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.

 

So... I'm a progressive... You can regress all you like.

page: 15
39
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2015 @ 01:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Ironhawke
Liberal means freely given, giving of plenty. What's wrong with that?


Not a goddamned thing, except for the fact that your statement is a sugar coated lie. Liberal, at least modern liberal, means "Freely taken, taking of plenty." If liberals only "freely gave" of what they themselves controlled, I'd have no issue with them. That's just philanthropy, which is damn cool... "Forced philanthropy", however, is simply theft.


A lie you say???

From Webster


Full Definition of LIBERAL

1
a : of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts
b archaic : of or befitting a man of free birth
2
a : marked by generosity : openhanded
b : given or provided in a generous and openhanded way
c : ample, full
3
obsolete : lacking moral restraint : licentious
4
: not literal or strict : loose
5
: broad-minded; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms
6
a : of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism
b capitalized : of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism; especially : of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives


www.merriam-webster.com...

There are several definitions, particularly note #2.

Now again, a lie?

Then in a political context take a look at #6, a & b. Sounds rahter more like modern day conservatives (and democrats) and libertarians.


edit on 15-4-2015 by FyreByrd because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 15 2015 @ 01:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

a reply to: beezzer

As a conservative libertarian I'm an equal opportunity offender..I piss off my Democrat and Republican friends by agreeing with things they both oppose in the others ideology. Taxes,Choice,Guns,Drugs,Wars..you name it.



posted on Apr, 15 2015 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

THis is another good summary.

If we can't take care of our own with what I already pay...then we can't afford something.

In my home when i can't afford something....i either cut it, or slash other elements in my budget.

Im already taxed. That is my contribution to governmental efforts to feed the needy. If it ain't enough...then cut something else.



posted on Apr, 15 2015 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: howmuch4another

Being a centrist is difficult. You make enemies in both camps.

A woman's right to choose? Heck yeah.
Higher minimum wage? Meh.
Death Penalty? That thing should have an express lane.
Guns? You bet.
Gay Marriage? All for it.
And a myriad other things put me on the "naughty" list of both sides. Frankly I don't care. I am who I am, I won't be labelled as liberal, or conservative. I am me. And that is enough.



posted on Apr, 15 2015 @ 01:44 PM
link   
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Are we related? LOL

You nailed it with your examples..I also get in trouble because my friends assume I am hawkish but I am more of a protectionist. I want voter ID laws but also all $$ out of politics and lobbyists to be driven off a cliff. I want social safety nets but not long term entitlement....and the band plays on.



posted on Apr, 15 2015 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: howmuch4another

God yes, the U.S. would be much better off if donations to political campaigns were limited. (I think 10,000 dollars would be a good start.) and all lobbyists were shot. (Okay not shot. Fired? Fired. Out of a cannon.)

Safety nets are important, but long-term welfare should only be for the disabled.



posted on Apr, 15 2015 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

yeah I officially approve of you being you.

my other pet peeves are foreign aid, corporate tax evasion and unions. I'm quite often the life of the party.



posted on Apr, 15 2015 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: howmuch4another




unions


Just interested why you are against Unions ...



posted on Apr, 15 2015 @ 02:26 PM
link   
a reply to: artistpoet

They've outgrown their purpose IMO. It's not just about working conditions anymore. They have become overly political, corrupt in their inside dealings and often transition the work ethic to the lowest common denominator. I think they have forced just as much work overseas as your standard corporate greed. Again just my opinions but I'm happy to answer.



posted on Apr, 15 2015 @ 02:46 PM
link   
a reply to: howmuch4another

Thanks for your response ...

I am from the UK by the way ...

For me Unions are a double edged sword ... If fair legislation were in place to protect workers all is good ... Alas look around the world at poorer countries ... slave labour to produce our luxury items ... so many out of work because so much is now imported from those poorer countries ... with the closure of Industry and the loss of a skilled workforce ...

It said that the Unions got too greedy ... and that may well be so ... but also that applies to many ruthless companies



posted on Apr, 15 2015 @ 02:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: howmuch4another
a reply to: Gryphon66

a reply to: beezzer

As a conservative libertarian I'm an equal opportunity offender..I piss off my Democrat and Republican friends by agreeing with things they both oppose in the others ideology. Taxes,Choice,Guns,Drugs,Wars..you name it.





Oh I do understand!

I'm for gay marriage
For legalisation
For lower taxes
For 2nd Amendment freedom

I'm against
Abortion
Big government
Medium government
Even small but dictatorial government
High taxes

I'm neither here nor there on unions, but they've become so politically motivated, that it's hard to see the benefits.



posted on Apr, 15 2015 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

So really no government? Everyone just kind of runs around and takes care of themselves? The neighbors all pitch in to fight a house fire? The neighborhood convenes a court to try a burglar, and someone volunteers to keep the records? No real consistency in any of this, because that would be a form of government? Everyone pitches in to pave the roads that they drive on, and if not enough people help out -- tough luck, your route doesn't get paved?
edit on 15-4-2015 by MystikMushroom because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2015 @ 02:52 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Cloward-Piven...

Honestly, the reason I am absolutely anti-progressives is because they are the ones who always seem the most concerned with getting their hands into my pockets and leaving me with nothing but unfulfilled promises of warm fuzzies, sunshine, and farts. When the working man has to budget around being able to afford a new tax or new policy, the nation has jumped the shark. I honestly wanted to list 92 million welfare receiving Americans as dependents on my 1040 this week because that's what they are... dependents, only they're dependents which provide zero benefit to my tax situation. YAY! Progress! Beat me with a flipping cast iron skillet, but if that's considered progress then all we're "progressing" down is the road to a dystopian hell.



posted on Apr, 15 2015 @ 02:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: beezzer

So really no government? Everyone just kind of runs around and takes care of themselves? The neighbors all pitch in to fight a house fire? The neighborhood convenes a court to try a burglar, and someone volunteers to keep the records?


It's sounds good on the surface, but a power vacuum always brings in a despot. Someone always has to come in and control the chaos. With a government of our choosing, we stop that from happening. With no government, we don't get to choose who takes the power.



posted on Apr, 15 2015 @ 02:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: beezzer

So really no government? Everyone just kind of runs around and takes care of themselves? The neighbors all pitch in to fight a house fire? The neighborhood convenes a court to try a burglar, and someone volunteers to keep the records? No real consistency in any of this, because that would be a form of government? Everyone pitches in to pave the roads that they drive on, and if not enough people help out -- tough luck, your route doesn't get paved?


REALLY? You just twisted his words completely. Do you not see the significant difference between "No BIG government" and "No government?" Every principle America was founded on has been strangled and raped by those bloated bastards in DC. Orwell was slightly off with his prediction of newspeak... they don't have to eliminate words, they just have to change the definition of them by constantly moving the goalposts used to make comparisons to ensure the people sit there quietly while our freedom is eroded.



posted on Apr, 15 2015 @ 02:57 PM
link   
Yay! No government, no organization, no structure, no society.

Humans wouldn't have gone to the Moon or made the advances in science they have without forms of government. Human beings revert to animal-like tendencies when governments and systems of law are removed from the equation.

Think Mad Max or The Walking Dead. Roving bands of gangs fighting each other for survival.



posted on Apr, 15 2015 @ 02:59 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

*sigh*

Some government is necessary. But I look at government as a necessary evil, like a prostate exam. Something you may need, but not something you celebrate or even look forward to.

The point is, give government an inch, they'll take a mile, another mile, your neighbors mile, and your grandchildrens mile just to make sure.

Government long ago stopped being for the people. Government now is for the government. It is the first actual self-propelled machine; existing only to make itself grow bigger.

Local governments are practical to a degree. They deal directly with the people they serve rather than sit above in some ivory tower.

If you want to defend government, embrace government, that is your right.

I look at government often with disgust.



posted on Apr, 15 2015 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

He also said 'no medium government' as well. I was trying to ascertain what, if any government he would approve of.

I hear a lot of people talking about no government, but I'm trying to actually picture it in my mind. I don't think we'd have self-driving cars or space probes to Pluto without governments. I don't think we'd have fMRI machines to diagnose cancers as quickly, or have sequenced the human genome without some form of organized set of rules for people to live by.

I mean, that's fine if someone wants to live in a cabin in the woods and trap/hunt for their own food. I just don't believe that everyone wants that, nor should be forced to accept that way of life. People choosing to shun society can do that, but forcing everyone to shun society is a lot less fair.



posted on Apr, 15 2015 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

If I said no big government, no medium government, no small and dictatorial government, what do you think is left?



posted on Apr, 15 2015 @ 03:04 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

See, and I agree with you about local government.

Personally I think America is to large as it is. I think America needs to be broken up in the several autonomous countries. The needs of someone in Georgia aren't anything like the needs of someone in Alaska. We're kidding ourselves if we think a centralized government can somehow effectively administer to these disparate geographical locations.

Local and state-level governments are much more responsive, nimble, and reflect the will of the people they serve.




top topics



 
39
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join