Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Patriots don't secede

page: 15
21
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by HopSkipJump
 


You're right. The general public has become so stupid that they don't know what common words even mean. They call themselves patriots but they act like traitors, just like you said. They're not even smart enough to know the difference


Both sides do it all the time and it needs to stop. If people want to be taken seriously, they need to at least be smart enough to know the definitions of the words they're using.

S&F for you




posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by onthedownlow
reply to post by HopSkipJump
 


The word 'Patriot' has taken on a much greater meaning to those who are willing to endure the ultimate sacrifice. To suggest that patriotism merely means blind nationalism is, as you say, moronic.The allegiance is to an idea, not an inanimate object.There may be competing opinions as to what that idea is, there may be patriots on competing ends of the spectrum, but ultimately their allegiance is to a conservative, traditional value system, perserverance and preservation. The idea that change is necessary, or acceptible even, might be considered anti-patriotic, but patriots are typically tollerant of other ideas, yet ultimately, there is a limit to their tollerance. You seem to have confused the ebb and flow of this tollerance for failing patriotism, but it is nothing of the sort!


The conservatives of old used to be monarchists and that compromised of uninformed people and people who had it well under such system; usually of the higher caste. Socialists and communists brought down that system that was quite unfair. Communists took their revolution too far in trying to make everyone artificially equal and belived in a total nanny state; I am talking about mainstream communism aka statist communism, not to be mixed with communal living. Communism became oppressive and a bigger monster than the monster it fought to bring down; some times this happens.

Socialism as most comprehend the term means a mixed economy; both a private sector and public sector. It also includes a welfare state. In america we don't have socialism because all business belongs in the private sector. The welfare state can exist along side a capitalist economy.

Change is useful and some would say necessary. Not change for the sake of change, but meaningful change to uplift society and make it more functional. Some things can be easily improved upon and some can live the test of time longer. Ultimately everything changes though.



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


you say you dont play partisan politics but in every post you make , you bash conservatives or republicans at every turn.......

Go sell you b.s. somewhere else.......not buying it here.........

This forum is full of people who claim not to be on either side of the fence, but in their arguments they clearly take a stance, and continue to froth at the mouth at their counterparts.........

The fact that you slam free markets, and then tell everyone that they have no clue how economics work, and then try to uphold socialism with a clear history of how their economies work........is like a bad Saturday Night Live skit.........



Im done with this thread, there is no objectivity in it
edit on 20-1-2013 by ManBehindTheMask because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


you say you dont play partisan politics but in every post you make , you bash conservatives or republicans at every turn.......

Go sell you b.s. somewhere else.......not buying it here.........

This forum is full of people who claim not to be on either side of the fence, but in their arguments they clearly take a stance, and continue to froth at the mouth at their counterparts.........

The fact that you slam free markets, and then tell everyone that they have no clue how economics work, and then try to uphold socialism with a clear history of how their economies work........is like a bad Saturday Night Live skit.........



Im done with this thread, there is no objectivity in it
edit on 20-1-2013 by ManBehindTheMask because: (no reason given)


Of course I am partisan. I am simply not a democrat or republican. I am a mild left winger! I am not afraid to label myself like others.

Yes I slam free markets because they cannot work. I never stated that people have no clue how economics work! I said they spend too little time with economics and too much time with religion and gun rights.

Go read my previous posts before you get all butt hurt!



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 06:56 PM
link   
The Constitution of the United States in its conception allowed for slavery. the stealing of Indigenous lands and murder of those indigenous people who felt otherwise. Only Caucasian male land owners were, allowed to vote. Though in so far as fighting in war, clearly all concerned were expected to be involved. The Founding Fathers only offered Freedom to those who were like them


In other words the Taxation without Representation unless one happens to be a white while male and a land owner.

Otheriwse death to anyone who disagreed enough to be noticed.

Any thoughts?
edit on 20-1-2013 by Kashai because: added content



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by HopSkipJump
What is a patriot?

Patriot: supporter of own country: a proud supporter or defender of his or her country and its way of life.



An American Patriot supports and defends the Constitutional USA, not an illegal, unconstitutional government.



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Kashai
 


Although I do not agree with all of the negatives in your hypothesis, the fact is, our Constitution was created purposely with flexibility or the ability to make changes. These are called Amendments. As of now, there have been 27 changes or Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America.

None of the negatives you hypothesized, exist today. Fact, you can look it up.

Peace!! ID



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kashai
The Constitution of the United States in its conception allowed for slavery. the stealing of Indigenous lands and murder of those indigenous people who felt otherwise. Only Caucasian male land owners were, allowed to vote. Though in so far as fighting in war, clearly all concerned were expected to be involved. The Founding Fathers only offered Freedom to those who were like them


In other words the Taxation without Representation unless one happens to be a white while male and a land owner.

Otheriwse death to anyone who disagreed enough to be noticed.

Any thoughts?
edit on 20-1-2013 by Kashai because: added content


Wrong. The founders wanted to end slavery, but had to make a temporary compromise on the slavery issue in order to get the Constitution ratified by all the states. Provision was made for the end of slavery, and they just kicked that matter down the road a bit.

Read Washington's Farewell Address. He called for the urgent dealing with the slavery issue then, with the warning that it would be a far greater threat to the Republic later.

Also, provision was made in the Constitution, for changes to the other objections you raised.

As far as landowners being the only voters, that was a provision that was tied to taxation, since it was owners of real property who were footing the tax bills. They wanted people who had skin in the game to vote so people didn't learn to vote money for themselves from the treasury, a lesson they learned from the fall of the Roman Republic.



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by ItDepends
 


I understand that, but in relation to the original Constitution with its 10 Amendments in tact, the Trial of Tears, was Legal

I have read the entire thread and would cite this is relevant to the discussion.

Any thoughts?




edit on 20-1-2013 by Kashai because: modified content



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ItDepends
reply to post by Honor93
 


Huh?? Wha??? We don't have a constitution? Huh? WTF


EDIT: "overturn it" ?????? huh?? wha??? Didn't we just have an election? Huh? WTF


Peace!! ID
edit on 20-1-2013 by ItDepends because: added comment
oh puhleeez, that is not what i said and you know it


we do not have a Constitutional government as designed.
we do not have a Republican form of government as stipulated.
we do not have a government of the people, by the people, for the people

without any of the above, we have a DUTY to resolve it by whatever means necessary.



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by JuniorBeauchamp

Originally posted by HopSkipJump
What is a patriot?

Patriot: supporter of own country: a proud supporter or defender of his or her country and its way of life.



An American Patriot supports and defends the Constitutional USA, not an illegal, unconstitutional government.


So america is primarily for conservatives? Is this the bottom line? Because I see mostly conservatives parroting "constitution" and specifically the "second amendment" almost incessantly. No wonder puritanism is so strong in america, a nany state is looked down upon, john wayne is a hero and everyone should be friendly to jewish zionists.

And liberals are libtards who love change and hate the constitution. I guess if you are not a conservative then you hate america, are lazy, always on welfare, support hamas and iran, must be a closet communist, etc.

Yeah we get the stereotypes.


What about progressives though and the spusa? Why is everyone still stuck in the McCarthy era? No wonder brits quit this site. On one hand they hate guns and on other hand they can't stand right wing extremism. Luckely for you folks I support mild gun control though. But I guess I have to support no infringement at all to be a true american Gijoe hero; bazookas, grenade lanchers, tanks....hell even nukes!



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 07:42 PM
link   
Have you ever read the Constitution of the Former Soviet Union? Its really incredible and if it were no for the reality of the situation.

One could very well consider living their wonderful and an example of some kind of Utopia.


Constitutions are about aspirations and effectively they are subject to interpretations. The Constitution of the United States was originally created at a time when only while male landowners were acknowledged by the governments and scientists as having souls.

Any thoughts?
edit on 20-1-2013 by Kashai because: modified content



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Kashai
 


There is more to life than capitalism and communism.

There is also something called socialism!

The germans said they were socialists, the russians said they were socialists, but they HATED each other.

Clearly someone is lying!



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


I think no one likes extremists.

If I see you go to far left into another spectrum of fascism, you are a ##SNIPPED##
If I see you go too far right into another spectrum of fascism, you are a dumbass (sorry, not that colorful).

And it is NOT that the right defends the constitution, or that the left wants to change it. BOTH left and right honor our highest laws because, well, they are our highest laws.

The left is more prone to change though, because well, they are not traditional conservatives. That CAN be a good thing, within reason. The right is hard to change and well, with out open mindedness, that CAN be a bad thing.

This IS NOT about partisan BS. Our ideological tendancies can not be used to even address the issue at hand because it is about much more than that. AMERICANS whom are from every race, creed, ideological back round, and demographic are standing firm on their constitutional rights because EVERYONE likes their rights.

You would be hard pressed to find someone who will say "NAH, I dont like my rights, get rid of them".
Never going to happen.

Progressives look to expand civil liberties constantly, REAL progressives that is. Not fascist puppets of extremism under the guise of liberalism. They do not try to eliminate existing civil liberties.

Conservatives try not to even add any civil liberties because they like slow change and moderation. They do not set out to limit others though. The real conservatives that is, NOT the large government proponents (statists).

Dr. Ron Paul for example was a TRADITIONAL conservative. A real right winger. He was for smaller government, less public spending and strict adherence to the constitution. Why then would the supposed "left" endorse him?

BECAUSE HE MADE SENSE: That is why both sides did. We are not right wingers or leftists. Those are government made labels to classify us.

We are the SAME PEOPLE with conservative views and progressive views. That is all. Really we all make compromises and like a little from the "other side" every now and again.

In the end these divisions are what makes congress butt hurt over them not getting such and such people to vote the way they wanted. It has no bearing on our lives personally with each other.

WE ARE ALL AMERICANS. That much makes us a partial extended family. In a way it does. We can not lose sight of that.....OR house rules......

edit on 20-1-2013 by zedVSzardoz because: (no reason given)
edit on Sun Jan 20 2013 by DontTreadOnMe because: Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 08:00 PM
link   
There is more to life than any three perspectives actually as all three make it possible for Greed to be apparent.

One can search the DSM , there is really no psychosis, addressed in relation to the idea that a Psychosis can be related to greed.

Any thoughts?



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Kashai
 


ambition is not exactly a bad thing when counter weighed with other personality traits.

"greed" is not the single source of evil either. Sometimes ignorance is.. sometimes being too "correct" is...



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
oh puhleeez, that is not what i said and you know it


we do not have a Constitutional government as designed.
we do not have a Republican form of government as stipulated.
we do not have a government of the people, by the people, for the people

without any of the above, we have a DUTY to resolve it by whatever means necessary.


Ok, I'm sorry, I admit I was too sarcastic! But Honestly, puhleeeeeeeeeeeez, explain how you come to the conclusion that we do not operate as a Constitutional Government? Honestly?

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." — Preamble to the Constitution

Note the emphasis and underlined part(s).
And, furthermore:

The Constitution of the United States of America is the supreme law of the United States. Empowered with the sovereign authority of the people by the framers and the consent of the legislatures of the states, it is the source of all government powers, and also provides important limitations on the government that protect the fundamental rights of United States citizens.

Source - The Constitution of The United States of America

Look, I get it. You have greivances. You don't like what seems to be happening. You need to blame someone or something. However, stating things that are just not true, well, they need to be challenged.

Peace!! ID



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Kashai
 


I found this list of differences between the US constitution and the confederate constitution interesting. With the exception of slavery, which abomination was prohibited by neither north nor south, the south clearly had more problems with the original document than that one issue.

Note: no general welfare clause and requiring bills before congress to be related to ONE subject only.

www.newsinhistory.com...



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kashai
There is more to life than any three perspectives actually as all three make it possible for Greed to be apparent.

One can search the DSM , there is really no psychosis, addressed in relation to the idea that a Psychosis can be related to greed.

Any thoughts?


I think those who will never be able to spend the wealth they already have but can never get enough are no different than any drug junkie. Its an addiction just as harmful (to themselves and others) as heroin would be.

Bet you won't find that one in the DSM.



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
ahahahahahahahaha ... aren't you funny

well, since the government we have today is anything BUT a Constitutional or Republican form of government, or a government of the people, by the people, for the people, it then becomes the scripted duty of the people to overturn it and install a new one that suits their needs of the day.

really, you should read MORE than the Constitution, if you've even made it that far


It's not "republican" form of government


It's REPUBLIC, not "republican" sheeesh

We are a Democratic Republic. That has nothing, absolutely NOTHING to do with "democrat" or "republican". Those are political parties, not forms of government.

I get so, so, so tired of people not using terminology correctly and ending up distorting entire ideas (not IDEALS) because of it. If you are going to discuss something, use the proper terminology and use it correctly. This is one of the biggest problems. It's almost as bad as people thinking "Patriots do not secede" means that "patriots won't succeed". They are two very, VERY different things






top topics



 
21
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join