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.

 

Liberal Bigotry

page: 24
45
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 01:16 PM
link   
a reply to: darkbake

I could be wrong, but I thought so-called "liberals" were against the federal (or state) government limiting personal freedoms. Nobody (who matters) in the US is trying to ban people from having opinions/beliefs. If people want to be afraid of gay marriage or offended that people are offended by fur coats, they have every right to be so, and nobody is trying to stop them.

To me it seems that liberals are simply trying to ensure freedom for all Americans. They only want to keep the government from preventing individuals right to be free to live their lives as they see fit.

Also: The confederate flag has not been banned.




posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

And there is the remedy to this.

Remove marriage from the license the state issues.

I mentioned it early on in this very thread and why they won't go for it - it removes their opportunity to control all of us.

It isn't about two people and their love - it's about money and power. Always has been. Their money, the money they perceive the churches to have that they think they have a right to, and, of course, the right to control everyone else's thoughts and beliefs.



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 01:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: neveroddoreven99
a reply to: Rocker2013

NO punishment for having opposing views? Seriously? Liberals cyber bully businesses and people all the time. Sure, there's no law again having a dissenting opinion... but if you haven't seen a pack of liberals turn on someone who doesn't share their viewpoint you must be blind.


Let me guess, so-called "Conservatives" want Big Brother to pass a law now that the "big bad scawwy wiberals" can't openly have dissenting opinions against opinions that go against American values? They might as well - it's clear for many of you fake conservatives that's what you want.



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 01:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

I'm a LOT nicer in person. Mostly because I avoid political and religious discussions.


Most of us would be. You generally do not discuss those things face to face, not anymore, because people cannot have reasoned discussions about them.



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 01:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Perhaps you would think it was more than "nice" if YOU or your family member were the one that had the pre-existing condition.

Would you prefer the folks with pre-existing conditions choose poverty as the only way to get healthcare and not die? Stay below the poverty level, not have more than the barest of savings in any account, constantly worry they would lose their coverage anyway due to political maneuverings or policy changes, have the loss of motivation and confidence that comes with knowing you are simply unable to pursue your life's goals and dreams? Is that freedom???

This is EXACTLY the "choice" people had prior to the ACA.

I do not think the law is perfect and am worried that our Congress will simply "do nothing" to fix things that could be fixed to make life better for everyone.

- AB


As someone in that boat who is still vehemently against the ACA, I call foul.

You learn to deal, and there were programs out there to help you. At least there were for me, even when I had no insurance at all for a period of years.



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 01:26 PM
link   
a reply to: dogstar23


Does being a conservative mean you automatically have to be against gay marriage? I guess there are a whole bunch of gay conservatives that are going to have to change themselves to meet your expectation....



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 01:27 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

wouldn't we just be playing with words here? I mean, first and foremost there has been marriages of all types around long before christianity came into play. It might have been called by another name but men and woman (or women) have been pairing up with the goal of starting families since the beginning of time. In some cultures, even man and man or woman and man were allowed to pair up! There's been different ceremonies, different customs, the christian religion does not have the trademark on the institution!



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 01:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: ketsuko

wouldn't we just be playing with words here? I mean, first and foremost there has been marriages of all types around long before christianity came into play. It might have been called by another name but men and woman (or women) have been pairing up with the goal of starting families since the beginning of time. In some cultures, even man and man or woman and man were allowed to pair up! There's been different ceremonies, different customs, the christian religion does not have the trademark on the institution!


No, it means that you get the legal privileges of the state from the state. You get a marriage from a spiritual institution. As there are plenty of those that will marry gays should they want the spiritual that should be no barrier, and since everyone recognizes that not just any house of worship will just marry any two people willy nilly, then there shouldn't be any issues with which ones will or won't marry this or that couple for whatever reason.

And the state simply signs off on a contract between two people who are uniting a household. For some couples, THAT is all it takes to call themselves married.

Everyone can have the union that suits them and they can define their marriage for themselves, and no one has to be compelled to act against their conscience or beliefs in order to everyone to have it.



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 01:34 PM
link   
True. I am friends with gays and lesbians who are gun-totin' free market capitalist conservatives.



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 01:34 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

religion has no trademark on marriage



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 01:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx
a reply to: ketsuko

religion has no trademark on marriage



Do you have an actual problem with the plan above or are you just spouting negative talking points?

You make it sound like I'm right. This is all about control of others, not finding a way that everyone can have what they want without forcing some go against their beliefs no matter which way it falls out.



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 01:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: ketsuko

What is anti-Libertarian is pushing gay marriage bans as legal. THAT is anti-Libertarian. As a Libertarian against gay marriage, your primary position from the beginning should have been to take marriage out of the hands of the state like greencmp always says. That just tells me you aren't a true Libertarian like you like to constantly accuse me of being.


And that's always been my position. Quote me from anywhere here where said otherwise. And don't use my previous post because I laid out my personal feelings, not my political ones. There is a difference. If we are talking law, then yes, the state needs to butt out because that preserves my personal feelings.


Just giving you a taste of your own medicine since you constantly like to call me not a Libertarian or question my political beliefs. You constantly conflict my position in a thread with my political beliefs. You did it indirectly when you responded to the other poster that prompted this response to you in the first place.

So how about for future reference, you don't question my political beliefs and I don't question yours?
edit on 30-6-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I don't want to derail this into an ACA discussion, because it is its own thing. That being said, I am firmly of the stance that the ACA is a move forward towards a more compassionate society. It is imperfect and it is not seemingly fair to many people - these are things the legislature, if they could muster some sense of competence, should be looking at sagely and working on. You may ask "where is the compassion for young people!" and to that I would say the ACA has allowed people through much of their 20's to be able to be on their parents insurance. That is one way it attempts to defray costs for younger, healthier people.

I get angry when people don't think the benefit to those who were left to die or be poor (on the taxpayers' dime) is worth it. They get angry if they think I don't see that it has negative effects for certain groups: believe me, I see both! It gets crazy, especially when you look at non-profit businesses who are tied to Medicaid payouts trying to deal with providing insurance to their workers, or having to cut back hours, and pay, due to the state's lack of medicaid expansion! Not cool. Not cool at all. I know someone who got a raise and is now unable to get medicaid and is trying to figure out how to afford insurance, due to falling through the cracks of our state's choice not to expand medicaid.

It is not a simple, black and white problem. Because it is complex, and ideology and philosophy are impacting what states make available to people, there are serious issues. A lot of the young people who are not making much money would fall nicely under the expanded medicaid and states that do not do that are causing a great deal of the negative perception on that end of the spectrum. I think there needs to be more of a sense of fairness for people who are making more money, so that they don't get overwhelmed by higher insurance costs - I've seen that outcome too.

Personally, I don't like the fact that the ACA has a negative impact on some people. I really don't. I would like to see it reevaluated for fairness and combed through to 1) keep the things that work, and 2) implement new things to take away problems, and 3) get rid of whatever isn't to the greater good.

So - there you have it. I apologize for sounding angry in my earlier post. I do get angry when I feel people are glossing over the fact that people's lives will be literally saved by this, including a lot of young people with congenital disorders who would have nowhere to go without the ACA, except poverty.

(There are over 500,000 adults - increases by about 20,000 per year - who have congenital heart defects. That does not include any other population with other defects. Add those into this the current statistics show about 85.6 million Americans are living with some form of cardiovascular disease or the after-effects of stroke. There are also 14,483,830 adult cancer survivors in the US today Link and approximately 39.6 percent of men and women will be diagnosed with some form of cancer during their lifetime Link. Granted, some people may have had both cancer and heart disease, and some are eligible for Medicare or Medicaid. Still, that is a LOT of people. All of these people can get insurance for their condition now due to the firm language and controls set in the ACA.

I understand that without knowing who in these groups are already on Medicare due to age, or Medicaid for other disability, or poverty, or whatever, I can't make an accurate comparison, but in raw numbers of sick folks compared to the age groups, its not that different. In fact, the number of people just with heart disease is slightly more than the total number of people in the entire US age group of 25-44 year olds!

Age statistics in the US per the Census:
18-24 year olds (can still be under parents insurance) = 27,143,454 or 9.6% of the population.
25-44 year olds (hardly all 'young people but that's how it breaks down) = 85,040,251 or 30.2% of the population)


You've clarified you think its a good thing pre-existing conditions cannot be denied insurance, while believing that the law has done more harm than good overall, due to the disproportionate numbers of people negatively affected, especially the younger (26-30) folks. I don't agree with that and see the prevalence of disease and potential for loss of insurance to be very high. If I've misstated your position, please clarify as that is not my intent. As to the ACA in general, the fine points of that discussion would have to be an entire thread of its own!

Anyway, now back to the regularly scheduled "evil liberal" thread!

AB


edit on 30-6-2015 by AboveBoard because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 01:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I don't want to derail this into an ACA discussion, because it is its own thing. That being said, I am firmly of the stance that the ACA is a move forward towards a more compassionate society.


Stop right there.

If we were a compassionate society, then we'd have no need of socialised medicine or Obamacare.

Having government mandate and dictate is not a sign of compassion nor is it a sign of civilisation.



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 01:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

And there is the remedy to this.

Remove marriage from the license the state issues.

I mentioned it early on in this very thread and why they won't go for it - it removes their opportunity to control all of us.

It isn't about two people and their love - it's about money and power. Always has been. Their money, the money they perceive the churches to have that they think they have a right to, and, of course, the right to control everyone else's thoughts and beliefs.



So if Christians can't own the institution of marriage, lets get rid of the legal benefits of marriage for everyone?

That's just sour grapes because gay people are now considered the same under the law. If this SCOTUS ruling hadn't have happened, no one would be pushing to end government-sanctioned marriage. Let's be honest here, the idea of taking marriage licenses out of the government's hands was never an idea until gay people tried to get the right to be married.



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard

The ACA will never stop being unfair until the government stops trying to simultaneously prop up the health insurance industry while making sure the public has health care. It just isn't possible. Thems the facts.



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 01:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: darkbake
What is the definition of a bigot?


noun
1.
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.


Liberals have that down these days. They go a step further than disagreeing with people with other opinions, and basically try to make those opinions illegal. It should be okay to be against abortion, to be against gay marriage, to like the confederate flag, to be in denial of climate change - these are all opinions that people should be allowed to have.


Not all opinions are equally valid.



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 02:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

And there is the remedy to this.

Remove marriage from the license the state issues.

I mentioned it early on in this very thread and why they won't go for it - it removes their opportunity to control all of us.

It isn't about two people and their love - it's about money and power. Always has been. Their money, the money they perceive the churches to have that they think they have a right to, and, of course, the right to control everyone else's thoughts and beliefs.



So if Christians can't own the institution of marriage, lets get rid of the legal benefits of marriage for everyone?

That's just sour grapes because gay people are now considered the same under the law. If this SCOTUS ruling hadn't have happened, no one would be pushing to end government-sanctioned marriage. Let's be honest here, the idea of taking marriage licenses out of the government's hands was never an idea until gay people tried to get the right to be married.


This is true, but is certainly a fair compromise instead of using the state to ban marriage for gay people altogether. Looking at the reasons why the state controls marriage in the first place, you'll see that the reasons are racist in origin anyways.



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 02:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: darkbake
What is the definition of a bigot?


noun
1.
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.


Liberals have that down these days. They go a step further than disagreeing with people with other opinions, and basically try to make those opinions illegal. It should be okay to be against abortion, to be against gay marriage, to like the confederate flag, to be in denial of climate change - these are all opinions that people should be allowed to have.


Not all opinions are equally valid.


Um . . . . well. . . . . . . that's your opinion. . . . .



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Oh dear. Well then. I guess we should all give up.




top topics



 
45
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join