving you examples of that, either.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by Cuervo
reply to post by centurion1211
 


... and you think we are doomed to remain locked in a corporate bought, broken two-party system? If we were stuck in immoral systems, we would still have slaves and women wouldn't be able to vote, the USSR would still exist, etcetera, etc.

Your argument is "evil or not, you gotta play ball or I'll call you a baby".


I can tell this is a very difficult concept for you, but no, my argument is work within the system to fix the system, or you are simply "sheeple" standing on the sidlines, powerless.

And Republicans solved several of the issues you just raised - slavery and the fall of the USSR for sure - not people who pretended that politics just didn't matter.



I absolutely think politics matter. I never said it didn't. I'm saying we are doing it wrong. Look at some model democracies out there with over a dozen valid parties! They aren't stuck with choosing between dog crap and horse crap. They have a wide variety of crap to choose from!

With two parties, they have been able to corral you into polarities that are not natural. Don't you wonder why certain morality issues are even in politics to begin with? Gay marriage? Abortion? Why would your republican or democrat values dictate how you feel about things like that?

Why is that not obvious to everybody?



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 11:23 PM
link   
I can add a little personal perspective to this issue. My ex wife also "talked to god". If you disagreed with her you were obviously working for satan since her "knowledge" came from god. Many of her religious friends stood by her and against me because I claimed no religion. I was repeatedly investigated by Child Protective Services along with a couple of school districts and the foster home where my son stayed for a while. Eventually some of those religious friends confided in me that they would rather see the kids with me then with her. I became the legal guarding for our son when she got into legal trouble for mishandling his disability income. She has by the way been diagnosed with several different mental illness at different times.

The problem I see is not that you believe you talk to god, but that you assume you have a higher authority because you believe you talk to god. That is what troubles me about Scott Walker. He has stated that he will not negotiate. Why would he when he "knows" that god is guiding him and he "knows" he is following a high truth?

The other thing that bothers me is when Christians will blindly back someone when they claim religion, but act in a very unchristian manner.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by villagesmithie
The other thing that bothers me is when Christians will blindly back someone when they claim religion, but act in a very unchristian manner.


You ever notice you can have a very intelligent/logical person - - - mention Jesus - - - and they lose their brains.

Its such an incredible phenomenon to me.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cuervo
No, I'm suggesting that I noticed a theme that fat people eat fast food but I can't tell you names of any nor what they were wearing or when I saw them.


Seriously. So if I say you are lying about fat people eating fast food, you would be at a complete loss as how to make your case for that. That is an interesting argument to say the least.



I'm talking about liberal friends, I'm talking about conservative friends. Did you want me to just answer you with "Bob down the street"?


That would be a complete lie. Let me help you out.

Originally posted by Cuervo
For example, conservatives here defend him yet chastise Muslims for practicing their religion and the liberals on here chastise him for practicing his religion yet will defend any non-Christian person of faith. Just an observation.




Keep your story straight.

If you see it "on here" then the examples would be "here." How did it morph into some guy down the street? That is amazing.

Anything resembling the truth would have sufficed; Anything other than a highly defensive attitude about the burden of being asked to present some evidence that what you said might resemble anything true.


I noticed that's a habit here lately. Any time somebody doesn't like something they here, they start asking for the person to do a bunch of footwork to justify their observations and opinions. And, no, I'm not giving you examples of that, either.


You noticed people are often asked to back up their wild claims too? Yeah. I can see how that would bother you.


I am very sorry that I asked you to back up your claim.
edit on 9-3-2011 by Sinnthia because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinnthia

Originally posted by Cuervo
No, I'm suggesting that I noticed a theme that fat people eat fast food but I can't tell you names of any nor what they were wearing or when I saw them.


Seriously. So if I say you are lying about fat people eating fast food, you would be at a complete loss as how to make your case for that. That is an interesting argument to say the least.



I'm talking about liberal friends, I'm talking about conservative friends. Did you want me to just answer you with "Bob down the street"?


That would be a complete lie. Let me help you out.

Originally posted by Cuervo
For example, conservatives here defend him yet chastise Muslims for practicing their religion and the liberals on here chastise him for practicing his religion yet will defend any non-Christian person of faith. Just an observation.




Keep your story straight.

If you see it "on here" then the examples would be "here." How did it morph into some guy down the street? That is amazing.

Anything resembling the truth would have sufficed; Anything other than a highly defensive attitude about the burden of being asked to present some evidence that what you said might resemble anything true.


I noticed that's a habit here lately. Any time somebody doesn't like something they here, they start asking for the person to do a bunch of footwork to justify their observations and opinions. And, no, I'm not giving you examples of that, either.


You noticed people are often asked to back up their wild claims too? Yeah. I can see how that would bother you.


I am very sorry that I asked you to back up your claim.
edit on 9-3-2011 by Sinnthia because: (no reason given)


Is this just who you are? Do you just do this? I stated an observation and I'm not willing to do footwork to back it up. I don't have to. It's an observation. I stated as such. I gave no statistics. No facts. Nothing but my opinion. It's like you are being confrontational just to be so. This I can back up, I've noticed you doing the same thing to that dude on the Texas thread. It's weird.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 11:51 PM
link   
**ATTENTION**

Ok, enough bickering. Please stay on the topic, and stop discussing each other. It's one thing to debate each other's position, but it's another thing entirely to continually post rude and snarky remarks at each other.

Consider this fair warning.

Thank You

~Keeper
ATS Moderator



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 04:23 AM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


Fair enough. With regard to the thread topic,

Scott Walker Believes He’s Following Orders from the Lord

I find myself among what are commonly referred to on ATS as liberals.


Originally posted by Cuervo
For example, conservatives here defend him yet chastise Muslims for practicing their religion and the liberals on here chastise him for practicing his religion yet will defend any non-Christian person of faith. Just an observation.


Well, as this pertains to the thread topic,

Scott Walker Believes He’s Following Orders from the Lord

, I take issue with such a statement generalizing Liberals "on here." I do not regularly feel the freedom to speak for anyone but myself but I feel quite safe in making an exception in this case. This is one of the few things you will actually find Liberals all pretty much agreeing on. We do not like our politicians to claim they get their orders from any god.

The thread topic being

Scott Walker Believes He’s Following Orders from the Lord

with the clear suggestion that would be the Christian "Lord" would lend the above comment to suggest that had he caimed to get orders from any other religions god, that Liberals "on here" would defend that is actually highly erroneous when given all availabe evidence.

Now to only speak for myself, I can say that I am 100% opposed to ANY political leader claiming to get his orders from ANY god, anywhere, any time. If how I feel is actually in opposition to the vast majority of Liberals "on here" then I would accept that, given reason to. Until then, this is my observation.

We do not like your god in our politics. We do not like our own gods in our politics. It is pretty standard fair is all. Walker can only appeal to one very specific type of voter here and they are not liberals.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sinnthia
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


Fair enough. With regard to the thread topic,

Scott Walker Believes He’s Following Orders from the Lord

I find myself among what are commonly referred to on ATS as liberals.


I seem to have received this insinuation as well. I'm neither wholly liberal or conservative but posting any political story seems to get a label slapped on you. I actually have no problem with state government challenging unions. I do, however, have a problem with religious psychotics with political power.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 01:19 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


Remember, George W. Bush, "listened" to God. Remember that war we entered into, the war that was started because of "weapons of mass destruction"? I wonder if God told George about those weapons. If he did, one thing was left out, where are they? These radical christians scare the heck out of me. They "listen" to what God tells them, and at some point, I think they believe they are God.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Lilitu
 


The Bible was written by men; probably republican men!! These religious people really do believe every word in that Bible. They believe it to be the "word of God".......they "listen" and "hear" him speak to them. In a psych hospital, we call that schizophrenia.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 03:22 PM
link   
Sorry, public employees, but we cannot sustain you at the levels you have become accustomed to. You are going to have to learn to live by a new word, AUSTERITY, learn to like it. Further, you will find COMPETITION for your jobs. Many of you will find yourself OUTSOURCED. Whining, crying and pouting like children will not help. Adjustments will need to be made, you will learn to adjust. Remember, you can always QUIT and go elsewhere!



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

What is relevant is that he openly admits to hearing voices.


Can we please stop repeating this phrase as if it makes him seem like a wacko. I know of not one priest that feels that God doesn't speak to him and through him....many people of faith believe God has guided, quite deliberately, them throughout their lives, "hearing" God and feeling guided by God, is not the same as saying "voices told me to kill, kill, kill" which is exactly the correlation you are trying to make.

You are never going to have an entire government run by all atheists in your lifetime. Further, one extreme, any extreme, is no better than the other.

We have many different people of different faiths represented throughout our government.

Just as we have more white workers, because there are more whites, we have more Christian politicians simply because there are more Christians.

If you reach into a barrel with 20 red apples and 2 green ones chances are you are going to get a red one.

If you reach into a population of people, of which more than 70% believe in God, chances are that most of the people you pick -- for political positions, local workers, etc. -- are going to believe in God. This is simply a case of mathematical proportions and not some method to eliminating anyone that doesn't believe in God.


The study detailed Americans' deep and broad religiosity, finding that 92 percent believe in God or a universal spirit -- including one in five of those who call themselves atheists. More than half of Americans polled pray at least once a day.


Source: www.washingtonpost.com...

Equality is having a just representation of people. This does not mean that there has to be one atheist for every one Christian. Why? Because there aren't enough atheists for those numbers to work!



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinnthia
 


People like to call me things like teabagger and such, but we are in total agreement on this point. Keep your religion out of politics, it doesn't belong there. You are put in office to represent the people, not whatever god you bow to. Not really that hard to understand I don't think.

If I was in some government office, and stated that I was a satanist, and that my god told me how to run policy, I am sure all these christians crying foul would be up in arms. It is ok to say your god tells you what to do, but only if it is THEIR god. Hypocrites.

edit on Thu, 10 Mar 2011 16:23:56 -0600 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


For once we can actually agree on something. The Lord has told me to star your post and flag your thread.





Who am I to argue?




new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join