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: 9
45
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 01:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Rocker2013

Who said I'm upset not everyone agrees with me?

I only said that you were the one who characterized the opinions of others as "ignorant" and "stupid" which is the very definition of bigotry. You then went on to remark on how those people should get punished for society for not holding views like everyone else's. That is approving of them being punished for not thinking like everyone else (and like you).

History has some examples of societies that did this. Eventually, they work around to eating their own, which means that eventually YOU might get bit by your own groupthink culture for stepping out of line. Also, just because the majority holds an opinion doesn't always make it the right one or the best one. It used to be that McDonald's was everyone's favorite place to eat, but that didn't make McDonald's good for you. And lastly, if everyone thinks the same and no one dares to think outside the box, Society stagnates. So consider carefully what happens when you don't allow others to hold differing points of view without denigrating them for it.

Also, if you only allow yourself to approve of opinions that are widely held by the majority of people in society it says that you are easily led. You look at what everyone else does and thinks before you form your own opinion, and I say that loosely. This makes you easy to manipulate and lead because you have little practice thinking and doing for yourself against the grain. You would be easy to lead with the Big Lie propaganda technique for instance.




posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

No i dont, look at the voting record facts on Democrat voting record percentages as compared to Republicans you can split hairs on "where" they voted from but the numbers dont lie........





The original House version:[20]

Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)
Cloture in the Senate:[21]

Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)
The Senate version:[20]

Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:[20]

Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)




“The degree of Republican support for the two bills actually exceeded the degree of Democratic support, and it’s also fair to say that Republicans took leading roles in both measures, even though they had far fewer seats, and thus less power, at the time,” PolitiFact said in a 2010 analysis of the GOP role in civil rights.






Not sure what this is supposed to be bragging about... Plus, in 2008 the DNC ran a woman and a black man while the GOP ran a bunch of old white men.


because the accusation was that its become a party of racists and war on women......and yet.......looks like its evolving......



edit on 6/29/2015 by ManBehindTheMask because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 01:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: NavyDoc

Did you read the article?

They used various stimuli to see how they reacted. Pictures that illicited fear lit up different portions of self-described conservatives. In self-described liberals, other areas of their brains lit up in response to scary/gross images.

So we have two groups of stanch believers in two camps. An overwhelming number in each camps brain responded the same as their peers when presented with certain stimuli.

Liberals had pre-frontal cortex activty.

Conservative group had amgydala activity.

This is not "correlation equals causation". We have definite proof that people with conservative beliefs process images using different brain regions.


Just to add--you realize that the prefrontal cortex regulates emotion so by this "study" it would demonstrate that liberals are more emotional and thus ruled by their emotions rather than reason, right?

A highly active prefrontal cortex is linked to depression and emotional lability.



The depressed individuals who showed the steepest decrease in depression severity over the 6-month period were the same individuals who showed the most rapid increases in activity in Brodmann area 10 and the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex activity when regulating negative affect over the same time frame. This relationship was more robust when using only the baseline and end-point data.


Real link to NIH study



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

I believe you have highlighted a major difference between the two groups.



Conservatives? Stop telling gay folks they can't get married. They can.


That it true. They we're trying to tell people they could not get married.



Liberals? Stop trying to tell religious people how to practice their faith.


Here's the difference. I haven't seen liberals trying to tell people how to practice their faith. They were asking you to keep your religion to yourself and stop injecting it in to the government that is supposed to be separated from religion.

Major difference.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Seems like you missed this:


The Republican Party had a progressive element, typified in the early 20th century by Theodore Roosevelt in the 1907–1912 period (Roosevelt was more conservative at other points), Senator Robert M. La Follette, Sr. and his sons in Wisconsin (from about 1900 to 1946), and western leaders such as Senator Hiram Johnson in California, Senator George W. Norris in Nebraska, Senator Bronson M. Cutting in New Mexico, Congresswoman Jeannette Rankin in Montana, and Senator William Borah in Idaho. They were generally progressive in domestic policy, supported unions,[16] and supported much of the New Deal, but were isolationist in foreign policy.[17] This element died out by the 1940s. Outside Congress, of the leaders who supported Theodore Roosevelt in 1912, most opposed the New Deal.[18]

Starting in the 1930s a number of Northeastern Republicans took liberal positions regarding labor unions, spending and New Deal policies. They included Mayor Fiorello La Guardia in New York City, Governor Thomas E. Dewey of New York,[19] Governor Earl Warren of California, Senator Clifford P. Case of New Jersey, Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr. of Massachusetts, Senator Prescott Bush of Connecticut (father and grandfather of the two Bush presidents), Senator Jacob K. Javits of New York, Governor William Scranton of Pennsylvania, and Governor George W. Romney of Michigan.[20] The most notable of them all was Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller of New York.[21] They generally advocated a free-market, but with some level of regulation. Rockefeller required employable welfare recipients to take available jobs or job training.[22]

While the media sometimes called them "Rockefeller Republicans", the liberal Republicans never formed an organized movement or caucus, and lacked a recognized leader. They promoted economic growth and high state and federal spending, while accepting high taxes and much liberal legislation, with the proviso they could administer it more efficiently. They opposed the Democratic big city machines while welcoming support from labor unions and big business alike. Religion and social issues were not high on their agenda. In foreign policy they were internationalists, throwing their support to Dwight D. Eisenhower over the conservative leader Robert A. Taft in 1952. They were often called the "Eastern Establishment" by conservatives such as Barry Goldwater.[23]

The Goldwater conservatives fought this establishment from 1960,[24] defeated it in 1964, and eventually retired most of its members, although some became Democrats like Senator Charles Goodell and Mayor John Lindsay in New York.[25] President Richard Nixon adopted many of their positions, especially regarding health care, welfare spending, environmentalism and support for the arts and humanities.[26] After Congressman John B. Anderson of Illinois bolted the party in 1980 and ran as an independent against Reagan, the liberal GOP element faded away. Their old strongholds in the Northeast are now mostly held by Democrats.[23][27]


Wikipedia



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Here's the problem:

For many liberals, it's easy to look at someone, discover they have faith, find a bill proposal they oppose, and find a reason to link faith to it, so they can then claim that the only reason the measure exists is due to religion. Then the meme is "shoving religion down my throat." If the GOP advances it, so much the better.

For example, there are sound, non-religious reason to limit abortion practices. I can make a Constitutional case for it without bringing up religion at all. I'm sure several of the libertarians here can. But that won't matter, the response is ALWAYS anti-religious in nature without arguing the other points.

It's ridiculous really.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 01:25 PM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Splitting hairs on their region was my ENTIRE point. I notice you didn't give a breakdown by region.

Were Republicans really the party of civil rights in the 1960s?


Of course, it was also Democrats who helped usher the bill through the House, Senate, and ultimately a Democratic president who signed it into law. The bill wouldn't have passed without the support of Majority Leader Mike Mansfield of Montana, a Democrat. Majority Whip Hubert Humphrey, who basically split the Democratic party in two with his 1948 Democratic National Convention speech calling for equal rights for all, kept tabs on individual members to ensure the bill had the numbers to overcome the filibuster.

Put another way, party affiliation seems to be somewhat predictive, but something seems to be missing. So, what factor did best predicting voting?

You don't need to know too much history to understand that the South from the civil war to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 tended to be opposed to minority rights. This factor was separate from party identification or ideology. We can easily control for this variable by breaking up the voting by those states that were part of the confederacy and those that were not.

1964 Civil Rights Act Senate Version Ayes
Union Confederacy
House 281 of 313 (90%) 8 of 102 (8%)
Senate 72 of 78 (92%) 1 of 22 (5%)

You can see that geography was far more predictive of voting coalitions on the Civil Rights than party affiliation. What linked Dirksen and Mansfield was the fact that they weren't from the south. In fact, 90% of members of Congress from states (or territories) that were part of the Union voted in favor of the act, while less than 10% of members of Congress from the old Confederate states voted for it. This 80pt difference between regions is far greater than the 15pt difference between parties.

But what happens when we control for both party affiliation and region? As Sean Trende noted earlier this year, "sometimes relationships become apparent only after you control for other factors".

1964 Civil Rights Act Senate Version Ayes
Dem/Union GOP/Union Dem/Confederacy GOP/Confederacy
House 144 of 152 (95%) 137 of 161 (85%) 8 of 91 (9%) 0 of 11 (0%)
Senate 45 of 46 (98%) 27 of 32 (84%) 1 of 21 (5%) 0 of 1 (0%)

In this case, it becomes clear that Democrats in the north and the south were more likely to vote for the bill than Republicans in the north and south respectively. This difference in both houses is statistically significant with over 95% confidence. It just so happened southerners made up a larger percentage of the Democratic than Republican caucus, which created the initial impression than Republicans were more in favor of the act.


So as you can see, the North/South divide was a CLEAR indicator of the division here (and it really DOES turn out that the Democrats were still more likely to have voted for this bill).



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 01:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

Oh, yes, the ban alcohol folks.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 01:26 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Exactly! I mean I know Rush and the FOX bobble-heads and Glen Beck probably stopped sobbing long enough to say that the evil libruls were comin to raid their churches with the gays... but people wouldn't just mindless believe that right? I'm sure they looked for proof. I'm sure someone will come along any second with some...



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 01:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

Still republicans............are we splitting hairs again in order to try and make it sound like they were democrats?

The vast majority of the Republicans and GOP championed the Civil Rights movement, while the majority of the Democrats did not......

The assertion was that the Republican party and the GOP are racist bigots......

Clearly history shows that they are NOT including the present presidential candidates........


edit on 6/29/2015 by ManBehindTheMask because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 01:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: introvert

Here's the problem:

For many liberals, it's easy to look at someone, discover they have faith, find a bill proposal they oppose, and find a reason to link faith to it, so they can then claim that the only reason the measure exists is due to religion. Then the meme is "shoving religion down my throat." If the GOP advances it, so much the better.


There is no argument against gay marriage that ISN'T religious in nature.


For example, there are sound, non-religious reason to limit abortion practices. I can make a Constitutional case for it without bringing up religion at all. I'm sure several of the libertarians here can. But that won't matter, the response is ALWAYS anti-religious in nature without arguing the other points.

It's ridiculous really.


Not really, there are WAY more sound non-religious arguments in favor of abortion than against. Plus a Libertarian, being a person who is against government intervention, should be against abortion bans.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 01:28 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

...

the
point
was

the parties have switched ideologies a few times.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 01:28 PM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Yes and at the time the republican party was largely... LIBERAL.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 01:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Yes and at the time the republican party was largely... LIBERAL.


And yet the Racist GOP at present has more diversity in their candidates then they have ever had, and even more so than the Democrats........

The allegation that the GOP and conservatives are racist bigots holds no water
edit on 6/29/2015 by ManBehindTheMask because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

No one ever said the entire GOP was racist nor all Conservatives.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 01:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Why? I am for upholding a person's unalienable rights, including the most basic one - right to life. If you allow a person to arbitrarily end the life of another on a sheer matter of convenience, then that most basic right means nothing and why would any of the others?

And don't tell me there is no life there. The DNA is human, and at some point there is a human inside the mother. It doesn't just "magically" occur the moment you exit.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 01:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: introvert

Here's the problem:

For many liberals, it's easy to look at someone, discover they have faith, find a bill proposal they oppose, and find a reason to link faith to it, so they can then claim that the only reason the measure exists is due to religion. Then the meme is "shoving religion down my throat." If the GOP advances it, so much the better.


Citation?


For example, there are sound, non-religious reason to limit abortion practices. I can make a Constitutional case for it without bringing up religion at all. I'm sure several of the libertarians here can. But that won't matter, the response is ALWAYS anti-religious in nature without arguing the other points.

It's ridiculous really.



Please do so.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 01:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I didnt give a break down by region because it doesnt matter......

The point is they WERE REPUBLICAN

again the alegations leveled were that the Republican party and the GOP are traditionally racist bigots.....

HISTORY proves otherwise, you can split hairs all day long on who was voting from where, but the percentage is clear.....

You can try and justify it however you want, it doesnt change it



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 01:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

No one ever said the entire GOP was racist nor all Conservatives.


Then you havent been reading the thread



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 01:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Why? I am for upholding a person's unalienable rights, including the most basic one - right to life. If you allow a person to arbitrarily end the life of another on a sheer matter of convenience, then that most basic right means nothing and why would any of the others?


There is more to this discussion than just a mass of cells' right to life.


And don't tell me there is no life there. The DNA is human, and at some point there is a human inside the mother. It doesn't just "magically" occur the moment you exit.



That is why it is usually frowned upon to have abortions in the third trimester.



new topics

top topics



 
45
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join