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.

 

War declared on Tea Party

page: 16
54
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by GeoSorosReptilian
reply to post by beezzer
 


As a single momma of 9 chilren, i gotta have help to keep food in they belly. I cant work cus I gotta care for the chilren. My great gran worked and it put her in an early grave. If teaparty wants us to starve then we have to fight back.

This is a perfect example of personal responsibility.
If you want 9 kids, then great. Wonderful. But why have them if you can't afford them.
Thank you for a very illustrative post.




posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 12:13 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


No offense, but "I'm a single mom with 9 chilren"...someone is pretending to be someone they are not...how convenietly racist and fitting. Fits the narrative of the TP. Yes, GEOSOROSREPTILIAN is the single mom of 9 kids who can't spell children. Seems to make sense.

CJ
edit on 1-9-2011 by ColoradoJens because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
The concept which Progressives tend to promote is that it is somehow socially just that people who make more money are responsible to help out others and that the State is just equalizing things for people of lesser status. This is the promotion of the Entitlement class because it forcibly takes money from people who worked hard to earn their wages, and gives it to the people who believe they are entitled to that money.

Social justice is not really just if one takes the time to dissect the elements.


Nothing you wrote is even remotely correct. The reason you are crying about a war all of a sudden is because after all this time, all you have are the same worn out lies and they are not getting you anywhere. Besides, we all know who really declared war first. That would be the people that think their country was stolen and need to go get it "back."

You all bark about personal responsibility and then go on to advocate that the richest among us pay less than their fair share for the wonderful benefits they have received from being here. If you want to be rich and not pay taxes, go to Somalia and see how your business does. Otherwise you need to pay some taxes just like I do. That is actually personal responsibility.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by ColoradoJens
reply to post by beezzer
 


No offense, but "I'm a single mom with 9 chilren"...someone is pretending to be someone they are not...how convenietly racist and fitting. Fits the narrative of the TP. Yes, GEOSOROSREPTILIAN is the single mom of 9 kids who can't spell children. Seems to make sense.

CJ
edit on 1-9-2011 by ColoradoJens because: (no reason given)

I'm lost here.
What is racist? Entitlements? do you call everything racist in the hopes that something will stick?

These ad hominem attacks only strengthen my original argument.

But please, continue. . . .



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
Just to clarify, racism is disgusting and it comes from all cultures and colors. No racist propaganda is ok in my eyes.


Well then you contradicted yourself and became a victim of the very same stereotype beliefs..........


Originally posted by Kali74
It's really sad. I started saying "that white (whatever)".


See? Anyways, There is good in all people. There is racism in all races. Every person should be judged as an individual. It's not rocket science, It's actually very simple. ~SheopleNation



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 01:00 AM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


I would have to wonder how, if you associate totalitarianism...be it fascism, fundamentalism or what have you, with anarchism, a truly leftist ideal.

I'm really intrigued to see where you fall on the graph I offered above, in fact, I'd love to see where any Tea party member falls on that graph. So many are so willing to accept the term 'right wing'.

As for NAZI-ism, they were far more nationalist than socialist, putting them sqaure in the right side. When referring to the 'right' we have to understand that they're the ones demanding conformance...if you're opposed to conformance you're a leftist. That doesn't make you a socialist or an anarchist, it simply places you away from the statist, or right side, of the graph.

Nationalism demands conformance, 'un-American' behavior is considered dangerous or suspect. If we were to say that non-Germans were dangerous or suspect, what would the difference be? Our flag is red, white and blue versus red, white and black?
Fascism demands conformance by placing national needs above individual needs, propaganda(repeating the same lie or mistruth over and over again) and censorship or supression of opposing ideas are its primary traits.

These two traits are something we saw all across the country during the health care debate, remember the shouting down opposition voices in town halls? The flag waving, the tricorner hats. Particularly now, with the republican party leadership demanding that the nation's debt is more important than natural disaster relief.

Bill Maher could say that communism was so left it was right but he's failing to recognize the conformance required of the USSR, placing it squarely on the right, this is where most, if not all 20th century communist nations fail; requiring tradesman to shift trades, destroying their economies and, most importantly, eliminating social and economic class but replacing it with a political class structure, which is against a truly communist structure.

Ideologies don't fall within a simple left to right spectrum of absolute government or no government.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 01:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
The concept which Progressives tend to promote is that it is somehow socially just that people who make more money are responsible to help out others and that the State is just equalizing things for people of lesser status. This is the promotion of the Entitlement class because it forcibly takes money from people who worked hard to earn their wages, and gives it to the people who believe they are entitled to that money.

Social justice is not really just if one takes the time to dissect the elements.


Nothing you wrote is even remotely correct. The reason you are crying about a war all of a sudden is because after all this time, all you have are the same worn out lies and they are not getting you anywhere. Besides, we all know who really declared war first. That would be the people that think their country was stolen and need to go get it "back."

You all bark about personal responsibility and then go on to advocate that the richest among us pay less than their fair share for the wonderful benefits they have received from being here. If you want to be rich and not pay taxes, go to Somalia and see how your business does. Otherwise you need to pay some taxes just like I do. That is actually personal responsibility.


Geesh, I don't know whether to laugh or cry over your post, or just ignore it. I don't see where I have personally advocated that the richest among us pay less. But like I have said before, aint nothing stoppin Warren Buffet from writing out a voluntary check to the IRS but his own lying self.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 01:20 AM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 

Funny you should mention Buffet, isn't he fighting a 1 billion dollar tax bill from the IRS?
I think there's even a thread on it somewhere.

Also funny how the left is playing class warfare while Imhelt (GE), Soros (evil companies, ie Media Matters) and Warren Buffet are all big in the Obama White House.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 01:27 AM
link   
reply to post by links234
 

Well, it is ironic that a socialist wrote our pledge of allegiance.


The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy (1855–1931), who was a Baptist minister, a Christian socialist, and the cousin of socialist utopian novelist Edward Bellamy (1850–1898). Bellamy "viewed his Pledge as an 'inoculation' that would protect immigrants and native-born but insufficiently patriotic Americans from the 'virus' of radicalism and subversion."[2]



oops source: wikipedia en.wikipedia.org...


So is that socialist or is it fascist? Then a change was made to it to include "under God"


Louis A. Bowman (1872–1959) was the first to initiate the addition of "under God" to the Pledge. The National Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution gave him an Award of Merit as the originator of this idea.[10][11] He spent his adult life in the Chicago area and was Chaplain of the Illinois Society of the Sons of the American Revolution.



...I guess much to the horror of seculars, atheists, and communists. I believe it is only the words "under God' that offends them so much.
edit on 1-9-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 01:29 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


wow didn't know that about Warren trying to get out of paying taxes. LOL that's tragically priceless.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by beezzer
 


wow didn't know that about Warren trying to get out of paying taxes. LOL that's tragically priceless.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

It's a hoot!



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 01:35 AM
link   
reply to post by links234
 





Nationalism demands conformance



Totalitarianism demands conformance. Nationalistic Totalitarianism demands conformance. Interestingly, doesn't the APA also demand conformance?


Where does Patriotism fit into your scenario? Or does it? I'm kinda fond of the Battle Hymn of the Republic.


And just for fun I'll throw this one in too, just because I like it


edit on 1-9-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 01:40 AM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 

Great.
War has been declared on the Tea Party by the "borg".



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 02:04 AM
link   
If you stop and think about it (use YOUR mind and not the "collective") why would the tp be racist?
From all that I've seen and read they are mostly conservative.
Why would a conservative want to hold anyone "down"?
The more people we have working, able to sustain themselves and their families the better off all off we would all be. less taxes, more money in everyone's pockets and most importantly....................................
Less votes for democrats.
This is where all of "The Tea Party is RACIST" talk stems from.
You have some (most actually) in the democrat party who are scared to death that the tp will get more people elected and will actually help the poor and down trodden.
They simply can not have that happen, they worked too long and too hard to build up the voting base of state owned slaves they currently have.
So they call the tp racist, terrorist, astro turf, rednecks. Who cares? Anyone with a mind of their own can see what they are trying to do.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 03:40 AM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


It is ironic...yet Tea party 'patriots' who still detest socialism, willfully and gleefully recite the pledge and, in some cases, demand children in schools do it as well.

As for the 'under God' portion regarding atheists, secularists and communists; what if we were to change it to 'under Allah'? Would that offend you? What would the difference be? I don't believe in 'God' and you don't (sorry, I'm assuming) don't believe in 'Allah'.

To your second post: I don't know what the APA is. There is a seperation between patriotism and nationalism.

Definition of PATRIOTISM
: love for or devotion to one's country


Which is all well and good, I support this and will happily watch fireworks on July 4.


Definition of NATIONALISM
: loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially : a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups


This is the separation. I do not support this. To view our nation as, not an equal sovereign nation, but a better sovereign nation is nationalism.

Accepting differences between people and conceding on certain social boundaries is the very essence of the first amendment, the practice and defense of is patriotic.
Refusing inclusion to your culture or demanding expulsion of certain ethnic or religious members, refusing, in some cases outlawing, an idea born outside your national borders as 'foreign' instead of considering it better or worse is nationalistic.

Some members of the tea party are nationalists. Some are patriots.
edit on 1-9-2011 by links234 because: "sorrying"?



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 06:25 AM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 



The Tea Party here in my town is largely Libertarian, Constitutionalist, with a large Republican contingency, and a good smattering of Democrats. It is not majority Republican by any means.


You said it yourself right there, a large Republican contingency, this translates into it's dominated by the GOP.


But you will never believe that, because you refuse to go visit a real Tea Party event, and instead you choose to believe whatever the magic box tells you to believe.


Oh I believe you, as you said it yourself, it has a large Republican contingency, which means it's an offshoot of the main GOP party. And for the record, I don't believe whatever the idiot box tells me, as an independent, I use a wide variety of sources to help me form my own opinion on issues instead of listening to the opinions of brain dead pundits.


And, for the record, de-regulation fosters competition, not vice-versa. Right now everything the government does is benefitting big business and running the little guy out of business. Spiderwebs of regulation and licensing authorities make it impossible and/or unprofitable for a little guy to open a small business. Instead, they are forced to work for a larger corporation which might be largely immune to the same regulations. Many of the regulations have loopholes for wholly-owned corporations with high-dollar assets. Usually the loopholes are the result of some powerful lobbyist, but they are justified by the elevated risk factor a large corp has to litigation. The current business environment is not conducive to start up businesses. We have crushed our innovative spirit with too much regulation, and only the big corps can survive.


I understand what you are saying and I believe wholeheartedly in competition. However, if you deregulate business, all that will do is allow the big guys to stomp all over their weaker competition and eventually create monopolies. (remember you are talking about deregulation here which means that monopolies will be able to form again) Complete deregulation doesn't foster competition, it just allows the strong to devour the weak.


In any instance, how dare you criticize an organization that you won't even go check out for yourself?


How dare I? Let me introduce you to one of my favorite constitutional amendments, it's an Amendment the TEA Party hates more than they hate this current president or anyone that is left of extreme right...


Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Source: www.archives.gov...

If you don't like the above, please feel free to complain to the founding fathers. The TEA Party especially hates this Amendment because of what it says about prohibiting the free exercise of religion. If it were up to the TEA Party, anyone who isn't Christian would be burned at the stake, or put into an internment camp. (These are my opinions only, and if you have a problem with my opinion, take it up with the aforementioned amendment.)

reply to post by getreadyalready
 


So, somehow you think that if we lowered taxes, instead of paying 0% like they do now, somehow these wealthy multinational corporations will gladly pay tax in this country? I don't know about this logic my friend, it seems flawed to me.

To me it seems that no matter how low you put the corporate tax rate, they would still rather pay 0% than anything else. So I still see no incentive to lowering the taxes on the richest 1% instead of raising them and cutting out the loopholes that allow them to do business in the US without paying a dime in taxes. I fail to see how it's sound economic policy to not raise the taxes on these people who ship jobs overseas. If it were up to me, I would levy heavy tariffs on goods imported into the US till it was cheaper to produce products here than it is overseas.

But that's just my opinion, take it for what it's worth.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 06:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by ararisq

e) Finally, play the victim. After harassing the other side they will be rude back to you. This is perfect. Start filming and recording, play the victim and get out of there before you get hurt. Upload to YouTube and then report them to the See Something, Say Something campaign website. We'll take it from there...in time...


Seriously?
Beezer posts a vid about some guys saying "meanie meanie things about the good guys, and that makes me soooo sad" - and you blame the left for playing the victim???
Do you know what it takes to victimize a teapartier?

"The gentleman from Florida, who represents thousands of Medicare beneficiaries, as do I, is supportive of this plan that would increase costs for Medicare beneficiaries. Unbelievable from a member from south Florida."



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 07:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Geesh, I don't know whether to laugh or cry over your post, or just ignore it.


I would simply suggest you try actually reading it if you are going to bother responding. What you did do was ignore it and respond.


I don't see where I have personally advocated that the richest among us pay less.

I do not see where I said you did.

But like I have said before, aint nothing stoppin Warren Buffet from writing out a voluntary check to the IRS but his own lying self.

Well that has nothing to do with what I posted in response to your blatantly false propaganda but I bet it felt good to write it out anyway.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by HauntWok
 


The Tea Party here in my town is largely Libertarian, Constitutionalist, with a large Republican contingency, and a good smattering of Democrats. It is not majority Republican by any means.


I would really like to believe that. I can see no good reason to. Can you tell me which TP candidates these Democrats support?



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 07:27 AM
link   
reply to post by SheopleNation
 


How so?



new topics

top topics



 
54
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join