No Labels! - The New Political Movement of the SIlent Majority, page 1
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 7 times


reply posted on 24-8-2011 @ 12:48 PM by Indigo5
reply to post by Indigo5


I understand that many here will not feel comfortable with solution focused politics as opposed to Idealogically driven politics, but even so...I think we all agree something needs to change in our politics if we are to survive.


reply posted on 24-8-2011 @ 02:04 PM by Kitilani
Originally posted by Indigo5
reply to post by Indigo5


I understand that many here will not feel comfortable with solution focused politics as opposed to Idealogically driven politics, but even so...I think we all agree something needs to change in our politics if we are to survive.


Absolutely. It has gotten so polarized that just looking around ATS you see more than enough posters stating as a fact they will never vote for a Democrat because they are all bad.
I am aware there are good and bad politicians on both sides and have and will continue for the candidate I like best, rather than party lines. But I see plenty of people that are just worried about their team, regardless of who is on that team or what they are actually doing.

The labels thing is a pretty convoluted subject on here.
When I label someone a Republican, neocon, GOP shill, etc. it is ALWAYS in response to a post espousing exactly those ideals. While consider myself socially liberal and fiscally conservative there is something quite different when an ATS righty tosses that label at me. Instead of it ever actually applying to what I had written it turns into labeling me a "liberal" or "progressive" then making up what that means and applying it to me. I cannot believe how many times I have been told on here what I think and how I feel by people that have no clue about either. Some labels fit. Some are just tossed around in order to disparage people.

Others still, like "teabagger" for instance are just there as simple reminders. The TEA party started that label and then rejected it when they learned what it meant. That would be fine but instead what they have actually done is try to deny it was ever the case. So when one lies to me about their own history and agenda, I do not mind using the word they used in order to describe them as it reminds them of their dishonesty.

I never called anyone a neocon or GOPer that did not make it clear that is what they were. If I defend a gay person's rights then I am called a liberal and told how much I hate god, want to rape children, and most likely live off the system.


reply posted on 24-8-2011 @ 02:06 PM by eMachine
reply to post by Indigo5

Yes, I did see the video and (I apologize) I cannot agree. I do not believe a government can keep from over-governing. I cannot trust an inanimate non-living entity that intends to impose authority over actual living people, nor can I trust any living person who wants to represent such an institution and exercise its authority over others.

The argument in question here is one that the creators of the US government spent much time pondering and debating. They knew the risks of government, but they believed they could create a government which would moderate itself. They believed government was a necessary evil.

It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. - James Madison

If Men Were Angels: The Basic Analytics of the State versus Self-government

We may prop up these historical figures as saviors, but they failed. They had high hopes that their government would somehow defy everything that they themselves knew about government. They hoped that for the first time in history power would not be corrupt and become oppressive. Their government failed, because government is fail.

Forgive me for being insensitive, but faith in government is the same to me as faith in any other religion, except that churches don't have armed agents who can make sure their authority is properly imposed on me.

“If human beings are fundamentally good, no government is necessary; if they are fundamentally bad, any government, being composed of human beings, would be bad also.” - Fred Woodworth

Pages:     ^^TOP^^



Do I have freedom FROM religion?
  Posted 3 days ago with 34 member flags
Bill C-38 protest has 13,000 websites going dark
  Posted 0 days ago with 16 member flags
Is this the only politician in europe that is not blind?
  Posted 4 days ago with 8 member flags
Former NAVY SEAL Rebukes Obama
  Posted 19 days ago with 7 member flags
What The Founding Fathers Thought About Corporations
  Posted 12 days ago with 6 member flags
Newsweek Cover: \'The First Gay President\'
  Posted 16 days ago with 4 member flags
Westboro Baptist Church
  Posted 14 days ago with 4 member flags
Police Pursue 4-Year-Old for Overdue Library Book
  Posted 14 days ago with 3 member flags