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.

 

Message to GOP care of Rachel Maddow

page: 17
78
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


Whoever said that? Alcohol is already legal, just not for underage.. Why make pot legal too? Why would you even ask a question like that? I think most conservative parents try to watch over their kids behavior as much as they can for their own safety. What conservative parents are calling for a lowering of the drinking age hmmmmm?


Who said pot should be legal for kids?




posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


You are so clever! I don't hate my country...in fact...after reading tripe like yours, I think I am one of the few people that actually know what this country was founded on...you obviously do not.

But please feel free to continue speaking as if you are on some holy higher ground....those of us that know what real freedom and liberty means are so far out of your reach, you will not even notice that we flat do not care what you have to think or say. Please...continue your aggressive ridiculousness with someone who might take the time to read the dribble you type...I won't.

edit on 11/8/2012 by Jeremiah65 because: (no reason given)

edit on 11/8/2012 by Jeremiah65 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


Whoever said that? Alcohol is already legal, just not for underage.. Why make pot legal too? Why would you even ask a question like that? I think most conservative parents try to watch over their kids behavior as much as they can for their own safety. What conservative parents are calling for a lowering of the drinking age hmmmmm?


Who said pot should be legal for kids?

Reminded me of an argument I heard back in the 90s when they were trying to regulate the internet/ban porn. The only argument they had was "for the children".

Because it seems they don't know how to parent I guess..I don't know. Frankly, if they don't know how to be a parent, they shouldn't have breeded to begin with, or give the kid up for adoption once they realized how terrible they are at it.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


Yeah it would be terrible to go back to the 50's mindset. People treated one another with decency, the kids respected their parents, people didn't know what credit cards were. They worked for their money and bought only what they could with the cash they had. Parents taught their kids what they needed to know to be successful in life, how to survive and make it should they find themselves in that position. Kids didn't act like wannabe thugs. Parents didn't buy their sixteen year old a brand new car for them to trash and show no respect for. People didn't walk around with their noses stuck in their phones. The family as a whole was much more functional than they are today. The government wasn't a colossal giant. This country has seen it's good days, and i really don't know if they'll ever be back.

I mean no disrespect for those of you who are legitimately on welfare whether it be laid off from work or disability, but to those of you who are taking from the system who are able bodied and refusing work, there's news for you. There are more takers than makers in this country right now, and when the honey pot runs out, well, that's it. It's game over.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by DZAG Wright
 

Actually it does. Generally taking the easy way out rather then doing the right thing is considered compromise these days.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by JackBauer
reply to post by Annee
 


Yeah it would be terrible to go back to the 50's mindset. People treated one another with decency, the kids respected their parents, people didn't know what credit cards were. They worked for their money and bought only what they could with the cash they had. Parents taught their kids what they needed to know to be successful in life, how to survive and make it should they find themselves in that position. Kids didn't act like wannabe thugs. Parents didn't buy their sixteen year old a brand new car for them to trash and show no respect for. People didn't walk around with their noses stuck in their phones. The family as a whole was much more functional than they are today. The government wasn't a colossal giant. This country has seen it's good days, and i really don't know if they'll ever be back.



Yeah, the 50's were great if you were a middle-class or rich white family. Not so much if you were a single mom, or a woman trying to support herself, or a minority. There were a lot of dysfunctional families in the 50's - pay no attention to Leave it to Beaver. A lot of abused wives and abused children who had no recourse - nowhere to go for help. No government programs to help them.
edit on 8-11-2012 by kaylaluv because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 

You go girl! I am tired of being PC and not telling the truth myself. We will never solve our problems in this country until we are willing to really tell the truth to each other even if it may be at times offensive to either side.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by JackBauer
reply to post by Annee
 


Yeah it would be terrible to go back to the 50's mindset. People treated one another with decency, the kids respected their parents, people didn't know what credit cards were.


You lived during the 50s or you watched Leave it to Beaver?

What's good about the 50s is SELECTIVE MEMORY.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* people role played their parts in life. Men were expected to be the bread winner. Women were expected to raise the children. Even if that is not what they wanted.

* personal problems were kept behind locked doors.

* no laws to protect women.

*at my school you did the Christmas program even if you were Jewish - and kept your mouth shut.

* if a child wasn't main stream - - - too bad - - forget special education - - anti bullying - - pro gay

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NO WAY - - I'd much rather have a child be independent and outspoken.





edit on 8-11-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Aaaaaaannnd...

3....

2...

1...

Wait, this thread is still here?

Wow -- I better flag this one!



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Yeah, the 50's were great if you were a middle-class or rich white family. Not so much if you were a single mom, or a woman trying to support herself, or a minority. There were a lot of dysfunctional families in the 50's - pay no attention to Leave it to Beaver. A lot of abused wives and abused children who had no recourse - nowhere to go for help. No government programs to help them.


I remember my first job interview - - and this was in 1964. The guy asked me if I was married and if I was planning on getting pregnant. He informed me if I did get pregnant - - consider myself fired.

A job I had - same year - - - I was called into the office and was told I had a run in my nylons. It was against company policy. If they saw that again I'd be fired.

And Sexual Harassment - - - you put up with it if you wanted to keep your job.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by KeliOnyx
 


Once again I see racism and sexism brought in on these boards. Angry white men? Submissive white women? Yet if I mention black in any derogatory fashion I might get censored. Hold it. That's right I already did.
Funny how that is working these days.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Yeah, the 50's were great if you were a middle-class or rich white family. Not so much if you were a single mom, or a woman trying to support herself, or a minority. There were a lot of dysfunctional families in the 50's - pay no attention to Leave it to Beaver. A lot of abused wives and abused children who had no recourse - nowhere to go for help. No government programs to help them.


I remember my first job interview - - and this was in 1964. The guy asked me if I was married and if I was planning on getting pregnant. He informed me if I did get pregnant - - consider myself fired.

A job I had - same year - - - I was called into the office and was told I had a run in my nylons. It was against company policy. If they saw that again I'd be fired.

And Sexual Harassment - - - you put up with it if you wanted to keep your job.


Yeah, good times.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 

Humm what was it 2 mil more? Out of what 300 mil? What is that maybe .6 percent or about that? That is not the people's anything.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 

You are correct there.
Second line.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


You're looking at this from a women's rights standpoint, which i did not address in my post but i will now. I have no problem with women having equal rights, and i will agree that during the 50's your rights were not as good as they are now. My point was, society as a whole has declined over the years. Our attitudes have become more harsh and the way we treat each other is pretty bad. We live in the now, and we don't think two steps in front of ourselves. People were much more engaged with their government's actions. Now everything is federalized and we the people have been put on a need-to-know basis.

Like i said, women's rights is not a problem for me. My significant other is a satellite systems engineer for raytheon and makes much more than most men. I believe if you're qualified, employers would have it in their best interest to provide you with a job and a decent workplace.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jerk_Idiot
reply to post by Annee
 

Humm what was it 2 mil more? Out of what 300 mil? What is that maybe .6 percent or about that? That is not the people's anything.


Obama is the PEOPLE's president. Popular majority.

Mostly proving we are evolving.

The extremism of the Right is last year.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ObservingTheWorld
reply to post by grandmakdw
 


grandmakw, here is your chance. Point out exactly what was false in the OP posting? And please do so with facts, not opinions.

As far as this country being ripped in two, your anger at the facts presented show it has already happened.



The gun part. 24 hours after reelected... u.n. gun thingymabob. Go checkz it out. It's righteous



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 07:43 PM
link   
Anybody got a barf bag after listening to that arrogant diatribe? I am sorry, but she is singing to the choir. My hope is the President enjoys his next term in office, and does absolutely nothing. Nothing! Go on more golf outings, skip out on some more meetings, leave the pen in the desk drawer before coming up with any brilliant legislation, and take some more trips to Vegas. Don't make things anymore worse than they are. That is how I feel about it. As for the opposition? Dig your heals in, and lets have some gridlock. Nothing gets through. It seems nobody cares anyway? Lets all party and watch everything fall apart around us!

We still have no budget, the economy is not as good as Rachel would like us to believe, global warming remains debatable, and so on and so forth. Just because the nation appeared to vote for the Democrats does not negate from the serious problems ahead. Is my confidence in the President any stronger than it was before the election? Nope! Not at all. Just because he won does not get him off the hook for the astronomical spending, the Benghazi disaster, the money pit known as green industries, Fast and the Furious, and other improprieties. Since he has another four years? Perhaps, he can elaborate a little more on those items? I am all ears. I am just gonna play it by the numbers, and lets hope for the best. However, I have a feeling that the dark days are far from being gone. By all means, Rachel and pals can pat themselves on the back all they want. There side is just as inept as the other!



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


We have had the extremism of the left for 4yrs already and will for 4 more years. I am not, nor have I ever been, for extremism on either side. However from the left, violence, threats of violence, known slander, and bribery of elected officials by the President. From what I see that is far more extremism then what I have seen on the right.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by JackBauer

Like i said, women's rights is not a problem for me. My significant other is a satellite systems engineer for raytheon and makes much more than most men. I believe if you're qualified, employers would have it in their best interest to provide you with a job and a decent workplace.


You don't have a problem with women's rights? That is stated pretty negatively. I'm so thrilled you don't have a "problem" with it.

Did you live in the 50s? I did.

Its a lot more then just women's rights. Life was basically fake. People had roles to play.

Of course there were some good things about it - - - but as I said - - - its selective.

There are good things to day we did not have in the 50s.

I'm a progressionist. Nothing should stand still. Everything needs to evolve.

Sometimes the pendulum swings extremely - - - but it needs to swing.



new topics

top topics



 
78
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join