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.

 

ATS, Defend Yourselves For Chosing Social Policy As Major Reason For ATS Straw Poll Votes

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
You should always use logic and intellect when deciding how a govt. should run

Then none of the Republican contenders, or the incumbent, qualify for the role of President.

What do we do now?
Convene a Constitutional convention and start all over again.




posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 06:54 PM
link   
The Government treats us like children because we allow for this to happen. Unfortunately a very large percentage of American Citizens are brainwashed by today's media to the point where having a political conversation with one of them is pointless. They have their own view's and beliefs, and the information has been pumped into them from popular media. I mean the fact that this site has as many members as it does, is very impressive, but once again, compared to the population of the entire US, ATS is a tiny percentage.

In other words, you pump enough fear, hatred and confusion into a population and you get a direct result of what the United States is today. The best thing that the current media has been able to do is convince the bulk of America that everything that they say is completely true, and they throw so many different facts, that the average American simply can't handle the information in a reasonable way.

Either way, even if half the population wanted to do something about this, nothing would happen, because if you haven't noticed the second civilians stand together against a higher power such as the Government, we get trampled by military, police, hell even the National Guard can get involved.

In the end we have to live with the world our past generations handed to us, there is hardly anything we can do to change a powerhouse like America. America is fully funded by a group of people, whose names are unknown, and no regular person can get to, they control the corporate power and the Government power because they control the money and America depends on the money. Without a solid source of "private" funding the Federal Reserve wouldn't be nearly as badly butchered as it is, and we wouldn't have nearly the problems we do, but to attack the Federal Reserve is to attack that small group of people (generally referred to as Illuminati), which is a quick death sentence, for anyone that tried, and will try in the future.



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
In all things, balance.

Here's the problem with that
What is the instrument of balance?
The people are the sand in the cups but the balance itself is the two party system
Now.. with that in mind

What if you would combine both parties together as a move of compromise.
What would you have?
The right party always wants war that they can mismanage and the left will always want social programs that can be mismanaged with borderline authority over thought.

For the sake of compromise you would think that combining the two major parties would be centrist therefore nowhere near fascism.
Unfortunately you have the complete opposite

So balance with what?
Balance with that!

That's why we have to adapt to today's reality and NOT take the path of empowering an out of control and unaccountable ever-expanding big govt.

Anyone with who understands what is happening knows that they must take power away from govt. rather than the opposite no matter how well intentioned their motive may be.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
The media, and politicians: the talking-head purveyors of sound-byte mental pabulum, have convinced those who self-apply a "conservative" or "tea party" label that anything that smells like someone favoring social programs is automatically bad, a socialist, and must be spit upon. Too bad we seem to have some that drink from that jug of tainted kool-aide here.

Well, I don't think that not wanting to empower a mob is drinking kool-aid

See people see this as calling voters socialists
No, it's about who they are voting for and who they want to empower

It's not about if you are a liberal or conservative anymore
It's about look what govt. has become and you want to give them more power?



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 06:55 PM
link   


How could a large number of grown ups want big govt. to treat them like children?


Are you stating that we treat the elderly/sick/disabled like children? What about the hard working mother of 3 barely scraping by and needing help?

"Die like a man! Take the pain Pops!!! We aren't treating you like a kid anymore!! Can't feed your kids...too bad!!"

If I am not being accurate...please correct me.


edit on 22-8-2011 by David9176 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
What if you would combine both parties together as a move of compromise.
What would you have?
The right party always wants war that they can mismanage and the left will always want social programs that can be mismanaged with borderline authority over thought.

I'm not sure any productive conversation can begin with those flawed knee-jerk assumptions that are nothing more than parroting the nonsense fabricated by the newsertainment divisions of the media.



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Then none of the Republican contenders, or the incumbent, qualify for the role of President.

What do we do now?


Ahh... so independent it is then.

When are you announcing anyway... or are you waiting for Palin to drop the hat so you can pull a Perry and snag some of that story.

Keep those subtle clues coming.

As far as the thread topic, I have no defense, I mean nothing to defend.



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
I'm not sure any productive conversation can begin with those flawed knee-jerk assumptions that are nothing more than parroting the nonsense fabricated by the newsertainment divisions of the media.

Umm... I don't see any news station saying it's a one party system
I never see any msm station admitting it's the do we screw the nation this way or that way party

All I see is divide and conquer

There is absolutely no knee-jerk thought process in realizing that neither party care about the people
So in no way shape or form should we empower them, I never hear newstitutes saying this



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
There is absolutely no knee-jerk thought process in realizing that neither party care about the people

When you fall victim to the compartmentalization of the ideologies rampant in the newsertainment sound-bytes, which, on the surface, you seem to be doing, then the potential solution will never become apparent.

We need a balance of ideologies and multiple modes of thought in a government. The purity of a clash of ideologies for the sake of finding best solutions is what is needed, and we'll never have under the current system.

The issue has nothing to do with parties, and everything to do with the corruption of money from the highly-financed special interests that care nothing for the people. Remove that money, the problems become fixable.
edit on 22-8-2011 by SkepticOverlord because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
The issue has nothing to do with parties, and everything to do with the corruption of money from the highly-financed special interests that care nothing for the people.

I agree with 50% of that
I completely understand what you are saying and I agree the solution should not have anything to do with parties
But nonetheless, I feel we have to adapt to the divide and conquer method of the powers that be

The party system is a facade, no disagreement here
But when a large number of voters believe that this facade is true then they might not view worry about special interest groups as long as their party wins
This is a part of the problem
They are voters
This problem is a symptom of the party facade

I believe if you want true change it has to come from the people first
People voted for someone who campaigned change but never defined it, so it meant nothing
they voted for a smiling facade

It's the people, voters, that have to change first
And the illusion of the party facade is the greatest obstacle to this


Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Remove that money, the problems become fixable.

Personally I would view this as idealism
Money will always be there and someone who is for social policies should be the first ones to realize this

that's how I see it, but I do see where you are coming from
edit on 22-8-2011 by ModernAcademia because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 08:20 PM
link   
compared to every other country on this planet I would think that the U.S. is the most socio-politically divided country bar none

Abortion, Israel/Palestine, War, Religion, Partisanship.....

We can't just think that the idealistic and illogical approach of removing money from the same govt. that many wish to empower within such a divided population is the correct path.

While people should be hating corruption they are instead hating each other



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia

Originally posted by intrepid
So is the purpose of this thread to dissect the straw poll or stir up crap aimed at liberals?

See the problem is what that statement means
I understand libs are really pro-social policy but that doesn't mean 100% of those who chose that as important are libs.
I believe that social policies is big govt. treating society like children
So to me you are saying that 100% of liberals like to be treated like children and wish to empower a very corrupt and out of control federal govt. with parenthood over society.

The only possible and inevitable outcome of such a stage is fascism.

So no I don't think that 100% of liberals are pro-fascism and don't even know it


Actually, I voted "Other" and was not afforded the opportunity to answer any questions other than writing in the person of my choice, but I can tell you why we consider social policy to be so important.

In a society as large as ours, there are many needs that can best be met on a collective, not-for-profit basis. Things like defense, education, police & fire protection, infrastructure projects like the construction of dams and roads & bridges, feeding the hungry and providing health care for all, etc... I've heard it said that; "The best way to judge a nation is by the way they treat the least fortunate among them." Pretty simple actually.

I can't speak for all liberals out there but as for me, I didn't vote for "smaller" government, I voted for "smarter" government. I didn't vote to get rid of "big" government, I voted to get rid of "bad" government. I didn't vote for less protections on the air I breathe and the water I drink, I voted for more protections. I didn't vote for a less expensive government, I voted for a more efficient government. Not saying that I got what I voted for, but then who ever does?



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flatfish
In a society as large as ours, there are many needs that can best be met on a collective, not-for-profit basis.

As a collective I agree, such as a free market for example
However not for profit?
Why not?
Profit implies accountability, profit and therefore competition drives innovation


Originally posted by Flatfish
I've heard it said that; "The best way to judge a nation is by the way they treat the least fortunate among them." Pretty simple actually.

I believe the quote was "The best way to judge a society is seeing how they treat their animals"
If your income tax was lower, there was little or no inflation and less taxes overall then more people would donate and the money wouldn't get caught up in bureaucracy with secretive balance sheets.

Perhaps a limited govt. where society, not the Govt., are benevolent people by choice would be the most efficient
You can't at all judge a nation and it's people by the outcome of forced donations, that's insane.


Originally posted by Flatfish
I voted for a more efficient government. Not saying that I got what I voted for, but then who ever does?

And there lies the problem
Being an idealist despite recognizing that you probably won't get what you are aiming for



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
I feel we have to adapt to the divide and conquer method of the powers that be

Which is directly related to the overwhelming amount of money invested into the system by corporations and well-funded special interests. Those party-centric "investors" expect a return, and it serves their interests (among the interests of others) to foster a well-divided cut-throat environment where the ideological mud-slinging becomes more important than actual issues.



The party system is a facade, no disagreement here

But on the surface, it should represent a methodology to attain a balance of doctrinal influence that ultimately delivers logical solutions to difficult problems. Governments that swing too far to one tenet never serve the people well, the goal must be balance.



I believe if you want true change it has to come from the people first

The same people that can't get enough of "Jersey Shore" and "Desperate Housewives?" You have more hope for the people influencing change than I do.

However. There is one very simple change, discussed here a few times, that could come from the people, would change everything in a fundamental way, and is exceptionally simple in concept. It's not campaign finance reform, it's campaign finance elimination.

Consider this two-part change:

Prospective new candidates to national office are limited in their fund-raising to a formula defined by the number of people they will represent. If they receive donations, from any source, over that limit, it must be returned. Monetary donations over the cap would be illegal.

Incumbents who desire to run for reelection cannot campaign -- no more donations to reelection campaigns. They must run on their record of representing their constituents, and can only participate in a pre-defined number of debates. Monetary or any other donations to incumbents would essentially be illegal.

It's so amazingly simple. So easy to implement. And would instantly alter the entire political landscape and the motivations of those in national office. In fact, it could be argued that it would bring things back to the original intent of the founding fathers -- pure constitutionalism.



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
As a collective I agree, such as a free market for example
However not for profit?
Why not?
Profit implies accountability, profit and therefore competition drives innovation


Yeah accountability, like being accountable for the toxic baby formula and carcinogenic children's jewelry coming out of China, or accountable like ENRON was to it's shareholders, or accountable like when the airlines keep collecting taxes that are not in effect just to increase their "profit" margin.

Innovation? Do you mean like the innovation it took for GM to destroy the EV1? (electric car) Or, the innovation it takes for the oil & gas industry to actively lobby against green energy? Or innovation like it took for the private health care industry to create entire departments who's sole purpose is to find reasons to deny claims?

The only thing "profit" accomplishes is to create a motive to do less for more.


Originally posted by ModernAcademia
I believe the quote was "The best way to judge a society is seeing how they treat their animals"


And I thank you for that response and correction as it makes my point exactly. You can go to jail in this country for not feeding your dog or your horse, but not for refusing to feed a person. Go figure!


Originally posted by ModernAcademia
If your income tax was lower, there was little or no inflation and less taxes overall then more people would donate and the money wouldn't get caught up in bureaucracy with secretive balance sheets.


Your assumption that people would donate enough to pay for government is just that, an assumption. Would you become a fireman if you knew you'd only get paid on the weeks where the donations were sufficient to do so? I mean after all, you were just lying around the firehouse waiting for a fire most of the time anyway, right?


Originally posted by ModernAcademia
You can't at all judge a nation and it's people by the outcome of forced donations, that's insane.


I wouldn't describe them as forced donations. I consider it, paying my fair share and furthermore, taxes are perfectly legal and authorized by the U.S. Constitution.


Originally posted by Flatfish
I voted for a more efficient government. Not saying that I got what I voted for, but then who ever does?



Originally posted by ModernAcademia
And there lies the problem
Being an idealist despite recognizing that you probably won't get what you are aiming for


I guess that according to your philosophy, Columbus should never had sailed because many thought he would fall off the earth and never get there. I don't expect to get everything I want or idealize but it won't stop me from continually striving to do so. Who knows? Maybe someday.



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Prospective new candidates to national office are limited in their fund-raising to a formula defined by the number of people they will represent. If they receive donations, from any source, over that limit, it must be returned. Monetary donations over the cap would be illegal.

Well I can't argue with this
Sounds like a very practical approach to me

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Incumbents who desire to run for reelection cannot campaign -- no more donations to reelection campaigns. They must run on their record of representing their constituents, and can only participate in a pre-defined number of debates. Monetary or any other donations to incumbents would essentially be illegal.

A little harsh, I think incumbents should be able to campaign and shouldn't be limited to a number of debates
But then in order to campaign they would have to be able to receive donations, so I get the logic


Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
It's so amazingly simple. So easy to implement. And would instantly alter the entire political landscape and the motivations of those in national office. In fact, it could be argued that it would bring things back to the original intent of the founding fathers -- pure constitutionalism.

It's a good plan, i'm all for it
Include no tax free religious institutions and you got yourself a formula

But I will say it only addresses a portion of issue
What about the jersey shore fans, they still are voters, candidates could still pander to their views

The formula you got is sound, only other strategy is how to handle the country being the most divided nation on the planet

What if any attempt at social engineering would be removed?

You got the formula for keeping efficient representatives elected, no social policies would take care of the nation being so divided issue and there we have it.

Now the problem is... how to get this implemented

Since the powers that be would never advocate this it could only be demanded from the people
That would be the only possible way to having any shot at implementing this

So your plan makes complete sense after other these other issues are taking care of

If you have a great product you need to be able to bring it to market
But if one has no hope in the people then unfortunately this formula is just someone thinking out loud



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flatfish
Yeah accountability, like being accountable for the toxic baby formula and carcinogenic children's jewelry coming out of China, or accountable like ENRON was to it's shareholders, or accountable like when the airlines keep collecting taxes that are not in effect just to increase their "profit" margin.

This argument comes often
But what do you have now?
Is it skittles and rainbows?
How is what you have now better than a free market?

Listen all the manufacturing is in China, if you had a free market it would all mostly be in-house
secondly the market would be decentralized so companies would not want to poison their customers or they will go out of business, especially if there's so many alternative options in the market.

Originally posted by Flatfish
Innovation? Do you mean like the innovation it took for GM to destroy the EV1? (electric car)

LOL please
Who do you think made GM destroy the EV1
Did you watch "Who killed the electric car?"


Originally posted by Flatfish
Or, the innovation it takes for the oil & gas industry to actively lobby against green energy? Or innovation like it took for the private health care industry to create entire departments who's sole purpose is to find reasons to deny claims?

See what you are doing, you are complaining about what you currently have
In a free market oil and gas would be decentralized
Oh wait in a minute, in a free market you would have already found an alternative or many alternatives to oil and gas.
maybe hemp for example, maybe efficient electric cars better than the stupid hybrids out now

Originally posted by Flatfish
The only thing "profit" accomplishes is to create a motive to do less for more.

That couldn't be further from the truth and in fact would exactly be what non-profit would result in


Originally posted by Flatfish
And I thank you for that response and correction as it makes my point exactly. You can go to jail in this country for not feeding your dog or your horse, but not for refusing to feed a person. Go figure!

You can go to jail for not feeding your dog? I didn't know that
But did you know that you buy your dog and make the voluntary choice to adopt it?
They are only forced to feed the dog, assuming this law is true, after buying it
You aren't forced to feed strays I imagine


Originally posted by ModernAcademia
Your assumption that people would donate enough to pay for government is just that, an assumption. Would you become a fireman if you knew you'd only get paid on the weeks where the donations were sufficient to do so? I mean after all, you were just lying around the firehouse waiting for a fire most of the time anyway, right?

What kind of company could continue existing if they knew they would not have enough funds to always pay for salaries?

Secondly there are private emergency services in the U.S. such as firemen too, in some small regions.
They don't get paid via donations, they are offering a service so you have to pay of for it


Originally posted by ModernAcademia
I wouldn't describe them as forced donations. I consider it, paying my fair share and furthermore, taxes are perfectly legal and authorized by the U.S. Constitution.


You are sugar-coating it
They are forced contributions

Sugar coat is as much as you wish but there's no way around it, it's forced despite how noble you consider it



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 01:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Consider this two-part change:

Prospective new candidates to national office are limited in their fund-raising to a formula defined by the number of people they will represent. If they receive donations, from any source, over that limit, it must be returned. Monetary donations over the cap would be illegal.

Incumbents who desire to run for reelection cannot campaign -- no more donations to reelection campaigns. They must run on their record of representing their constituents, and can only participate in a pre-defined number of debates. Monetary or any other donations to incumbents would essentially be illegal.

It's so amazingly simple. So easy to implement. And would instantly alter the entire political landscape and the motivations of those in national office. In fact, it could be argued that it would bring things back to the original intent of the founding fathers -- pure constitutionalism.


Not so fast with the "it's so simple" solutions.

What would keep a George Soros type from creating so many "Foundations" that they could easily manipulate the field with social media, offshore programming, funding Hollywood movies, funding pop culture messaging such as music etc.. injecting social idiology into the populace with no counter at election time with only a few cents in comparison to spend?

Then there is the Corporate world which owns the media outlets where they can essentially run a nonstop ad campaign year in and year out influencing the voter pool.

Your system sounds fair to each candidate on the surface but in reallity would make it even easier for shadowy elite think tanks to steer government policy because the massive campaigns used now to blast into the public perception would turn into one man muppet shows that could never lead the public down a new path due to lack of funding. The only hope candidates would have without massive funding would be to grovel over who kisses the masters of the various media outlets and non profit foundations better. Orwellian society here we come.

We have already seen in the last election the influence media can have through indirect campaigning and armies of investigators digging up dirt on their own payrolls seperate from candidate funding. We are hearing daily from the Ron Paul daycare centers of media bias.

They control the questions asked, where the shovel is applied to supply the dirt, and who gets the most coverage or even any coverage at all on a daily basis (not talking about scheduled debates). Take away the only tool to counter that which is campaign funding, and you will see the Media with all of its newfound power blackmailing incumbants who would have to sit helplessly on the sidelines at their mercy under your simple plan.

Food for thought anyway.



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 



Once again as stated in the OP please consider law enforcement as a separate topic
breaking the law and entitlements are completely separate topics.

When talking about society, law enforcement is not separate, imo. If desperate people have less options, crime or protests will increase.


This is not about sympathy
You should always use logic and intellect when deciding how a govt. should run
that is not being unsympathetic
It's just what would result in the best possible outcome for society as a whole

Sympathy? Who said anything about that? There is a difference between sympathy and empathy. Logic and intellect are not all there is to being human, so managing human affairs has to include empathy, even at moderate to low levels. Patriotism, compassion, nationalism all involve empathy to some degree, so I think empathy is part of the equation.
Again, it is not an 'either or' situation, as so many of these arguements fall into. There has to be middle ground, which is why I call futility on discussing politics...yet here I am



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join