It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Why are you a liberal?

page: 10
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in


posted on May, 23 2014 @ 12:57 PM
After wading through nine pages of this crap, I think I may have an answer for you regarding why people choose a political party, it deflects responsibility, creates an automatic scapegoat in the other side, and is much easier than actually doing something.

posted on May, 23 2014 @ 01:06 PM
I just can't see why anyone would identify with either of the two parties. Republican or Democrat, or the general terms of a liberal or a conservative.

The parties platforms are a mess and embarrassing. For me liberal and conservative aren't nouns but descriptive words.

I'm liberal on more issues than not but find myself getting more conservative as I get older. Very conservative on some issues.

Conservative as a noun is really a code word for--Christian. Not always but if I polled 100 people on ATS, I bet 90% of those that said they were conservative would also say they were Christian.

posted on May, 23 2014 @ 01:13 PM
a reply to: JaspersCheese

Pretty much....

People feel safe in groups. Unfortunately the two party system(while somewhat effective at keeping extremism from both sides in check) does not work as intended.

NOBODY is 100% liberal or 100% conservative. If you are a logical, thoughtful person, you will surely agree with some things liberals and some things conservative.

I think the majority of hardcore liberals/conservatives just love to argue and cause drama. If they agreed with the other side sometimes there would be no drama, and they would feel dead inside.

We need to get rid of the 2 party system and vote for people based on who that person really is, and not how much money they are able to raise.

posted on May, 23 2014 @ 01:22 PM

originally posted by: charles1952
a reply to: FyreByrd

Dear FyreByrd,

Thank you, and thank you again. That is an example of the polarization I mentioned, and I'm glad you put it up. Is it too much to hope that the posters will help me identify a "Grand Unified Principle" that tends to separate those two groups?

I really don't much care if the Republicans or Democrats continually live up to their beliefs, especially in a town driven by bargaining and compromise. Besides, bills usually have more than one issue so that it's hard to tell what anyone was voting for or against.

Have you got a clue as to what the "GUP" might be?

With respect,

I don't think you will find a "Grand Unified Principle" in this matter because the terms used mean different things to different people and none of us, one hopes, are consistant in our 'liberal/conservative' thinking over various domains and scopes.

As I think of the term liberal, as in economic neo-liberalism, I am not a liberal; however, most would identify me as such and my tendencies are quite socially progressive on most issues. I do find myself somewhat classicaly conservative, 'as in to conserve', in fiscal and legal matters and many would not see that either.

One way to look at the liberal/conservative divide that helps me is a concept from Rudolf Steiner. There are two streams/flows of evil one (the Lucerferic) which pulls us to the future, what is new and 'shiney' and says only the future can save us; the other stream (the Ahrimanic) pulls us back to the past, what is familiar and comfortable and say that going by going back can we be saved. Neither is the answer - and the goal of mankind, both individually and collectively is to find balance in those two streams and by that means does evolution/progress happen. The buddist middle way shall we say.

I've just recently come across a new idea that I'm quite excited about - a new meme perhaps. That of the Social Immune System.

I see a measure of such a "Social Immuen System" as being an abundance of moderates with only a small set of outliers (the good old Bell Curve).

edit on 23-5-2014 by FyreByrd because: spelling

posted on May, 23 2014 @ 01:58 PM
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Yes, but abolishing slavery could be described as a Liberal or progressive amendment. The Conservatives in both South and North wanted to keep it, or at least wait for it to wither on the vine. Was abolishing slavery oppressive?


Slavery was a convenient excuse to expand the power of the oligarchs. Lincoln decided to start the war because of the South's intention to remove itself from the Union tax base. The Emancipation Proclamation was directed against the belligerents only. States loyal to the Union kept their slaves until the end of the war in 1865. By that time the North ruled the South as a conqueror, and the central government had

  • Suspended the constitution on its own illegitimate and illegal authority
  • Instituted the first income tax
  • instituted deficit spending
  • instituted the draft
  • assumed a monopoly over money, state banks were abolished
  • raised the tariff 100%
  • printed fiat currency
  • killed 360,000 able bodied Americans. 3% of the male population.

Ending slavery with a civil war is like saving hostages by carpet bombing.

posted on May, 23 2014 @ 02:06 PM
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

But the Founding Fathers were somewhat hypocritical in that they didn't free the slaves.

Would you have freed your slaves?

The Founding Fathers represented their states, they did not command their states.

posted on May, 23 2014 @ 02:41 PM
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Please remember that the position of the Parties has changed a great deal over the years - I would not describe Lincoln as being in any way Conservative!

You have an impressive knowledge of history.

Lincoln was a collectivist and a railroad lawyer. Apparently Lincoln was a hired gun for the oligarchs. He started the transcontinental railroad as a government project which pored millions of graft dollars into the Credit Mobilier corporation, and granted the oligarchs control over thousands of miles.

Lincoln was a railroad lawyer

Lincoln was paid $4800 for one case. At that time the highest paid lawyer in America was William Webster with an income of $20,000

posted on May, 23 2014 @ 02:48 PM
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

I'm not claiming that insurance companies exist to pass out free puppies and buckets of sunshine. But I am saying that insurance is necessary in this highly dangerous world.

Could not the same be said of cars or any safety equipment? An once of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Shouldn't all types of safety equipment be mandatory to own and use? Shouldn't an official healthful diet be enforced?

If I have to pay for your insurance I want to know that you are being as careful as possible.

posted on May, 23 2014 @ 03:05 PM
a reply to: gusdynamite

Liberal is supposed to mean "guided by reason". The original liberalism is now known as classical liberalism, which is minimal government--maximum freedom.

The modern term liberal was stolen from the classical liberals by collectivists who defined freedom as freedom from want.

When reading history, the term liberal could have either meaning. Until the 1850's or so, liberal meant libertarian, more or less.

Conservative means resistant to change. A conservative today would be in favor of big government, because that is what we have right now.

posted on May, 23 2014 @ 03:11 PM
a reply to: Euphem

I'm not convinced that it keeps extremism at bay even slightly. I would argue that it facilitates it, creates it, and encourages it. If people beliefs were that of informed individuals, the groups would be far more diverse in content and numbers and far less extreme, save for those who love chaos creation. People are more concerned with what they believe is right as opposed to what is truly "right." Things like the benefits of health care and the safeties of gun control are mutilated into opinion and emotional bias by the system. People who buy and tow the party line are restricting their options before they even start to understand what those options may be.

The idea of health care being afforded to all is of fundamental benefit to all humanity, to twist it one way or another because you don't like your neighbour or you don't think you should have to pay for his health, is ridiculous when you spend billions on death and secrecy. To deny your neighbour a doctor when ill is tantamount to murder in my eyes and is a paradigm of unjustifiable fear and greed. Call it what it is: distrust of the system, not conflicting ideologies.

We need an entirely new system, the democracy that is placed so high it can't be touch has been scorched by the rays of corruption and greed. It's a pile of ashes on a pedestal so high we can't see what it has become.

posted on May, 23 2014 @ 03:21 PM
a reply to: JaspersCheese

The reason I said it keeps extremism somewhat in check was not in reference to the general population, but to politicians in positions of power. People in positions of power are going to think what they want regardless of whether or not they belong to a specific party. While I agree that it enhances extremism in the general population, that was not where I was focused. It could be argued either way that it only enhances extremism and I wouldn't be completely opposed to that idea.

My main point was just like you are saying, we need a new system.

posted on May, 23 2014 @ 03:41 PM
a reply to: Euphem

I see what you mean, I would add though that it's not entirely the party system that keeps those in power in check, fear of the potential of the masses is their dominant controller. Those in power merely walk a tightrope of reaction that is swayed by the winds of opinion. Their only goal is to stay on the rope as long as possible to reap the most personal benefit available to them and theirs. The party system to them is a control mechanism and probability calculator for potential reactive action of those who truly hold the power: we the people. Which, I suppose in and of itself, does restrict extremist action from those who have the button at their fingertips. We're in agreement.

posted on May, 23 2014 @ 03:52 PM

originally posted by: theantediluvian

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

You are a Libertarian then, not a Liberal as defined by today's standards.

No. The Libertarian Party (that's what Libertarian with a big "L" implies though there aren't many American libertarians who aren't also Libertarians) is about a lot more than just liberty and smaller government.

Most Americans with a libertarian soul don't vote and are not libertarian party members. The Libertarian party is a bit stigmatized by the anti-philosophical nature of the MSM, the state education system, and the oligarch influenced culture at large. 22% of the country leans libertarian but only 1% of the voters vote for libertarian party

Here's a thread I made discussing (trashing, whatever!) some of the LP's stated policy positions:

Taking a Closer Look at the Libertarian Party's Website

Here's some of the ridiculous quotes from the LP's website:

"Governments, unlike private businesses, are unaccountable for such damage done to our environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection."

Yeah. Private industry has a solid track record of making superfund sites all over the place. Sell that crap to somebody who doesn't live in NJ. The LP doesn't seek to make government accountable but rather, to make private industry completely unaccountable.

Actually the government made the cartelist companies that dumped all that pollution, and the government had no problem with the pollution until nongovernmental citizen action was applied. Also, without government intrusion, those large companies would not have existed, and several smaller and more dispersed companies that would have been more sensitive to their communities and would have provided a more versatile product would have been.

"We should repeal all government policies that increase health costs and decrease the availability of medical services. For example, every state has laws that mandate coverage of specific disabilities and diseases."

What they're saying is that insurance companies should be able to drop sick people and deny coverage for those with preexisting conditions.

Since Medicare started hospitalization cost have increased in relation to the amount fiat money pumped into the medical industry by the government. Previously any major medical service done by a hospital could have been paid for at a reasonable cost, over time, something like the cost of a car. Also doctors and hospitals used to perform 25% of their services gratis, until the illegal's immigrants completely saturated that.

Without Medicare, (which people expecting it and needing it should get) an appendectomy would still cost $1000 or less instead of $1500 to 113,000 (avg $33,000)

The economic and political forces that have made health care more expensive are now using that expense as leverage to gain even more control over everyone.

Understanding the economy is the only true path to political freedom.
edit on 23-5-2014 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-5-2014 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-5-2014 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 23 2014 @ 03:57 PM
I'm not really a true believer in either side, but I am far more pissed off at conservatives than at liberals. Since Reagan and especially Bush they have just totally sucked.

posted on May, 23 2014 @ 04:37 PM

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: ScientiaFortisDefendit

Your little propaganda graphic contains many lies, my friend. This is called 'revisionist history'. Do some homework.

Please. Elucidate your protest? Which of those things didn't conservatives fight against?

Let's elucidate the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that you claim a victory for on behalf of democrats:

Keep in mind that the votes are displayed (yea/nay).

Look at the percentages, what do you see?

The original House version:
Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)

Cloture in the Senate:
Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version:
Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:
Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)

I'll tell you what you see - you see much more support for the bill from Republicans than you do for Democrats and much more opposition from democrats, yet you claim it a victory for yourselves. Why is that?

Revisionist history.

Oh, but you are going to tell me that MORE democrats voted in favor than did Republicans. You are going to use that old liberal trick, the same way you use it for claiming that rich people pay no taxes.

Look at the percentage split. We won't even talk about the numbers from the southern democrats. Those are downright embarrassing.

edit on 23-5-2014 by ScientiaFortisDefendit because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 23 2014 @ 04:46 PM
a reply to: ScientiaFortisDefendit

The original House version:
Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)

Please forgive my ignorance, but can someone explain the numbers associated with each party? What does 152-96 (61-39%) represent?

posted on May, 23 2014 @ 05:11 PM
thank you for joining in our friends from across the pond. The sad fact of the matter is that the majority of americans, like our op, have little knowledge of history, including our own, and very little understanding of politics or the events going on today, even in the very places they live. I must admit that most people from other countries that I meet know more about American history, politics and politicians than our own people do. In truth, this is not completely their fault. Our system is set up to be as confusing and opaque as possible in order to keep both groups separated from and incensed with each other so they are not focusing on what our ONE actual party is doing, which is selling us all out to corporations. Sadly, they are not only doing this to us, their own citizens, they are also doing this to the rest of the world. It seems to me that the US system as an extremely effective machine for funneling money from the citizens to the people who sit in congress, and to funnel the money and resources of the rest of the world to them as well, through wars, austerity, and the WB and IMF. You will find that americans are allowed to vote, but only to somewhat directly effect things like a states official language, or gay marriage, or, nothing that has any effect upon corporate profit or out extension of American power and influence around the world....such as wars, taxes, subsidies to the rich, or the poor (those benefit the rich as well).

Its all a big joke, a game, and now they seem to have grown so powerful that they don't even need to obscure it, as they can act with impunity against their citizens, as well as being free from any court reprisals for criminal actions. Both parties do exactly the same on those issues....they expand wars, regardless of their promises, they expand taxes, the force services upon us (yes, like ACA) which directly benefit corporations, and not citizens, they bail out banks, and destabilize nations all over the world so we can steal their resources.....all untouchable by our votes. Sadly, the majority of americans are completely blind to this, and cling to one party or another, claiming that their group will bring "change". I'd have to admire their expertise if I didn't despise the whole system so much, for what it is doing to us, to you, and to the rest of the world. And yes.....even our democratic party is so far to the "RIGHT" of what the rest of the world considers right wing nut jobs, that no other systems are remotely comparable....most americans have no clue what a liberal is, other than someone to blame for their problems.

The funniest thing for me is this!! even MSNBC, CNN, and NPR only cover official government views (right wing views) of such things as Palestine, the war in Iraq, the Russian altercation with Georgia (the only news you ever heard was Russia invaded Georgia), our INVASION (its never called that) of Libya and murder of Qaddafi, and the current affair with Russia in Ukraine.....and yet everyone claims there is this dominating subversive liberal media!! I haven't heard a truly liberal idea on TV since Ron Paul ran! they even confuse a corporate shill like Obama, who supports war, supports freedom of companies like Monsanto, Bayer, etc over the rights of the citizens, and supports restricting our rights, penalizing whistleblowers in a more draconian fashion than any group since McCarthyism, as a liberal! Regardless of how he may be portrayed to you, he is far more right wing than any of your current leaders.

posted on May, 23 2014 @ 05:50 PM

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: kruphix

OP, I think you have a very skewed idea of what being a liberal means... Wonder where you got that? LOL

Only from the people who call themselves, "liberal" that are consistently behaving in totalitarian ways and ruining this country.

posted on May, 23 2014 @ 05:57 PM

originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: smithjustinb

Than why switch from republicans to democrats if they are both doing the same thing?

The democratic ideology doesn't correspond to mine. The republican ideology does.

posted on May, 23 2014 @ 06:01 PM

originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: smithjustinb

So do you actually think that Democrats are the issue and not the billions of dollars that is passed through the hands of our officials by the industries they are suppose to keep an eye on , and the blatant revolving door policies between Big Business and gov't?

There are many issues. The ideology of the currently elected democrats is the main one, to me.

top topics

<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in