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.

 

Are republicans without conscience or empathy?

page: 9
39
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by spiritualzombie
This total resentment towards the poor, while consistently claiming the wealthy provide jobs. Guess what? The working class provide labor. The poor sign up for military and provide their bodies as war chum. We're all giving up our civil liberties for the sake of security... Everyone is sacrificing, and the rich who have only profited throughout these years, aren't willing to lose a tax break? How is that not pure greed? And how is it not a total d*ck move for these wealthy CEOs to say they will be *forced* to kill jobs or send them overseas when the deal they ultimately fought for will cost millions of jobs anyway?
edit on 2-8-2011 by spiritualzombie because: (no reason given)


Ah, the retreaded talking point of only the poor serve in the military. Where did you get this from, the Daily Kos or Code Pink?


I'll be honest....
I can't really stand the Daily Kos. Your post made me giggle.




posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by HappyBunny

Originally posted by macman
They sure do. As a whole, Republicans make larger donations to charities then Democrats.

If the Govt were to get out of the "Helping" business, then more people would have more income, allowing for individual choice for more donations.

When Govt gets involved, they are the middle man, and they do take their "fair" share.




edit on 2-8-2011 by macman because: (no reason given)


Here's the thing, though. It's not really charity if you get a tax deduction for it or otherwise have to be coerced into giving it. Charity is giving, and giving freely, without asking, "What's in it for me?"

My sister once refused to buy Girl Scout cookies from my daughter unless she got a statement on Girl Scout letterhead saying how much she bought so she could write it off on her taxes.

It was $10 worth. I told her to keep her money.



So, just because it is a claimable right off, which Obama wants taken away, it is not charity???
Ok, whatever.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 09:34 AM
link   
It doesn't matter if they're on the left or right, it seems like they're both working against the interest of the majority to benefit the few that put them in power. It almost feels like that Simpsons halloween episode where the two candidates from the left and right were abducted and replaced by aliens intent on enslaving us.

What's hilarious in the episode is when someone mentioned to vote for a third party and the aliens told the crowd "go ahead and 'throw' your vote away" to which the crowd mumbles and eventually votes along party lines as usual.


In the end, they ended up with the typical result, living in conditions much worse then before and Homer going "don't blame me, I voted for Kodos" as if picking the other party's candidate would've been any better.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Quadrivium
 


Just read your topic and will answer it here...and probably there too, no problem.

I believe you are a well meaning person who has just a few things wrong...or I should say, mistaken. Firstly, both parties and at the same time, neither party is racist anymore, mostly. Racism is indeed taking a back-burner in this country. That "ism" is being replaced by a new one "classism". The sad part is most people are too late in seeing this. LOL...but we have people still harping on black and white, when the insanely wealthy basically see middle class and lower class whites as N-words too!

We have some people dreaming of a race war and are not aware that even if their trailer park of good ol boys did succeed in killing all the minorities....when they approached the wealthy elite grinning like, "Yep, we got rid of all those N-words!" They would then be gunned down and called N-words themselves. Black, brown and whites are too mingled at the average persons level now.

If you're racists and not filthy rich, I got news for you....you're a N-word just like the rest of us. The reason being is that it's about class warfare now.

Getting back to your thread, yeah most of us are aware that originally it were the Democrats that housed a large number of racists. Those Southern Dixie guys, but included in their ranks were some good white guys who weren't AS racists as those southern dixies. Forgotten is that there were plenty of racist in the Northern Republicans also! Lets face it folks....every white person was racist in that day, just some moreso than others. Understandable!

As stated, the Northern Republicans were just as racist as the Democrats, though they weren't necessarily for slavery. Their stance was, "Set the N-Words free but I don't want them living on my block!" Besides they knew blacks wouldn't truly "be free" because blacks wouldn't get a fare shake. What's the use of being free to pursue the American Dream when you wouldn't be allowed access to the resources required to acquire that dream. The only thing blacks would achieve is being "free" to clean toilets, shine shoes and crawl back to shack far away from white people....but hey at least they're free!

Alright, so the Northern Republicans were racist in a different more covert manner while the Southern Dixies were just blatant, "Oh hell naw...I won't see a "porch monkey" as my equal!" When it came time for the Civil Right's movement. The Southern Dixies and a large number of the Northern Republicans just couldn't stomache that act. They were fine with blacks being "unofficial slaves" and designated to the slums of America, but "HELL NAW" at the thought of giving them equality....for real, for real .

So when members of the Democrats actually showed SUPPORT for this act, the TRUE racist of the Democrats, the Southern Dixies, called their Northern buddies in the Republican party and said, "Ted, look, I'm now officially a Republican! I'll be darned if I'ma sit next to Tyrone in Congress."

Ted said, "Good, cause we're kicking all these N-Word lovers out of our party....come on up and join us!"

And over-night, the Republicans (now carrying the Southern Dixies) became the party that did not hold the best interests of minorities. If so....why did they switch in the first place?

This was my interesting take on the situation. I know I made it fun (on purpose) and the reasons for the switch were more elaborate to include votes and unionization, but you'll get the gist.

I want to go into one other thing concerning "Who are the Real racists in America". Many policies directed toward minorities are ineffective because they aren't COMPLETED! It isn't the actual policies, because they are an attempt, it's the follow through that's lacking. If we really wanted to help someone we would offer them public assistance AND at the same time REQUIRE they obtain a degree or vocational certificate. I'm no Economic Major and typing this up freestyle, I came up with that solution. So you're trying to tell me all these geniuses we have couldn't have done that?

It's deliberate sabotage....to make the policies and assistance look bad. The evil people who don't won't such policies in the first place, deliberately insure the policy won't be successful by leaving the "seal" off. So that they can later say, "See, I told you giving them welfare wouldn't help! Lets cancel it now."

To continue....I think we should no longer have allegiance to EITHER political party! I say it's time for some new ones.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by haarvik
reply to post by DZAG Wright
 


Say what you want, defend your job with your better than the rest attitude. I really don't care. There are some of us who know how the system REALLY works. I know how my daughter does, I know what she goes through. I also know what her friends do. So spare me your condescending attitude.




No attitude, just telling it how it is to kill the false images people such as Reagan and Rush have put in too many peoples mind.

There's NOTHING sweet or envious about being on public assistance....I've never envied one of them.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by METACOMET
 


While reading through this thread, I couldn't help but notice the various post made by yourself and I wanted to respond, but in a general sense and not necessarily specific to a particular post. Here's what I would like to ask you;

Let's just say, hypothetically speaking, that we (the american people) are a huge flock of ducks. Our flock consists of a vast variety of ducks, (Mallards, Pintails, Canvasbacks, Teal, Wigeons, Buffleheads, Redheads, Mergansers, etc...) and we all live together on one seemingly very large lake, (America) and this lake is the only source of water for our entire flock. Everyone enjoys absolute freedom to come & go, swim, drink and eat at their own convenience and everyone is seemingly, quite happy.

As time goes on, one particular group of ducks, the bigger stronger ducks, (let's say the Mallards) finds some very secluded dry lake beds in far away places, (let's say in the Caribbean) that appear to be perfect for water storage sites. On top of that, they're in a great place to vacation, (or migrate to) during the cold winter months on the big lake back in America.

Now the Mallards begin to collectively transport water from the big lake, (America) to their newfound winter home in the islands in order to fill their dry lake beds. They, (the Mallards) continue doing this up to and beyond the point that it adversely affects the big lake's, (America's) ability to maintain the rest of the flock, (the american people).

Wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that at some point, the rest of the flock would tell the Mallards that they cannot continue to take more than their "fair share" of the water, because doing so is proving to be detrimental to the rest of the flock?

I know this is just a hypothetical, but if America expects to build and maintain the infrastructure, both social & economical, necessary to support the needs of the people, in their day to day lives as well as their business needs, then everyone must contribute "their fair share" to get it done.

If you don't want to pay any taxes, then don't drive on our roads, don't ride on our railways, don't drink our water, don't land on our runways, don't send your kids to our public schools, don't call the police when you're being robbed or the fire dept. when your house catches fire, etc... Oh yeah, and don't look to the U.S. military to defend you when you've been attacked.

In order to provide the services we "all" need, it requires some revenue. Apparently the only difference is that some call it "paying our fair share" and others call it "having a gun held to their heads."


edit on 3-8-2011 by Flatfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by spiritualzombie
This total resentment towards the poor, while consistently claiming the wealthy provide jobs. Guess what? The working class provide labor. The poor sign up for military and provide their bodies as war chum. We're all giving up our civil liberties for the sake of security... Everyone is sacrificing, and the rich who have only profited throughout these years, aren't willing to lose a tax break? How is that not pure greed? And how is it not a total d*ck move for these wealthy CEOs to say they will be *forced* to kill jobs or send them overseas when the deal they ultimately fought for will cost millions of jobs anyway?
edit on 2-8-2011 by spiritualzombie because: (no reason given)


Ah, the retreaded talking point of only the poor serve in the military. Where did you get this from, the Daily Kos or Code Pink?




Well out of all the soldiers I've served with I think there was ONE who was RUMORED to come from wealthy parents.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by DZAG Wright

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by spiritualzombie
This total resentment towards the poor, while consistently claiming the wealthy provide jobs. Guess what? The working class provide labor. The poor sign up for military and provide their bodies as war chum. We're all giving up our civil liberties for the sake of security... Everyone is sacrificing, and the rich who have only profited throughout these years, aren't willing to lose a tax break? How is that not pure greed? And how is it not a total d*ck move for these wealthy CEOs to say they will be *forced* to kill jobs or send them overseas when the deal they ultimately fought for will cost millions of jobs anyway?
edit on 2-8-2011 by spiritualzombie because: (no reason given)


Ah, the retreaded talking point of only the poor serve in the military. Where did you get this from, the Daily Kos or Code Pink?




Well out of all the soldiers I've served with I think there was ONE who was RUMORED to come from wealthy parents.


All of the guys I served with did not come from Poor families. Middle class, not poor.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by spiritualzombie
 


You are viewing this from the perspective of a Liberal. That's fine, but in order to understand it, you need to view it from the point of view of a conservative. Note: I will not use the term democrat, or republican. It's a way to hold onto traditional voters, and a way to mask politicians true values and beliefs.

Conservatives view social welfare as a crutch for someone with two perfectly good legs. People like the crutches, but really don't need them. They use them because they are available, at times forced on them. If one would take these crutches out of service, people would have to rely on themselves, which would only strengthen society. Lower taxes for everyone, inevitably, should be the end result. Along with a smaller, less powerful government.

If we continue on this path, as a nation, we will fail. Our debt will go into default. Credit rates will skyrocket. If Liberals are in power, more and more of our earnings, as taxpayers, will go to the government. With high interest rates and a poor credit rating, the government will have no other action than to cut government agencies and social programs out of necessity.

Liberals tend to think we need these social programs to protect people from starving and keep a roof over their heads. What is going to happen when programs will be forced to be cut, and these people the Liberals wanted to prevent hardship on, are forced into hardship because the government cant afford to take care of them anymore? They will be ill prepared to take care of themselves after living a life, relying on their government.

Back to the "Democrat"-"Republican" thing. This last debt ceiling debacle, I assume you're original post was referring to. More "Democrats" voted against it than "Republicans", check the vote tallies.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by haarvik
reply to post by Undertough
 


Oh I was caught up. But since you were apparently trolling over someone who admitted to posting prior to having morning coffee...i.e. not quite awake...then you deserved it.


And what did they say after that? Right, 2 more posts claiming that there were Democratic teabaggers. I was not trolling. I was asking her to back up something she was repeating.

Doesn't feel so good when someone does it to you does it? Just as the Tea Party doing what the dems did over healthcare doesn't feels o good either, does it? It's easy to cast names when someone does the opposite of what you believe, but when you do it, it is a different story.

I feel fine. Just because you are trolling me now does not make me the least bit ashamed of the fact that I asked someone to back up what they said before and after they corrected themself the first two times.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by spiritualzombie
 


They are ABSOLUTELY without either.

I have been voting since Goldwater/Johnson. I was even a REpublican for awhile back in the day. And these people make Nixon look like a Saint.

I have never seen a more slithering group of slavering evil human beings than today's GOP/TeaBags.

Humanity is about caring for one another. All they care about are their guns and their property.

The eradication of conservatism, it's complete eradication, is a moral imperative.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by spiritualzombie
 



Are republicans without conscience or empathy?


Who knows and who cares!

Vote 'em all out 2012.


Apologies if someone has already used this little bon mot!



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Sundowner
 


We need more people like that. Ones that are done with their jobs, and have no monetary interest in running. Maybe if we don’t pay politicians, or drastically cut their income, only the ones that really care would come out to run.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by DZAG Wright
 

DZAG
OOPS, I was just looking for your thoughts on my post in this thread.

Spiritualzombie,
I am full of compassion and empathy, mostly for bleeding heart liberals who are too blind to see that they are just tools. They are being used.
The leaders of the modern day democratic party are actually modern day slavers. And they use people like you in order to futher their own ends.
How many people do entitlement programs actually help? These programs were designed to keep the poor down, they make a very good voting base. Why would I say such a thing? If you really wanted to help people get up on their own two feet would you........
A) Set up programs to build their self esteem, teach them to be self sufficient and help them find a job where they could be productive members of society. Or...............
B) Send them money or an ebt card every month.
I have seen a lot of talk about "republican brainwashing" in this thread. I wonder what those same people call it when most poor democrats vote democratic because of these entitlement programs that keep them below poverty level. Well those that aren't living in nice brick homes and pick their checks up from the mailbox in their bmw's.
For futher details on modern day slavery in the democratic party see www.abovetopsecret.com...
Bandage the bleeding Heart, dry your eyes and wake up,
Quad


I gave the link as an insight as to why I think the democrats support these programs that don't work, not to derail the thread. Sorry OP.
Entitlements are just a way to keep poor people poor and voting a democrat ticket. If they really wanted to help these people they could have.
And most liberals know the system does not work but "hey, at least we are doing something". I find it sad though that they refuse to see they are actually hurting the poor and helping keep those who are passing these enslaving programs in office.
Quad



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by METACOMET
There is no virtue in compulsory government charity, and there is no virtue in advocating it. A politician who portrays himself as "caring" and "sensitive" because he wants to expand the government's charitable programs is merely saying that he's willing to try to do good with other people's money.



Yea the question could be how do the ways dems and republicans look at money, your money, effect themselves and others financially. Dems are really only sensitive on one end of the deal in their own way.....always wanting with nothing in return to the giver but some rot about the good of mankind ect. And look at all the middlemen....flush with cash....handlers fee like the tipical charity that takes 80% off of evey $ for administrative costs.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Quadrivium
Entitlements are just a way to keep poor people poor and voting a democrat ticket. If they really wanted to help these people they could have.


Could you please explain to me the motivation to vote for a politician that is going to keep you poor and on welfare?



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Undertough

Originally posted by Quadrivium
Entitlements are just a way to keep poor people poor and voting a democrat ticket. If they really wanted to help these people they could have.


Could you please explain to me the motivation to vote for a politician that is going to keep you poor and on welfare?


In all reality, both sides do this.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 10:27 AM
link   
Here's a novel idea, instead of blasting each other and playing the blame game, why not focus on the real issue. Government gone wrong! Use this energy and passion to change things. We can't even begin to debate poor/rich, have's/have not's until we fix our government. Until we do, we play into their chess game as the pawns they want us to be.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Scytherius
 


Wow man your post is just dripping with that hard left class hate. Pol Pot would be so proud of you.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by haarvik
Here's a novel idea, instead of blasting each other and playing the blame game, why not focus on the real issue. Government gone wrong! Use this energy and passion to change things. We can't even begin to debate poor/rich, have's/have not's until we fix our government. Until we do, we play into their chess game as the pawns they want us to be.


The Govt has yet to be successful in 99% of the programs it creates.
War on Drugs, War on Poverty, No Child Left Behind and many many more come to mind.

Stop relying on the Govt. What is so hard about that?



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join