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.

 

Why are you a liberal?

page: 13
11
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 24 2014 @ 11:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero



So who pays the taxes to run the government if 51% of the work force is being paid for by taxes?

The English, who don't get all the free goodies the Scots do. Maybe they should think about this before their rush for independence.




posted on May, 24 2014 @ 11:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

I think the evidence shows that WW3 will be an economic one. Old ways die hard and dependence on fossil energy by China and Russia will not go down without taking us all.

Another reason I am a liberal. I support any energy except fossils. We need to evolve.



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 12:03 PM
link   
Has any liberal ever herd of the term Republic, such as The United States of America? This where a conservative like Romney can have Romneycare for his State, voted by the people of his State and be perfectly inline with a Republic and Obamacare as a federal mandate (democracy) that goes totally against what America is all about.

Liberals want to turn our great Republic into a Democracy, and many say what is so wrong with that? The wrong part is if I do not want Romneycare I can move to another State, but if I do not want Obamacare where do I move to?

You can take this example and apply it to any other scenario of a Republic and Democracy...



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 12:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

But - I am not a child - and I have some genuine concerns about economic disparity

As do many, many adults the world over these days

Whenever I hear people get their panties in a bunch over wealth redistribution - I know they don't have a real argument - they just like the anti-socialist cartoon. It's something they understand. It always sounds smarter than it really is to say you're against it

Reset? For who?


edit on 5/24/2014 by Spiramirabilis because: Punctuation - sometimes I get it



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 12:14 PM
link   
a reply to: woodwardjnr

Absolute nonsense that's just a myth perpetuated by the UK media, including taxes from our oil we pay more tax per person than any other part of the UK. If you take the oil revenue out of the equation then yes Scotland pays less per person but it's our oil and we are the people who built and developed this industry so why shouldn't we get more.

Fact Check

We are the poorest oil producing nation in the world and in an independent Scotland more of that money will be taken away from the oil giants and into the hands of the people.

Site



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 12:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

I agree that in America it's a completely different scenario but the problem is socialism is demonised as evil and communist but Europe has proved that's not the case. Universal healthcare should be mandatory to every country because nobody should be financially ruined just because they had an injury but you are right it should be on a state to state basis.
It just takes 1 state to start free healthcare and the benefits it will provide to the economy and the rest will follow suit, yes you have to pay higher taxes but you will have a healthier state and more people able to work which will lessen the burden over time. The NHS is 1 of the best institutions we have and another reason why we in Scotland want to break away as the tories are ready to privatise it.



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 12:38 PM
link   
I am a liberal because I am:

anti war

anti police state

anti theocratic law dominating our lives - this includes being pro choice and pro minority rights for groups like LGBTs.

pro a basic guaranteed quality of life and health care that is not provided under current capitalist systems

pro gun control because my fellow Americans have proven they are not responsible with them

Liberals in office today do not display much of the above, but when I look at conservatives in office and their pundits in the media I can safely say I am not one of them nor will I ever be.
edit on 24-5-2014 by Frith because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 12:38 PM
link   
What the true definition of Liberal boils down to is that they want to be provided for. Conservatives would like to help themselves without unnecessary assistance from their government.

So which side are you on?



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 12:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: mclarenmp4
a reply to: Xtrozero


So stick to your old 19th & 20th centuries ideals of as long as me & my family are ok then screw the rest of you because we are never going to come together as a species until we get rid of this selfish mindset.


You didn't understand my point, so I'll make it simpler.

if you have 5 people (Scotland) and 2 generate taxes for all, and those 2 have a good job then all of it works. I'm a single income earner in a family of 4 and I have a good income and I pay all the taxes and life is good for me too.

Now lets say you have 310 people and 90 generate taxes but not all can have good jobs so 50% do not pay taxes or can not pay very much, so that 15% better generate a lot to overcome what is needed for your utopian world. This is why I say your style works well in small countries, but bigger countries put a much bigger burden on a much smaller percent of the population due to just the nature of what a big population tends to be.

When you see countries reaching 50 million you start to see this scenario take form of where the Government needs more money than what is possible even with high taxes, so as I said enjoy your utopia, but it will change down the road.

You are much like a small well off city like Napa CA not understanding why LA can't be just like them...


edit on 24-5-2014 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 01:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: mrdeadfolx
What the true definition of Liberal boils down to is that they want to be provided for. Conservatives would like to help themselves without unnecessary assistance from their government.

So which side are you on?


Then why are red states not providing more tax income to the federal government compared to how much welfare they receive from the federal government?



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 01:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: Xtrozero

But - I am not a child - and I have some genuine concerns about economic disparity

As do many, many adults the world over these days

Whenever I hear people get their panties in a bunch over wealth redistribution - I know they don't have a real argument - they just like the anti-socialist cartoon. It's something they understand. It always sounds smarter than it really is to say you're against it

Reset? For who?



Reset for anyone who have something to lose, something they worked hard for....

If you think only children have a gamer reset mentality you are very mistaken. That mentality starts when a person finds the real world tough after a childhood's life of "everyone's a winner" no matter how well or poor one does. People need to take the responsibility of their own life into their own hands and not worry about the Jones or what they do.



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: mclarenmp4

I agree that in America it's a completely different scenario but the problem is socialism is demonised as evil and communist but Europe has proved that's not the case.


Anything can appear be to working over a short term. Socialism assumes that a group of people can predict the future 100 %and tell everyone exactly what to do.

The closest humanity can come to predicting the future is to limit the prediction to the very near future. In a free market economy, the price system does that, this is a very, very important idea. The price system tells everyone how much of any resource there is, and what people are willing to do today. Any other political system assumes knowledge that it does not have.

Right now the west is coasting on the gains made by the industrial revolution 150 years ago. Its all about keeping things the same, when it should be about making things better.




edit on 24-5-2014 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 01:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

Has any liberal ever herd of the term Republic, such as The United States of America? This where a conservative like Romney can have Romneycare for his State, voted by the people of his State and be perfectly inline with a Republic and Obamacare as a federal mandate (democracy) that goes totally against what America is all about.

Liberals want to turn our great Republic into a Democracy, and many say what is so wrong with that? The wrong part is if I do not want Romneycare I can move to another State, but if I do not want Obamacare where do I move to?

You can take this example and apply it to any other scenario of a Republic and Democracy...



Liberal's lead the fight against king George during our revolution, the status quo folks were called Tories. The very act of rebelling and the declaration of independence and the constitution are all liberal in nature.

There are many lists of the good liberals have done for our country, lets have a list of what good conservatives have done for our country.....
edit on 24-5-2014 by LDragonFire because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 01:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

No I get your point but you are using your statistics on unemployment against ours and just because half our population are public sector workers they are still paying taxes, it's only the working poor and students that don't pay taxes.
We are also an immigrant country because as you pointed out we have a low birth rate per populace so we do need immigration but we also need to tighten up our immigration policies as they are currently too open but we should allow immigration when there are shortages in the local job market.
As a republic you can implement these types of policies but it needs to be done on a state by state basis, as I said previously universal healthcare should be mandatory in a civilised country but the united states are very unique.



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 01:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: LDragonFire

originally posted by: mrdeadfolx
What the true definition of Liberal boils down to is that they want to be provided for. Conservatives would like to help themselves without unnecessary assistance from their government.

So which side are you on?


Then why are red states not providing more tax income to the federal government compared to how much welfare they receive from the federal government?


why would they do that when they have successfully fooled the public into thinking otherwise?



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 01:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Frith
I am a liberal because I am:




pro gun control because my fellow Americans have proven they are not responsible with them



Isn't this just a piece of the whole ideal that our fellow Americans can not be responsible in anything, so we need big daddy Government to control it all like if everyone was 5 years old?

On a personal level, could you be responsible with guns if you had them? Or would you also be totally ill responsible around anything that shoots or is sharp?

I also think an over reaching Government has a much better chance for a police state, so be careful what you wish/vole for, you just might get what you really do not want.



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 01:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: Semicollegiate

I think the evidence shows that WW3 will be an economic one. Old ways die hard and dependence on fossil energy by China and Russia will not go down without taking us all.

Another reason I am a liberal. I support any energy except fossils. We need to evolve.


A very acute economic crisis could appear to be the reason, but the reason that the economy got so bad in first place was the government's supporters and manipulators.

The fastest way to a new energy source is to remove all restrictions on selling energy. Then everyone with free time has an incentive to discover and develop new energy ways.



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 01:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

I wouldn't call over 50 years "short term" and the system worked until capatalism got it's greedy hands and started protecting big business over the needs of the people. Thatcher was the 1st to start the downfall and Cameron is fulfilling the next stage with the under selling of the royal mail which lost us billions to brown doing the same with the gold. Next up is the NHS.
This is why we in Scotland are going to break away from the union because we are no longer represented in Westminster.
We as a nation haven't voted Tory for over 20 years but we keep getting them forced on us and Tony Blair was just Tory lite, that's why UKIP are making ground in the UK but when they run on a domestic agenda it'll be interesting to see what their manifesto will be as they are all old Tories.



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 01:30 PM
link   
a reply to: LDragonFire

The very act of rebelling and the declaration of independence and the constitution are all liberal in nature.


That incorrect application of a pretty good definition leads to a false assessment of the Founding Fathers. the Founding Fathers were rebelling to keep things the same, not to change. Keeping things the same is the definition of conservatism.

The philosophy of the age was liberal, and the colonies were already liberal, but the revolution was conservative.

In a liberal system, the liberals are conservatives.



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 01:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: LDragonFire


Liberal's lead the fight against king George during our revolution, the status quo folks were called Tories. The very act of rebelling and the declaration of independence and the constitution are all liberal in nature.

There are many lists of the good liberals have done for our country, lets have a list of what good conservatives have done for our country.....


Oh how liberals have changed, I agree with you, but I don't think our forefathers would agree with the liberal ideals of today. Don't miss match the meaning of a word based on what it once represented. Case in point, President Kennedy would be considered a conservative today.
edit on 24-5-2014 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)







 
11
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join