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: 9
11
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 23 2014 @ 10:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: gusdynamite
a reply to: thisguyrighthere

Thank you for that. Is it possible to be a liberal conservative?



Technically it is but the label doesnt mean much without context. All of these terms are sitting on sliders and could apply to anything at any percentage so while someone can be 'liberal conservative' the term has no value without an explanation.




posted on May, 23 2014 @ 10:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: thisguyrighthere

originally posted by: gusdynamite
a reply to: thisguyrighthere

Thank you for that. Is it possible to be a liberal conservative?



Technically it is but the label doesnt mean much without context. All of these terms are sitting on sliders and could apply to anything at any percentage so while someone can be 'liberal conservative' the term has no value without an explanation.


That's sort of why I asked the question. I see and hear Americans speaking of the terms and I honestly thought I knew what they meant and the more I read and listened, the more what you just said became apparent to me.

I specifically asked about 'liberal conservative' because I felt as though I fell into that category, but also to follow the discussion better.



posted on May, 23 2014 @ 11:00 AM
link   
a reply to: kruphix

Normally, I wouldn't call myself a liberal, but according to your definitions, I am!




1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.


And as a liberal, I am nothing of the things in the op:


against individual sovereignty and freedom. ... I see liberalism as a progressive agenda who's means of attaining a "better America" involve the introduction of legislation upon legislation until there are so many laws that people can hardly breathe without breaking the law or without being taxed.


I support individual sovereignty and freedom.
I support fewer laws in general, not more.

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



posted on May, 23 2014 @ 11:05 AM
link   
a reply to: gusdynamite

Lots of people like to pretend that these terms are absolute. As if red is always red.
They completely disregard not only the infinite shades of red but also genetic differences in rods and cones or environmental factors that brighten or darken or textures that reflect light in various ways so red is not always red.

For the sake of partisan expediency the terms are watered down to preschool level definitions and unfortunately even at such a base level people will still hold so much faith in a term as to justify hysterical violence, division and oppression.

I've learned that politics is not a game for anyone operating above a preschool level. It's just too bad that all the decisions made by these children affect the lives of the rest of us.

If the real world is a 64 color box of crayons politics is the basic 8 box handed out in kindergarten.
edit on 23-5-2014 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2014 @ 11:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

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



posted on May, 23 2014 @ 11:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic


Normally, I wouldn't call myself a liberal, but according to your definitions, I am!


Normally I don't call myself a Liberal either...but that doesn't stop others from calling me one


But I agree, by these general definitions, I am definitely a liberal as opposed to a conservative.



posted on May, 23 2014 @ 11:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

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


I'll just stick to "somma this, somma that" and not be defined by any political group, thanks. I HATE that people feel they have to label every god damned person as a "friend or foe" based on their political opinions. Mine range all over the place and I'm happy with that. The "sports team" mentality that comes with political labels is a HUGE part of what's wrong in this country today.



posted on May, 23 2014 @ 11:24 AM
link   
I wouldn't call my self a liberal...

But I am definitely a bleeding heart though



posted on May, 23 2014 @ 11:31 AM
link   
Its strange. Here in the UK, I'm pretty sure our Conservative party would be seen more on a par with your democrat party. They are currently the majority in a coalition government with Liberal Democrats. It was a Conservative government that established legal status for same sex marriage in the UK. There aren't too many extremes in UK politics. The 3 main parties, pretty much sing from the same song sheet. They've all been educated at the same schools and universities and the leaders are almost indistinguishable from one another.

I think that's why it can be a little confusing for us across the pond to get with the partisan rhetoric of American politics. Although I imagine its more interesting to have partisan slanging matches, I'm kind of glad we don't see the same rhetoric in the UK. It's easier to agree that they're all a bunch of self serving pigs feeding at the trof.



posted on May, 23 2014 @ 11:33 AM
link   
Labels are tricky. In some ways I am more right than Attila the Hun and on some issues I make Mother Teresa look like Rush Limbaugh.

All things considered....I totally embrace the "people like you" concepts and agendas. Whatever that is......



posted on May, 23 2014 @ 11:42 AM
link   
a reply to: smithjustinb


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

Than why blame the democrats for following their political ideals for bigger gov't and not the republicans for going against their political ideals?

So wouldn't it make more sense to spend your time in holding your own party accountable before trying to blame the other party or looking at the other parties issues or ideals?


The republicans tell their constituents what they want to hear than clearly do the opposite when it comes to action. So unless you care about having a 'R' in control than you are getting the same thing from both party.
1. bigger gov't
2. more taxes.
3. more corporate friendly regulations.
4. The only time regulations are un done is when they accidentally benefit the consumers such as the undoing of net neutrality . Under Bush Mike Powell as the FCC chairman started the initiative than went and worked directly for the telecom lobbyist and helped Obamas chairman Tom Wheeler to get it undone.



A former FCC chairman, by the way, Michael Powell, who held the job from 2001 to 2005, currently has Wheeler's old job as president and CEO of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association. See how that works?

It's the old revolving door between making scads of money lobbying for the industry and then for a short while pretending to "regulate" it while instead continuing to advocate for it.

www.computerworld.com...




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?

Stop wasting your time and making it worse for all of us by allowing yourself to be misdirected from the real issue.
edit on 29531America/ChicagoFri, 23 May 2014 12:29:37 -0500000000p3142 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2014 @ 12:04 PM
link   
a reply to: smithjustinb


By having young people pay for insurance that they don't need and aren't going to use, thats money going straight into the government's pocket.


That's just plain nonsensical. Why don't young people need insurance? Young people don't have accidents? They're immune to pathogens? They don't develop cancer or have diabetes?

Young people are less likely to suffer from a number of ailments which is why they're good for risk pools but pretending that young people don't need insurance is ignoring reality.

Where precisely do you come up with "thats money going straight into the government's pocket?" One of my bigger problems with the ACA is that the public option was killed so that the insurance lobby would let it pass. So instead of tax dollars going toward a publicly owned health insurance program, for those who couldn't afford private insurance premiums, we're subsidizing insurance premiums which is in fact, subsidizing the insurance companies. That's a bad thing but it's not "going into the government's pocket."



posted on May, 23 2014 @ 12:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck
a reply to: smithjustinb
Let's try this, if you''re really interested:

“I’m proud to say I’m a liberal”: How conservatives vulgarized a term — and why the left must reclaim it FDR and JFK proudly called themselves "liberal" -- but then the right made it a slur. Why it must be embraced again

Salon

And just because I like props (but bear in mind I am a Canadian liberal)...




Great post JC!!
I think it's mainly an American "thing" that somehow the word liberal = bad or a slur.
You honestly couldn't make it up.

Well said



posted on May, 23 2014 @ 12:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
Its strange. Here in the UK, I'm pretty sure our Conservative party would be seen more on a par with your democrat party.




The Tories are more like the Republicans to be fair, not the Democrats (at least that's kind of how we see them here) but ALL 3 main UK parties are far further left than either of the two parties in the US, so you're probably right on that.
Although technically we probably have 5 main parties now.
Our politics is neither as extreme, entrenched or "nasty" as it is in America.
Yes the Tories legalised gay marriage but that's kind of like UKIP doing a rally and packing out the stage with Ethnic minorities, it's mostly for show and to try and shake off the image and impression most people have of them, many of the backbenchers and core Tory voters did NOT want gay marriage legalised, yet I doubt any Lib-Dem or Labour member would bat an eyelid.

In fact the MAJORITY of Conservative MPs voted against gay marriage in parliament.


There's just no comparing US or UK politics.

The US is so far to the right of the rest of the west, that it's very hard to gauge

edit on 23/5/14 by blupblup because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2014 @ 12:22 PM
link   

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.

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.

"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.
edit on 2014-5-23 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2014 @ 12:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

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


I'll just stick to "somma this, somma that" and not be defined by any political group, thanks. I HATE that people feel they have to label every god damned person as a "friend or foe" based on their political opinions. Mine range all over the place and I'm happy with that. The "sports team" mentality that comes with political labels is a HUGE part of what's wrong in this country today.



Label or not, you express views and stances that are more Libertarian than anything else.



posted on May, 23 2014 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: smithjustinb

".....The Clean Water Act was passed by Nixon (a Republican) in 1972. en.wikipedia.org... - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com..."


just looked this up.....Nixon VETOED this act on oct. 17 1972...the DEMOCRATIC senate overturned the veto on oct 17 1972...the DEMOCRATIC house overturned the veto on oct 18 1972....and it instantly became law..........THIS IS WHY I DO NOT LISTEN TO REPUBLICANS....THEY FLAT OUT LIE

en.wikipedia.org... TO THE RIGHT ON THIS PAGE
edit on 23-5-2014 by jimmyx because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2014 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Yes, yes that is correct. Libertarians believe in Freedom.

Scary Freedom over Safe Rule any day of the week.



posted on May, 23 2014 @ 12:40 PM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Conservatives are a political party in Canada. But I don't think I made such classifications, never once claimed them mutually exclusive either. But, I'll agree, you can't have an intelligent discussion on the subject until you know what they are: flawed paradigms and fanatical thought blockers. It's unnerving how easily people are swayed by emotion when it comes to rationalizing corruption and the failures of man.

It's clear this thread isn't about discussion, it's feces flinging. The thing about a poo fight though, is both sides always win, and both sides end up covered in crap.



posted on May, 23 2014 @ 12:52 PM
link   
I`m a liberal socialist because...

-I`m a progressive, I want to see change in what is negative for the majority.

-I believe in individual human rights like sexual orientation and the choice of abortion.

-I want a more equal system of opportunities.
Even I made it, it doesn`t mean that the other who didn`t are 100% to blame. I`m not deluded by my victories to the point of saying it`s all because of me. Even if I worked for it, I had luck, some don`t.

-I don`t believe in getting reliable health care, education, civil law and power if the main objective is profit and not the welfare of the community.

-I don`t believe we will leave earth and explore other planets with a conservative mentality.
Earth in Star Trek is everything but capitalistic.

-I don`t believe in free capitalism.
Monopoly is inevitable : Might as well have pirates running the show right?

-Many conservative ideas seem, to me at least, apathetic to everyone other than close acquaintances.

I know some conservatives will agree on some of my points and yes, I do agree on a couple conservative ideas too!
I can`t name myself mediator and see only black or white.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join