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.

 

Is it really, really possible to have a non-partisan political discussion anymore? You can, except n

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 11:44 AM
link   
Can Big Brother actually condition the American socieety so that 'EVERYONE' but the elite elected politicians have NOTHING but non-partisan political ideas?

Can you imagine a future America of four hundred million Vulcan type Spocks who have no emotions, no feelings, no origina ideas (resistance is futile).

Well, yes, I can imagine it happening. If George Orwell and Aldous Huxley could portray such a future...not to forget Phillip K. Dick......do I dare to imagine a society of complete non-partisan drones?

Well, if you can come up with a political topic that is completely non-partisan, please post it. Call this a challenge. Show me a completely non-partisan issue.


Mod Edit: All Caps – Please Review This Link.

edit on 4/13/2011 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 11:56 AM
link   
The only thing is that if you get someone to post a non-partisan issue both sides will come in and twist it to fit their agenda or (if the topic calls for it) blame it on the other side. That's just my opinion though.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 12:05 PM
link   
There are a lot of issues that the honest ideologues agree upon:

Guantanamo and similar sites
Monsanto and big agra
Big pharma and big insurance giveaways/dishonest health care reform
Big, secret money in politics
The Fed
Corporate bailouts
Corporate personhood/excessive rights
Secret no-bid contracts
The police state
Earmarks
Privatized prisons!
NAFTA, GATT, and the WTO (even one time supporters now see the folly here)
WAR for PROFIT

...The list goes on and on, really. We need to have a People's Party. One that starts in the middle and works it's way out. Let's start with the above issues, the ones we agree upon. That would be their worst nightmare, wouldn't it?

edit on 13-4-2011 by PeasantRebellion because: my html has no power here



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by angrymomma
The only thing is that if you get someone to post a non-partisan issue both sides will come in and twist it to fit their agenda or (if the topic calls for it) blame it on the other side. That's just my opinion though.


Not to pick a fight or anything, but if you say it is your opinion...isn't that being partisan?

Or am I missing something in the definition of non-partisan conversation?

I guess we have to ask the nearest android how to solve this dilemma.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by PeasantRebellion
There are a lot of issues that the honest ideologues agree upon:

Guantanamo and similar sites
Monsanto and big agra
Big pharma and big insurance giveaways/dishonest health care reform
Big, secret money in politics
The Fed
Corporate bailouts
Corporate personhood/excessive rights
Secret no-bid contracts
The police state
Earmarks
Privatized prisons!
NAFTA, GATT, and the WTO (even one time supporters now see the folly here)
WAR for PROFIT

...The list goes on and on, really. We need to have a People's Party. One that starts in the middle and works it's way out. Let's start with the above issues, the ones we agree upon. That would be their worst nightmare, wouldn't it?

edit on 13-4-2011 by PeasantRebellion because: my html has no power here



I'm in favor of Guantanamo and water boarding terrorists to get information to stop future terrorist attacks on Americans. BUT, I'll bet you there'll be people who'll argue the opposite with me. I'd say Guantanamo is impossible to talk about without being partisan.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by fredvcall

I'm in favor of Guantanamo and water boarding terrorists to get information to stop future terrorist attacks on Americans. BUT, I'll bet you there'll be people who'll argue the opposite with me. I'd say Guantanamo is impossible to talk about without being partisan.


Historically it has been, you're right.

Also, that's why I added "and similar sites." And by similar sites I mean those secret black sites around the world that people are disappeared to. Those are in the same vein as Guantanamo, but obviously worse. Hard for anyone to argue the goodness of those.

But anyway, still a whole list to tackle besides that one. Congress doesn't dare touch one of these issues, we're miles ahead of them still.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 11:02 PM
link   
given the chance the left would waterboard the right if they could

there is nothing that can be discussed without a personal bias.

thats why we are here
edit on 13-4-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 01:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by fredvcall

Can you imagine a future America of four hundred million Vulcan type Spocks who have no emotions, no feelings, no origina ideas (resistance is futile).


If you're going to make Star Trek references can that at least be accurate to the lore of the series? Vulcan's have emotions/feelings and CERTAINLY original ideas, they're just trained from an earlier age to suppress their emotions and feelings or convey them in some other avenue. And resistance is futile isn't the Vulcan's. It's the Borg.

Everything else in this thread? I don't actually care I just read this quickly and my Star Trek nerd in me wanted to rage.



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 02:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
given the chance the left would waterboard the right if they could


edit on 13-4-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)


And so the name-calling / political bullying starts. I knew it wouldn't take long.




posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 10:32 AM
link   
Several large studies recently having proved the physio- chemical difference in brains between conservative leaning people and progressive leaning people shows that it would be nearly impossible to have a political discussion or debate without partisanship entering. Apparently we are hardwired.




Researchers from the University College London scanned the brains of group of research participants and a handful of politicians. The results? Those who identified as politically conservative had significantly larger amygdalas, the almond shaped part of the brain in charge of “primitive” emotion like fear and anxiety. Not only that but their anterior cingulate—the part of the brain thought to be responsible for impulses like courage and optimism—was found to be smaller in conservatives as well.

Neurologist Geraint Rees explains: It is very significant because it does suggest there is something about political attitudes that are either encoded in our brain structure through our experience or that our brain structure in some way determines or results in our political attitudes


One problem with this on a supposed government conspiracy forum, what element of government is the most likely to keep secrets, work behind the peoples backs, take a stab at fascism?

There has to be one party who leans more toward corporatism (aka fascism). The party more likely to give the mega banks and corporations tax breaks & loopholes, to hand them bail out money, to defund public watchdogs (such as the EPA).

So if the actions taken by any one politician or political group clearly show a propensity to support TPTB are not allowed to be discussed on a 'conspiracy' forum it would be ridiculous at best.

What if in Germany in 1933 there were a public outlet for people to discuss government conspiracy- but that discussing the Democrats vs the National Socialists was considered to be 'trolling'?



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by PeasantRebellion
 


You illustrate the problem beautifully by suggesting that someone does not believe the items you list are problems than they are dishonest.

Count me dishonest since I don't think half of your items are problems.

In any event this candy store approach of being afraid of hard partisan debate is one of the things that is killing this country.

How about this as problem number 1 = the evolution of our society to where people have to be more concerned with hurting someone's feelings than having a robust discussion with them. A society where the blatant passive/aggressive behavior can not be rooted out, vilified and those who practice it publically castigated. A society where word selection is at least as important than the intellectual content of a position, since marginally offending someone completely strips the argument of merit and brings disgrace upon the person making the case, since that is certainly easier than confronting their argument

How about folks just grow up and have discussions, partisan or not.
edit on 14-4-2011 by dolphinfan because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by fredvcall

I'm in favor of Guantanamo and water boarding terrorists to get information to stop future terrorist attacks on Americans. BUT, I'll bet you there'll be people who'll argue the opposite with me. I'd say Guantanamo is impossible to talk about without being partisan.


"...waterboarding terrorists.."

First of all you better define "terrorist". Unfortunately you can't. Because the way the law reads is that you are a terrorist if the government says you are. The most recent person to be defined a terrorist IS an American and his 'terrorist' crime was minting coins.

In order to make up your mind about a subject you really need to step back and look at the entire 'slippery slope', as they refer to it in the law. How far can this law be taken? Can it be used against the very people it is supposedly designed to protect? In this case the answer is an absolute YES.

What defines America as a country of 'freedom' are the laws that are supposed to be designed to protect Americans freedoms and civil rights- above all.

As an American, I would rather go down in flames in a terrorist attack than to go begging in fear for the government to make laws that would cause all of my fellow citizens to give up any of their freedoms and civil rights. More people get killed on the highway every week in this country than died in our worst terrorist attack.

The current level of stupidity and fearfulness (save me big daddy!!) in this country is disgusting and horrifying. The willingness of so many to give up everyone's basic freedoms (that all of my familial generations fought for) in order to 'save them' from some amorphous attack has made me, for the first time in my life, ashamed to be an American.

Beyond the slippery slope, while we are busy 'protecting' people by acting like mini Mussolini's, we haven't a leg to stand on internationally in regards to human rights. Didn't we used to pride ourselves on being the beacon of liberty and democracy worldwide? What separates us from all of the petty dictatorships now? Land mass? A change of the (pretend) guard every few years?

I expect I will get flamed for this. But I also know the flamers will be either sock puppets for TPTB or one of the cowards who would rather live in slavery, so I really don't mind.



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Stratus9
 


Thank you for your intelligent sanity and reason here. The reason the TSA fondles children, in blatant acts of public legal pedophelia, is because a blonde blue eyed 6 year old little Norwegian girl, -could- be a Terrorist.

Ain't it 'funny' how the 9-11 "hijackers" were not only Saudis, but seen training on US government installations? Certain Republicans can't get their noses far enough up the *#ses of the Saudi Royals. WHY is that? "MeggaDittos" Neocon Democrats as well.



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by fredvcall
 



Well, if you can come up with a political topic that is completely non-partisan, please post it. Call this a challenge. Show me a completely non-partisan issue.


The reason you don't regularly see non-partisan topics discussed....is because they don't need to be discussed. They are agreed upon and so no discussion is every needed.

Here are some examples.


Should Murder be illegal?

Should Stealing be illegal?

Should Rape be illegal?


Of course you may get some discussion of what the definitions of the above are...but once the definition is set...I'm pretty sure both sides agree that they should be illegal.



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join