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.

 

Republicans ideal country?

page: 2
17
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by KibbleChild

Your'e right.. I can't stand the neocons either, but I also believe that if the liberal/progessive's of today believe they share the same views as the founders is absurd as well.


Indeed - what constitutes liberal/progressive changes with time - as does what constitutes conservative.




posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by KibbleChild
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


So your saying the founding fathers and living in a free society is ignorant?


that's not even a clever attempt to put words into my mouth!


I'm saying Ron Paul's 10 points are mostly a fantasy


edit on 22-7-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)


As is your OP...

Please identify what it is about the ten points presented by Dr. Paul you disagree with. Thank you.

ETA: Your characterization of the points as "fantasy," would initially indicate the points as being worthless. Would you not state there is something to work for? And if there is something to work for, would you not think the description laid out in those ten points would be a worthwhile goal to achieve?
edit on 22-7-2012 by totallackey because: further content



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by KibbleChild
 


and that fantasy is why Ron Paul will never amount to anything other than a hero to the ignorant.



He has already amounted to more than you ever will in 20 lifetimes. What about his 10 points do you think is "fantasy", or does your opinion change depending on what Nancy Pelosi thinks?



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by totallackey

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul



I'm saying Ron Paul's 10 points are mostly a fantasy


edit on 22-7-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)


As is your OP...


What in my OP is not reality in Iran, and is also not something R's generally want??



Please identify what it is about the ten points presented by Dr. Paul you disagree with. Thank you.



1. Rights belong to individuals, not groups; they derive from our nature and can neither be granted nor taken away by government.


they can patently be granted or taken away by giovernment - eg the right to own slaves. also why are individuals not entitled to operate collectively and apply whatever rights they have as a collective effort?


2. All peaceful, voluntary economic and social associations are permitted; consent is the basis of the social and economic order.


I have no problem with this one - but it is basically a statement of intent and of no further consequence.


3. Justly acquired property is privately owned by individuals and voluntary groups, and this ownership cannot be arbitrarily voided by governments.


but in 1/ above he says that groups have no rights - he contradicts himself.


4. Government may not redistribute private wealth or grant special privileges to any individual or group.


Of course it can, and it does, and it should be able to. Eg it grants non-felons "special privileges" that felons do not have. it grants citizens rights that non-citizens do not have. It grants those of various ages rights and obligations that other ages do not have - and rightly so - do you think that 5 year olds should be allowed to be sent to jail for example?



5.Individuals are responsible for their own actions; government cannot and should not protect us from ourselves.


another one I generally agree with. But I do not believe it is an excuse for not having any laws at all as some do (don't know whether you do or not)


6. Government may not claim the monopoly over a people's money and governments must never engage in official counterfeiting, even in the name of macroeconomic stability.


this is snarl speak and nonsense - there is, by definition, no such thing as "official counterfeiting", and a government that does not take care of economic stability can hardly help maintain item number 2


7. Aggressive wars, even when called preventative, and even when they pertain only to trade relations, are forbidden.


hinges on definition of "aggressive wars" - which can be argued all over the place and usually is, therefore esssentially meaningless.


8. Jury nullification, that is, the right of jurors to judge the law as well as the facts, is a right of the people and the courtroom norm.


it should not be the courtroom "norm" at all - and nor should 12 people be entitled to make or break the law as determined by the representatives of the people as a whole. this is profoundly anti-democratic IMO.


9. All forms of involuntary servitude are prohibited, not only slavery but also conscription, forced association, and forced welfare distribution.


slavery is an easy one to agree with, but this is just another cover for tax protestation, and the actual effect would be to make slavery MORE likely in terms of debt obligations, sub-standard employment conditions and economic servitude under the disguise of "forced welfare distribution". Government is NOT solely about ensuring the rich get to stay rich.


10. Government must obey the law that it expects other people to obey and thereby must never use force to mold behavior, manipulate social outcomes, manage the economy, or tell other countries how to behave.


A grab bag of vastly different activities linked together under "government must obey the law" (which I have no great problem with) and "thereby must never use force" - which is a completely unrelated issue since the law often allows the government to use force. Under this sweeping item police officers would never be allowed to prevent anyone commiting a crime because that would constitute "mold(ing) behaiour", nor would imprisonment or fines be available as punishment for the same reason.



ETA: Your characterization of the points as "fantasy," would initially indicate the points as being worthless. Would you not state there is something to work for? And if there is something to work for, would you not think the description laid out in those ten points would be a worthwhile goal to achieve?


Something is worth working for only if it is achievable. As above there are massive segments of his 10 points that I hold are simply not achievable so are not worth working for.
edit on 22-7-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 06:54 PM
link   
The truth is that neither major party has any public ideal about how they view our nation 4, 10, 20 years from now. The plans might exist but they sure aren't sharing them with us.



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 07:10 PM
link   
Republican country STINKS. Just look at the quality of life for the average American citizen in the RED STATES.


When it comes to the republicans talking about lower taxes and saying they are all for the Constitution, in reality, they only support those two areas when it comes to their exclusive group -- THE WEALTHY. The rest of us are not in their plans.

Funny how they are totally FOR their own politician-based "Obamacare" health-benefits, yet when something is likewise is to be trickled down to us, they are AGAINST it. Funny how they are for their BIG-TIME politician retirement plans, HUGE wages and increases, rights, benefits, "social programs" and TONS of bonuses and perks, yet AGAINST even the SLIGHTEST minuscule help or benefit when it is FOR THE PEOPLE.

For we the people, republicans wish us to be as slaves at best with nothing to live for whatsoever and no benefits, no healthcare, no retirement, no workers rights, no fair wages, no life, no hope, no dream, no NOTHING.

They wish us to be slaves for the super-wealthy and nothing more. What they fight for is all for the super wealthy and WE are NOT in that exclusive group folks.

Both parties STINK, but worst are the republicans whom cater only to the super-wealthy rather than MAIN-STREET America. At a time in history where so many of MAIN-STREET families are HURTING BADLY, it is NO time to be catering ONLY to the SUPER-WEALTHY!!!!!!!! At least the democrats ACKNOWLEDGE someone else other than the super-wealthy once and a while.


edit on 22-7-2012 by HangTheTraitors because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by KibbleChild
 



1. Rights belong to individuals, not groups; they derive from our nature and can neither be granted nor taken away by government.


So according to this an organization has no right to the freedom of speech? As soon as a group joins together and protests they lose that right to do so? The group is made up of individuals. If it were true it would mean corporate property could be searched without a warrant. The collective shareholders own it, not an individual.


3. Justly acquired property is privately owned by individuals and voluntary groups, and this ownership cannot be arbitrarily voided by governments.


Now groups have rights? This voids number one. I guess he must only people talking about unions and lowly people. Historically people that owned property were given special treatment. It seems this is what he is trying to revive since he completely contradicts himself.


4. Government may not redistribute private wealth or grant special privileges to any individual or group.


Wait...the constitution grants special privileges to congress people. Isn't he a constitutionalist?



5.Individuals are responsible for their own actions; government cannot and should not protect us from ourselves.


Then this means there should be no police, no laws, no firefighters, no safety regulations, no anything. The government would incredibly pointless. It's ironic that an anarchist is a congressman.


10. Government must obey the law that it expects other people to obey and thereby must never use force to mold behavior, manipulate social outcomes, manage the economy, or tell other countries how to behave.


Ridiculous. The civil rights act forced whites to not discriminate on minorities. That was a great piece of legislation and put this country on a better path. If it was not signed there'd be white/colored only signs all over the place.
edit on 22-7-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 

Thanks for replying.

Just to counter one of your first points...

en.wikipedia.org...


According to the Iranian Constitution, the government is required to provide every citizen of the country with access to social security that covers retirement, unemployment, old age, disability, accidents, calamities, health and medical treatment and care services.


Furthermore, since I already shot down one of your major views concerning Iran (you seem to be holding up Iran as some sort of evil place), I think you may want to post some proof it is just as bad you think you it is...it may not be...

But, on to the show...

1st, I know of no Republican who desires the state of affairs in Iran to be applied here in the US...I know neo-cons who might want this, but this is just a matter of semantics as to what constitutes Republican nowadays...

2nd, The statement rights belong to the individual simply points out there are no collectives without the individual...therefore, individual rights supersede all other rights...

3rd, you do have a problem with this, as it renders your next argument and perspective totally without merit...it provides a basis for people who are like minded to form collectives as they see fit...

4th, The rights of individuals who form voluntary collectives (and ergo, continue with their rights as a collective) is what is being referred to in this point...it is not contradictory...you simply either misunderstand or are purposefully being obtuse...

5th, If you believe these actions of government are to be somehow viewed as being "fair," then you do disagree...and that is your prerogative...no matter how misguided I think it is...I believe the sole purpose for government existence is to enforce the laws...the less laws to enforce, the better...the more laws, the more chance for intrusion where government should not be...

I found it interesting you avoided the wealth redistribution portion...

Your characterization "non-felons," are granted special rights not afforded to felons should perhaps be rephrased to read, "FELONS LOSE RIGHTS."

Since I believe the only reason for government to exist is to enforce laws, then the question of how those laws are applied would be within the scope of government...

6th, I have an already dim view of money and monetary policy as a whole; however, my understanding is the only authorized currency in the US (according to the Constitution) is gold and silver coins...anything else is counterfeit...I could be wrong...

7th, I think we are fighting too many wars...I define any act of violence as aggressive.

8th, For thinking some writing is fantasy, you sure have a problem with reality when it slaps you in the face...while you may not agree with the concept of jury nullification, it is the concept of being tried in front of a group of your peers to "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt," that is the underpinning of the criminal justice system in this country...we lose this, you can kiss the baby goodbye...

9th, Government in its current state has allowed oligarchy and fascism to reign supreme...to state their purpose is NOT to ensure the rich remain rich is pure fantasy...The US Government, through enacting laws prohibiting free trade, progressive income taxation, and corporate support of elections, has effectively allowed the wealth to remain in the hands of the elite...

10th, The use of force spoken here is that of waging war in order to cause the people to cower...it is not very well written and perhaps should be rephrased...

What qualifications do you possess to make the determination these points are not achievable?
edit on 22-7-2012 by totallackey because: misspelling

edit on 22-7-2012 by totallackey because: provide source link



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 08:53 PM
link   
One other thing...I kinda respected you as a contributor to the ATS web forum, especially for your thinking and views as expressed on the Geo-engineering and contrails topic...

While I tolerate opposing political views, your shoehorning attempt (i.e., A) Painting Iran as some evil empire; B) equating all Republicans as equivalent with Iranian rulers) here fails miserably and has lessened my respect for you as a contributor...

Stick with the contrails...



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 

Thanks for replying.

Just to counter one of your first points...

en.wikipedia.org...


According to the Iranian Constitution, the government is required to provide every citizen of the country with access to social security that covers retirement, unemployment, old age, disability, accidents, calamities, health and medical treatment and care services.


and you think that their constitution is better followed than the US one?

lol

also from wiki - ther is no mandated universal health care, ther is no universal pension - lots of private and organisational plans exist but it is almost voluntary - isnt' that what republicans want??



1st, I know of no Republican who desires the state of affairs in Iran to be applied here in the US...I know neo-cons who might want this, but this is just a matter of semantics as to what constitutes Republican nowadays...



2nd, The statement rights belong to the individual simply points out there are no collectives without the individual...therefore, individual rights supersede all other rights...


Inconsistent - if collective rights are an amalgamation of individual rights then there is no difference.

[quoet]3rd, you do have a problem with this, as it renders your next argument and perspective totally without merit...it provides a basis for people who are like minded to form collectives as they see fit...

4th, The rights of individuals who form voluntary collectives (and ergo, continue with their rights as a collective) is what is being referred to in this point...it is not contradictory...you simply either misunderstand or are purposefully being obtuse...

Or it does not actually say that


5th, If you believe these actions of government are to be somehow viewed as being "fair," then you do disagree...and that is your prerogative...no matter how misguided I think it is...I believe the sole purpose for government existence is to enforce the laws...the less laws to enforce, the better...the more laws, the more chance for intrusion where government should not be...


I have no problem with "as few laws as possible, as many as necessary"


I found it interesting you avoided the wealth redistribution portion...


It wasn't mentioned until point 9 - why would I address it at point 5?? puz:


Your characterization "non-felons," are granted special rights not afforded to felons should perhaps be rephrased to read, "FELONS LOSE RIGHTS."


I find it interesting you dont adderss the comment I made about children. It also depends on what you consider "special privileges" but I will grant you te point about felons. Nonetheless there are numerous groups who have "special privileges" - religions (tax exempt charity statuus), other charities, children, disabled immediately spring to mind as obvious ones.


6th, I have an already dim view of money and monetary policy as a whole; however, my understanding is the only authorized currency in the US (according to the Constitution) is gold and silver coins...anything else is counterfeit...I could be wrong...


you are - ther is no such requirement


7th, I think we are fighting too many wars...I define any act of violence as aggressive.


Including self defence?? (I suspect not)

I have no problem with the concept of the US fighting too many wars, and the general uselessness of US foreign policy as being a prime cause of that. But the US is not alone in that.

(ctd)


edit on 22-7-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by totallackey
 



8th, For thinking some writing is fantasy, you sure have a problem with reality when it slaps you in the face...while you may not agree with the concept of jury nullification, it is the concept of being tried in front of a group of your peers to "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt," that is the underpinning of the criminal justice system in this country...we lose this, you can kiss the baby goodbye...


Jury nullification has nothing at all to do with "guilt beyond reasonable doubt" - jury nullification is the act of saying "not guilty" when it is not true, because you do not like the law the conviction would be made under.

You can hardly accuse me of having a problem with reality when you do not understand what you are talking about!


9th, Government in its current state has allowed oligarchy and fascism to reign supreme...to state their purpose is NOT to ensure the rich remain rich is pure fantasy...The US Government, through enacting laws prohibiting free trade, progressive income taxation, and corporate support of elections, has effectively allowed the wealth to remain in the hands of the elite...


allowing something and having that thing as your PURPOSE are two quite seperate concepts.

If you think free trade is a law allowing wealth to remain in the hands of the few you should have another look at what it is trade barriers do by way of eliminating competition!!


and progressive taxatino?? how does that keep wealth in the hands of the elite??



10th, The use of force spoken here is that of waging war in order to cause the people to cower...it is not very well written and perhaps should be rephrased...


I don't see anyone cowering - despite scaremongering bombast to the contrary


What qualifications do you possess to make the determination these points are not achievable?


Exactly the same ones you have for disagreeing with me, or Ron Paul has for making them in the first place.

But also I think we are getting OT from the original topic & this should perhaps be another thread.
edit on 22-7-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 09:13 PM
link   
Wow that is a hell of a lot of dogma for a thread:

Comparing the R's to beleivers of the 12 imam, who want to whipe Isreal off the map, stone people,hang gays, throw acid in the face of those who do them wrong etc.

In fact most rights Americans have today you can sit there and thank a republican oh say like lincoln,and abortion is nothing but murder so much for cival rights such as that person who will never be born.

And the current state of the union which is 16 trillion in debt has over 50 million on welfare and then has another 100 million on other programs that are welfare.

Love about how the worker has no rights that is laughable because they have created a slave class in China, and Mexico, and other places in the world.

Take a good look at progressive lefist ideology that has been legislated this country in to oblivion

www.usdebtclock.org...

The largest "retirement" provider in the country is the US federal Govemrment
The largest "healthcare" provider in the country is the US federal Govermment
The largest "banker" in the world is the US goverment federal reserve
The Us spends more than any other country in the world on Education that produce less than stellar result.

Still all leftist progressive ideology seems to me someone has gotten things backwards because the only thing the left has ever created in this country is a slave class unparalleled in the world.




edit on 22-7-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by KibbleChild

Your'e right.. I can't stand the neocons either, but I also believe that if the liberal/progessive's of today believe they share the same views as the founders is absurd as well.


Indeed - what constitutes liberal/progressive changes with time - as does what constitutes conservative.


Throughout history conservatives have bitterly fought liberals of their day in defense of the principles of dead liberals.



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


1 - I have no idea whether their constitution is followed better or worse than ours, and the fact is, whether you care to admit or not, neither do you...

After all, you stated they have no universal health care in place...I pointed out they do...no cartoon double take will erase this...

2 - While you may continue to view individual rights as inconsistent, they most certainly are not. It is the rights of the individual that are primary, above and beyond anything else...from there, it is certainly within individual rights to form voluntary associations with those they see fit...I do not understand your inability to understand this..

3 - I interpret it to mean exactly what I wrote...

4 - Wealth redistribution was actually first addressed in point four...forgive my poor identification... did the best I could...Did you just resort to name calling? Really?

5 - I did address the children...I stated, "Government exists to enforce the laws." This addresses your question concerning the children...

6 - The Constitution, then, does indeed address the issue of coining money...Despite your posting of the source, it appears this is just an OPINION of what is written in the Constitution and not one that is official...just in vogue...in other words, something that was an ideal and was worked towards and ultimately achieved...

7- No, the act of self-defense would still be very aggressive and violent...probably more so...

8 - You are incorrect in stating jury nullification has nothing to do with guilt beyond a reasonable doubt...I know the issue of the legality of the law comes into play....and this is fundamental when it comes to determining guilt or innocence...if the law is not just, then how or why should someone be found guilty of violating an unjust law?

9 - Free trade amongst selected/government endorsed conglomerates is not free trade, no matter how much you protest it is...Progressive taxation is far more weighty on the ones who can least afford it, primarily those who earning the least...

10- You do not think the people in Afghanistan or those in Iraq were cowering? How about those in Bosnia-Herzogovenia? Maybe the women and children in Vietnam? Any of those cowering? Please...open your eyes...

Please refrain from the name calling...your respect level is dropping even faster...



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 03:49 AM
link   
i'am a conservative republican.

i do agree with the first three points

-no universal healthcare. pay your own bills
-low flat tax. i personally think it should be a sales tax, not an income tax. no tax on food, or shelter.
-few entitlements. if you are physically able to get off you a$$ and go to work, you should not be collecting from the taxpayer.

the rest of the op is just nonsense.



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 04:51 AM
link   
Amusing thread! Well done.

Of course, no Republican wants the USA to be more like Iran. Your sarcasm makes your point!

However, I think most Republicans would like the USA to be more like Mexico -- total capitalism and little social responsibility. I think that is actually true. The goal of Republicanism is to make the USA more like Latin America.

BTW, Mexico is not all bad. They outlawed slavery well in advance of the USA in the early 1800's, and you can live very well there if you have money. But we all know, Mexico has its problems. I don't want the USA becoming more like Mexico.



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by NosmoKing
And here's a list for Democrats

1. money grows on trees so spend as much as you’d like on your constituents to purchase as many votes as possible
2. when money isn’t growing on trees, get it from those people still working (they’re not your constituents anyway)
3. when an industry starts to go the way of the dodo bird, subsidize it to keep the workers and get more votes
4. the U.S. Constitution is a mere piece of paper – use it to wipe your rear-end
5. laws are meant for other people, not for us
6. if a law can’t be passed to shut down an industry, use regulations until it's strangled
7. citizen dependency on government is a good thing – they’ll keep voting for us
8. partial birth abortion is a God-given right and guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution (really, I read it in there somewhere)
9. all religions (including demonic) are equal
10. all morals are relative
11. guns in the hands of the general population are a bad thing because it means the government doesn’t have complete control
12. economics be damned, everyone should have a minimum wage guaranteeing a $50k per-year salary (whether on welfare, working part-time or full-time)
13. the mainstream media is an unbiased entity who just happen to always agree with us liberals
14. there should be no such thing as private schools – all schools should be public schools taught by union teachers who teach the party line
15. there should be a civilian force that’s larger and more powerful than the Armed forces (BHO said this)
16. education, food, shelter, transportation, clothing, healthcare, and salary should all be “free”

I could go on but I’m getting tired of typing….



Actually this is a list of things that teapublicans are told to believe by their handlers. As opposed to the original list this list is not able to be backed up by any fact, but is thought of as fact.

Yes the right really thinks this way.



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 10:16 AM
link   
This thread is getting stars and flags however the same people starring and flagging this would flame the OP if the threadstarter made "the ideal liberal country" as a thread and generalized based on a few individuals in the party and their voting records

no stars for that!


Originally posted by RealSpoke
Workers have no rights, should be thankful for the job they have

What about single mothers working day in and day out but can't afford still to make ends
And their kid couldn't get a job mopping a corner store because of his age?

All these programs you want.... guess what
They are robbing you instead of helping you

It's like saying "why don't you want the mob to offer you free safety?"

Liberals want to "help people out" even if it through mass robbery
Understand the channel through which the entitlement system works

You are just ensuring that poor people remain poor




posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


Uhhh children can get work permits at 14.

If a mother cannot make it on her own then a 8 year old mopping 2 hours after school a day isn't going to cut it.


Liberals want to "help people out" even if it through mass robbery


Yes, public schools and library taxes are mass robbery



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by RealSpoke
Yes, public schools and library taxes are mass robbery

Noticed you didn't mention any of the programs/depts that are bankrupt

nice try



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join