I must be getting on the socialist partys nerves

page: 7
18
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 07:25 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions




posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by vexati0n
 





Society has not only a right, but an obligation, to defend itself against such awful hatred and backward thinking by correcting malevolent instruction learned from idiot parents.


Question is why do you want to teach MY kids about sex? Oh right, because you have an obligation to society and you think you have a right to indoctrinate my kids. Got it.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by MagnificentTongue
 





Lastly, you just said that incest, polygamy, and goat sex are all ok. Is that correct?


Yep, thats pretty much what it sounds like to me too.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by vexati0n
 





You are not allowed to dictate to anyone else who or what they are allowed to do in the privacy of their own lives.


See, now you just sound like a hypocrite.

But I figured this much about you already.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 02:19 AM
link   
most of the list sounds pretty good to me, since I'm on Soc. Sec. Disabity.
I think your just worried someone will cut in line infront of you while you wait for your handout..



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 02:23 AM
link   
reply to post by matted
 


Sorry bud. I dont take money from the government. They take money from me.

So join up buddy.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by thehoneycomb
 


"An unrealistic demand to abolish racism, sexism and homophobia "

Why is that unrealistic? Do you think racism, sexism and homophobia should not be considered history? Do you think they should be condoned?



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by something wicked
 


Is that a serious question?

Because we live in America, not Nazi Germany, USSR or Communist China. If you think that people should be locked up for a behavior, feeling or a thought without committing a crime, you might as well lock yourself up right now and throw away the key, or heres a ticket, admit one to a FEMA labor camp. See you in the gulags.

Arguably though, homophobia and racism are natural behaviors as long as they are not acted upon or taken to extremes.

If this behavior leads to a crime, the offender should be arrested for that crime within the system and laws that already exist. In no case should a person be charged with the same crime twice because it is thought that the crime was motivated by racism or homophobia, a crime is still a crime, though sometimes racism and homophobia can help establish a motive.

But to take this to an extreme is to try to abolish this type of behavior. That means I could suspect that you are a racist or a homophobe and have you arrested and you would be guilty until proven innocent. If a law like this were to pass, we might as well throw out all other laws because no law would effectively exist. We would live in lawless police state ran by savage mobs and barbarians.

Have you ever seen the movie the minority report? How about 1984? What about idiocracy? I always thought that movie was a far fetched comedy until after reading some peoples posts on this thread, now I take it more seriously.

1984 was not an instruction manual.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by thehoneycomb
reply to post by something wicked
 


Is that a serious question?

Because we live in America, not Nazi Germany, USSR or Communist China. If you think that people should be locked up for a behavior, feeling or a thought without committing a crime, you might as well lock yourself up right now and throw away the key, or heres a ticket, admit one to a FEMA labor camp. See you in the gulags.

Arguably though, homophobia and racism are natural behaviors as long as they are not acted upon or taken to extremes.

If this behavior leads to a crime, the offender should be arrested for that crime within the system and laws that already exist. In no case should a person be charged with the same crime twice because it is thought that the crime was motivated by racism or homophobia, a crime is still a crime, though sometimes racism and homophobia can help establish a motive.

But to take this to an extreme is to try to abolish this type of behavior. That means I could suspect that you are a racist or a homophobe and have you arrested and you would be guilty until proven innocent. If a law like this were to pass, we might as well throw out all other laws because no law would effectively exist. We would live in lawless police state ran by savage mobs and barbarians.

Have you ever seen the movie the minority report? How about 1984? What about idiocracy? I always thought that movie was a far fetched comedy until after reading some peoples posts on this thread, now I take it more seriously.

1984 was not an instruction manual.


Right, now take a step back, grow up and read what I said again. Where did it state that 'abolishment' of bias towards people based on their colour, gender or gender preference would be an offence leading to a spell in jail unless it was also linked to violence or the threat of?

Your post has been fairly pathetic and every time you (metaphorically) open your mouth you just seem to make them even more so. So, I ask again - this time stop making up your own strawman arguments - do you believe there is a place in todays society for sexism, racism or homophobia - yes or no? It's not hard is it?



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by something wicked
 


I dont think laws should exist to discriminate against any group. But at the same time I don't agree with the gay marriage agenda. Other than that I don't know of any laws that are discriminatory towards gays, they have essentially every other freedom that any other american has, being gay does not make you a second class citizen.

Regarding race, minorities do receive special treatment in some ways. But that is in part due to the way the US census data is collected and categorized and different laws regarding civil rights that have evolved into other things. I don't think that an employer should be forced to hire someone (or a certain number or ratio of someone) because they are part of the minority class if there is someone else that is more qualified. It doesnt make much sense.

Do I think it is possible to eliminate racism and homophobia on a societal level? No, it will never be possible for those are both thought proccesses.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by something wicked
 





Right, now take a step back, grow up and read what I said again. Where did it state that 'abolishment' of bias towards people based on their colour, gender or gender preference would be an offence leading to a spell in jail unless it was also linked to violence or the threat of?


Those types of laws do exist, but I don't agree with them. They are called hate crimes.



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by thehoneycomb
reply to post by something wicked
 





Right, now take a step back, grow up and read what I said again. Where did it state that 'abolishment' of bias towards people based on their colour, gender or gender preference would be an offence leading to a spell in jail unless it was also linked to violence or the threat of?


Those types of laws do exist, but I don't agree with them. They are called hate crimes.


So just be honest and say you are a bigot and have every right to be so. We will all just laugh at you.



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by thehoneycomb
reply to post by Shminkee Pinkee
 





What they want to add to the curriculum is education about LGBTQ and tolerance etc. I have no problem with the tolerance part, but I think it reaches to far at a young age. Most students at that age have not began to realize their attraction to the opposite sex, gone through puberty or anything like that. I think the LGBTQ should be left out all together and not expanded upon because the implications could drive the outcomes for young impressionable children.


Well I knew what Gay people were when I was 5 years old, so did most of my friends, and we turned out ok, surely undestanding from an early age, breeds understanding, not too early of course, let children be children, but give them the opportunity to understand the world around them, some children in their classes may have gay parents, it makes sense in that case to tell children all about it.



I dont have a problem with birth control. Except many types of female birth control can be very harmful to the female reproductive system


This is true certain birth control pills can be harmful, some of my friends have had issues, nothing that has affected fertility though



I have a problem with it being free because it comes at expense of the tax payer.


I have a problem with my government spending enormous amounts of money on Nuclear weapons and the Royal family, there is alway something you don't want your taxes to go to in principle, however if we all decided to be self serving it wouldn't be a very nice world to live in



Another part of this issue that I accidentally left out is that they also want free abortions during any term of pregnancy at the expense of the tax payer. This reaches into the obamacare stuff. But anyways I have a major problem with this more so than the birth control.


Abortion, has always been an issue that divides people, I'm pro choice, but the same applies as with my last answer. The government should provide the choice for people who can't afford private care, that doesn't mean it forces you take that choice, it's there as an option.



marxist and socialist political figures created that system


Seems unlikely, there is nothing socialist about the Federal Reserve :-)



I dont know what that is, but in America, parents can raise their children any way they want. It is not up to the state to decide how parents should parent.


Parents can raise their kids anyway want here too, sometimes good sometimes very badly :-) when you said allowance I thought you meant in monetary terms, as you say allowance which refers to what we call pocket money. Child benefit is what our government gives all families with children in the UK it is not means tested and everyones entitled, rich or poor.



Birth control, sex, abortion, school field trips and social programs, curfews, boyfriends, sleep overs at friends and early every aspect of parents raising their children.


If the child is over 16 or 18 whatever the age is over there, then I don't think parental consent is required



You can not abolish human thought, emotion, intellect.

We live in America, not George Orwells 1984 or the minority report. There is no such thing as a thought crime here. It is all protected under our first amendment right to freedom of speech.


I am well aware you live in America and I have no problem with freedom of speech:-), and people have the freedom to be racist sexist and homophobic if they want, the same way other have the right to oppose that stance, but I have a problem with ignorance, most racism sexism any kind of intollerence is bred from general ignorance to other peoples beliefs, education is the key and co-operation.



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 03:21 PM
link   


It is affordable housing and in some cases free for welfare recipients at the expense of the American taxpayer.


You are quite happy to pay your taxes, but you don't seem to want the government to spend it on anything that may have a positive effect on the less well off.


End of foreclosures


Again I don't see a problem with this



Because nothing is free, somebody has to pay for it, one way or another.


Yes those somebodies should be the corporate fascists who's unbound greed caused the financial crisis


Community based housing


Surely all housing and nieghbourhoods, should be based on community spirit, surely?




I dont know, ask the survivors of the holocaust or the bolsheviks.


I take you are refering to the Ghettos?, I wasn't I was refering to the true meaning of community, people sharing the same space and environment helping and looking out for one another, if you look after your community, your community will look after you, more of a Christian ideal really, surely you can't disagree with that?



Our interstates federal highways that connect cities together, America is a travel based economy. They want to restrict our constitutional right to travel and force us into the rail system as mentioned above in a way that controls, regulates and restricts travel.

Ever heard of Nazi Germany?


Yes I have heard of Nazi Germany, being British, and yet again Nazi Germany has nothing to do with socialism, Hitler was a Fascist and so were the Nazis. How do you know they want to restrict your right to travel, and why would they if your economy is travel based. Is this just paranoia on your part? Just because someone want to privide a a public service doesn't mean they want to take away your rights. I still think there is room for private and public sector businesses, the government should run businesses as long as they are viable, for the interest of the people, it may even generate revenue.



Currently, airlines are privately owned. This implies huge problems and a basic theft or takeover of the airline industry.


Why is theft? Are you implying that they would simply sieze their assets, governments can do that anyway, what's new? If the shares are bought fairly and squarely, it's like any business take over, there is room for both private and public sector



Federally funded car insurance


This could work like our national insurance, where you pay a fee from your wages, ensuring the low paid are insured, uninsured drivers are a menace and give insurance companies the excuse to put up premiums.





Unconstitutional.


Doesn't neccessarily make it right, constitutions can be amended. It's seems you don't have a problem with Insurance companies robbing us blind. :-)


Greater access to all media



I don't see a problem with this



This implies greater access for the government to the media, not the people to the media. What this implies is that dissent would not be tolerated and would be censored. Basically the media would become the governments mouth piece.


State owned media could run in parallell with private media, it doesn't neccessarily have to be a government mouthpiece, there is room for both, private media is the mouthpiece of certain corporations who themselves have there own agenda, look at CNN and Fox, they are completely biased and push the views of the corporations that own them. We have the BBC, which 95% of the time it is impartial, the other 5% is when they bang on about the bloody Royals:-) and we have Independents too, it doesn't do us any harm, a choice of media outlets is a good thing.
The government should not control the media I agree with you there that is wrong, our BBC is not run by the government it is funded by public money and is bound rules which forbib the governmnet from interfering.



We already have this and a constitutional right to appoint a public defender. What this implies is a takeover of all private lawyers and complete regulation over the law industry.


That wouldn't really work, I have to agree with you there :-)



These are the high security prisons where they put mass murderers and the upper echelon of prisoners with security risks.


Again not a good idea, where are they going to put all those dangerous people??



Abolishment of the death penalty



The death penalty is Government sanctioned murder, it is not justice, only the absence and failure of Justice




In the cases of mass murder, it is much more reasonable to have them put to death, then have the tax payers pay to feed them and house them til the day they die.


I can never agree with the Death Penalty it is the abject failure of Justice



posted on Oct, 17 2012 @ 03:36 PM
link   


It says government ownership. Basically a monopoly and complete control. Please see my comments about dissent and freedom of speech above.


No Government should own the monopoly of media, I agree, but niether should one private corporation either, a fair and balanced media, including state participation, is what I would be in favour of, like we have with the BBC, state participation does not mean that freedom of speech would be lost, we have had some fantastic programmes that have atacked and criticised past and previous governments, and establishment figures for decades, all done by the BBC, a state funded media outlet.


Public Funding for Newspapers and Magazines


Again it's a ballance, between public an private, no-one wants to see Murdoch owning everything, and no-one wants to see the government owning everything, but I think there is room for a public newspapers and magazine to run parallel with private titles, it would boost jobs, may actually make money if they are any good, and possibly restore some Journalistic integrity to the profession.



Yeah right, see above.


I disagree completely, people who work for the Public sector tend to be more of a righteous crusader type, that's how it seems over here anyhow, and this ethic would apply to jounalists too, A fair balanced media with choice is what you need, from what I've experienced of your media, you don't have much Freedom of speech now, it's manipulated and watered down by the corporations that own it.



A sliding scale that favors low income people



Low income people should be helped, humanity should make it's goals to abolish poverty hunger and disease, instead of argueing over scraps, there is enough money out there to do this, it's just the few at the top who control it all want to keep it so they pit us against each other so we don't see them stealing from us all everyday.



Good idea in theory, but in reality it doesnt work.


To my knowledge it's never been tried :-)

PS it makes a change to have a civilised debate on here :-)



new topics
top topics
 
18
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join