To the GOP: Is it about your Religion? Your Rights? Your Money?

page: 3
16
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 



It does? Got a few examples?


Russia was basically socialist until Lenin came along. Socialism is the nationalization of the private sector and the suppression of the free market. The only step missing to become full fledged communism is when government owns and controls the means of production. Why is it such a stretch to you and others to think that the same crony capitalist idiots we have in power now wouldn’t abuse their power even further if we allowed them to get stronger and have more control?? The constitution is the only thing that limits their power and we’re allowing them to bypass it (or ignore it completely).


If you really believed that, you'd have supported Obamacare enthusiastically.


Providing healthcare isn’t the role of government. Show me where it says that!


And that phrase is from the Declaration of Independence anyway, not the Constitution.


So what? It’s in the 5th amendment.



You did see the phrase in there "provide for the general Welfare of the United States," didn't you?


That’s your war cry, huh? Do you really think that’s what the constitution was about? Cradle to grave welfare? No personal responsibility?




As for paying off debt, they were heavily in debt to the French at the time and needed to pay that down as quickly as they could--France bankrupted itself supporting us, you know.


And China is supporting your Obamacare……how EVOLVED we are becoming!



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




posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Anundeniabletruth
 


I agree with your points. Thank you for putting them out here.

I am pro-small business, too, and the 3rd parties are closer to my values (Green and Libertarian). Politics are difficult to comprehend, and I'm not confident that the majority of voters are actually paying attention to the nitty-gritty details of it all.

If you get flamed, just know it wasn't from me, and I appreciate your contribution.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


Yes! I agree with you!

Goodness, people I've known and been friends with for years have had their jobs snatched out from under them and had the job shipped offshore. If you've read any of my posts you know that's one of my biggest peeves. I know exactly what you mean.

Do you think because someone leans right they haven't felt that? That they don't know what its like to have a friend tell them in tears that their job is being shipped overseas or to have it happen to them personally?

I agree with you it is a horrible thing that needs to be reversed!

But how to reverse it? Basically it comes down to a few ways. Yeah - there is nothing at all wrong with folks paying their fair share. But remember, that if you make it so hard on business to do business in the US there is absolutely nothing to stop them from going out of business in the US all together and just opening up shop somewhere else. I don't think that is what is wanted either is it? Then there would be no jobs..



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 



Providing healthcare isn’t the role of government. Show me where it says that!

All men are created equal, and entitled to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

So, the government should ignore the plight of those who have no access to those things, so that publicly held global corporations can continue to profit?

Okay.
So, seabag, how would YOU behave as President?



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


That was an awesome rant and all so true. I think it all comes down to the fact that once you believe something to be true for a long enough time, no amount of fact or reason will ever allow you to believe otherwise. We need a generation to die before we will have enough of a majority for real change. That would be socialism + capitalism = socapilism. Socialism for the things we need and capitalism for those things we want.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


First, let me say that I hope your mother will be okay financially. Many many years ago, my mother's friend experienced such a financial downturn. She lived very well off investments after becoming a widow, and then when the business environment took a downturn, she suffered financial losses and had to learn to live less lavishly. She managed and never lost her good sense of humor.

I think American politics HAS become the new religions.

You have one religion that believes mostly in the collective and forcibly taking from the rich to give to the poor. On the surface, it is a noble doctrine, but looking a little deeper, you see areas of real abuse and unfairness. The adherents to this religion, however, believe that if you are rich, you most likely got there by cheating so it's only fair that we now declare that what is theirs is now everybody's. Let's call it the Robin Hood cult. They give their Big Church/Government big powers to decide who gets the funds.

Then you have the other that believes in helping those who help themselves. Maybe they quote a "scripture" that says, "he who doesn't work, shall not eat". However, they make exceptions for widows, orphans, mentally ill, physically handicapped, the temporarily displaced, and the elderly. These shall be taken care of by all that pay taxes. Of course, more than 1/2 of the collective does not pay any federal income taxes, so the burden will completely fall upon those who have a measure of monetary success in life. This "religion" also believes that you should teach a man to fish rather than giving him a fish every single day of his life from cradle to grave. They also believe strongly in VOLUNTARY charity, giving heavily to causes near and dear to their individual hearts. We can call this religion the Individual Responsibility religion.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Frogs
 



Do you think because someone leans right they haven't felt that? That they don't know what its like to have a friend tell them in tears that their job is being shipped overseas or to have it happen to them personally?

I agree with you it is a horrible thing that needs to be reversed!

No, I don't think that because they "lean right" they haven't felt that. That's why I mentioned my mom; yes, my dad saw to it that he worked the system so she would be comfortable and cared for; he also helped us 3 kids with our educations, and they together taught us compassion. She was in tears when my husband lost his job - twice - due to "shareholders' interests" and profit margin....
we were fortunate to have some savings that saw us through.

She was in tears when my brother who is a geo-engineer was laid off before Thanksgiving last year. It hurts to see your friends and family losing for the sake of profits above everything else.

"Leaning right" is not the same as being a hard-line Right-wing extremist who is rabidly anti-EVERYTHING they don't happen to agree with.
Thanks again for your input. I'm morethan glad to see there are thinking people on both sides who can relate to both sides' concerns

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



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 02:21 PM
link   
I really liked your thread and found it to be quite crap free.
I think your second line sums up a lot of sentiment.

The Right always retorts with" Obama's GONNA do this...."
"Obama is gonna do that...."
Never happens but sometime soon you watch...
"He's gonna..." well I'm tired of that bs.

I'm tired of hearing that the right is the party of "Fiscal Responsibility"
There hasn't been a fiscally responsible republican president
since Eisenhower. How do they forget the giant "fiscally responsible" mess
we are still clawing our way out of ? Or the giant mess that was the 80's?

I'm tired of holding their hand as they slowly find out their religion is as twisted
and dreamed up as any. I'm tired of not being able to call many of them
racists when that is certainly what many are and it's a HUGE part of the way they vote and govern.

Your thread was polite and very intelligent IMO.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by queenofswords
 


Very astute, and I agree with your analogy.

Thanks for your thoughts. I want to give them the response they deserve, but right now, I have to log off to attend to my daily chores.

ATS....thanks for your participation.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 





If we're going to use words, let's use them correctly. What we have now is not socialism, it's an:


Yeah let's use some words correctly:

If a person wants their entire existence paid for by someone else without stepping up to the task then that is what is called socialism of course that is a modern definition for an "evolved" country

That is what got the current potus 4 more years, right along with hyperbole,and demogaguery.

To the op:

Money is a right, just as it is a right to believe and.keep what they earn. The prevailing ideology has wrote checks that can never be cashed to the tune of 16 trillion.
edit on 8-11-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by HappyBunny
 



It does? Got a few examples?


Russia was basically socialist until Lenin came along.


"Basically socialist"? It either was or it wasn't. Please make up your mind.


Socialism is the nationalization of the private sector and the suppression of the free market.


No it isn't. Pure socialism, maybe, but where does a pure socialist state exist? You're confusing socialism with Marxism, and you're also confusing a system of government with an economic model. Our system of government is a federal republic, for example.


The only step missing to become full fledged communism is when government owns and controls the means of production. Why is it such a stretch to you and others to think that the same crony capitalist idiots we have in power now wouldn’t abuse their power even further if we allowed them to get stronger and have more control?? The constitution is the only thing that limits their power and we’re allowing them to bypass it (or ignore it completely).


You're going off on a tangent that is not relevant. You still haven't provided an example of a socialist country going Communist.



Providing healthcare isn’t the role of government. Show me where it says that!


Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Richard Cumberland wrote that the pursuit of our own happiness includes promoting the welfare and well-being of our fellow humans. He was kind of the anti-Hobbes. Jefferson also echoed Locke's views on inalienable rights, among other theories of natural law, which included the establishment of a social contract between government and citizens.

Did the founders have a crystal ball that would allow them to see that 200 years after they were gone we'd be eating our own young, so to speak? That a trip to the doctor would be seen as a privilege and not a right?

So, to you, the Constitution is not flexible, is that it? I guess that means you're against all the amendments, and blacks should still be slaves and woman not allowed to vote?




So what? It’s in the 5th amendment.


No it's not. Here's what the Fifth Amendment says:


No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


Where does it say "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"? What does health care have to do with crime?




You did see the phrase in there "provide for the general Welfare of the United States," didn't you?


That’s your war cry, huh? Do you really think that’s what the constitution was about? Cradle to grave welfare? No personal responsibility?


It's rather arrogant of you to decide what the founders had in mind, don't you think?




As for paying off debt, they were heavily in debt to the French at the time and needed to pay that down as quickly as they could--France bankrupted itself supporting us, you know.


And China is supporting your Obamacare……how EVOLVED we are becoming!


Nonsensical and logically flawed response.

Is that really the best you can do?
edit on 11/8/2012 by HappyBunny because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


Thanks.


The thing is, most on the right are not monsters. Most on the left are not monsters.

Since the election, there have been several threads on ATS from those on the left basically asking those on the right to please stop being a monster - then getting all huffy or confused when the right asserts they are not monsters. This thread is not one of of those... but there are several of them floating around..

I assert to you that even the richest, fattest, whitest, Fox news watching, church going, gun owning, Rush Limbaugh listening, most right wing Republican you can think of - and the most tree hugging, Kumbaya singing, plastic recycling, MSNBC watching, Rachel Maddow loving, atheist thinking, gun hating Democrat you can think of are both people. I bet they likely put one shoe on at a time. I bet they likely both want their kids to grow up safe, healthy and strong, I bet neither of them is a monster.

But - I'll bet many people have been conditioned to think of them as a monster. When they are really just a person like you and me. Much of politics, this current election and yes much of what both sides do (including Obama) is designed to stir up the masses to hate the other side.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


the constitution says. "to promote the general welfare." i do believe that healthcare would fall under that!

as to seabag, russia was a monarchy before lenin. and the czars were autocrats. their economics were in the hands of a few rich people. that is why the people, even the military rose up against them.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by blackthorne
reply to post by wildtimes
 


the constitution says. "to promote the general welfare." i do believe that healthcare would fall under that!

as to seabag, russia was a monarchy before lenin. and the czars were autocrats. their economics were in the hands of a few rich people. that is why the people, even the military rose up against them.


No it doesn't.

The general welfare clause means government spending that everyone in the country benefits from not a demographic who is taking more out of that system than returning to it.

That has the opposite effect of "promoting the general welfare".



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Again, that is not socialism:


so·cial·ism [soh-shuh-liz-uh m] Show IPA
noun
1.
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.


The term you are looking for is welfare state. But it should be noted that having a welfare system is not the same as having a welfare state.

It's the absolutism that doesn't work. It's like saying that if a guy hugs another guy, they're both gay. While gay men do hug, not all men who have hugged are gay by any stretch of the imagination. Having a slight semblance to an extreme is not, by definition, to be of that extreme. I eat candy sometimes - that doesn't make me obese.

~Heff
edit on 11/8/12 by Hefficide because: typo



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


to promote the general welfare of ALL its citizens. where does your interpretation of that come from? i was just saying that a lot of what the government does falls under that clause.

why are we the only first world country that does not provide healthcare to all its citizens? we really can learn from other countries. not every thing we do is the absolute best.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 03:00 PM
link   


....Socialism almost always devolves into communism. ....



Not buying it. It comes across as a Glen Beck flow chart of something simple leading to the most extreme example. The truth is that you would be hard pressed to find a country without some type of socialized programs outside of Africa.

Using the theory that socialism leads to communism, we should have a huge number of communist countries. How many communist countries are there now? Only five. China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea, and Vietnam. Not a single country in Europe is communist or even considering communism.
edit on 8-11-2012 by Kaploink because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


Of course i am going to disagree Heff.

When the government is the largest provider of those services, healthcare,welfare,education,retirement- SS,Medicare,Medicaid that have more people on them than the private sector.

That is not a capitalistic society welfare state or socialism is the same thing in this day and age. I have seen a lot of people get caught up in text book definitions.

Where the reality of this country is the Government and its centralized power and control, and it taxes and spends that revenue and can't pay for those programs then turn around take more from those who are the productive in society to pay for those who are the least productive.

What's in a name tho?

Socialism by any other name is still a welfare state since it seeks to promote the welfare of people at the expense of the state.

But then again the power of taxation was given to the government to fund itself not to fund the people.

Free to have the last word my hear just isn't in it anymore



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by blackthorne
reply to post by neo96
 


to promote the general welfare of ALL its citizens. where does your interpretation of that come from? i was just saying that a lot of what the government does falls under that clause.

why are we the only first world country that does not provide healthcare to all its citizens? we really can learn from other countries. not every thing we do is the absolute best.


So how does robbing from peter to pay 200 million pauls benefit the country?

I have a news flash 120 million Americans alone are on "free healthcare" paid for robbing peter to pay paul.

That does not benefit all the people of this country.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 03:10 PM
link   
It is not about my religion.
Or my feelings on the 2nd Amendment.

It is most definately about my money. It is about how that money is used (or abused) and how much of it the government deems it will take from me for its projects. It's about how that tax money will be used with no input from me whatsoever, and that I will either pay the piper or go to jail.

It's about how I would like some numbers to show what you did with the money you took from me. You want 10% of my income to help pay for welfare? OK, fine. Now verify to me that what you told me you did with my money is what you actually did with it. Use my money with honesty and I will do my best to understand and accept that. Use my money for some wonkey pork barrel project (Bridge to Nowhere, Studies to See if Monkeys can get DUI's, etc.), and now I have an issue with it.

It is also about our economic future and independence as a nation. I love the free market idea (not crony capitalism, but a health and competitive business market). The government, buy it's nature, will never have to play fair and when it gets highly involved (restriction vs. regulation) in the economic sector things tend to go badly.

That is why I am a registered Republican right now.





top topics
 
16
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join