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.

 

Is Conservatism a Mental Illness?

page: 4
34
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2015 @ 08:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: beezzer

Republicans are progressive liberal socialists?


Many/most are.

Though I'd say they are spineless cowards and hypocrites.

They certainly aren't conservative.




posted on Aug, 2 2015 @ 08:59 PM
link   
Liberals = greater good

Conservatives = my good

The conservative mindset works exceptionally well in smaller communities where resources are gathered and consumed locally.

In a global economy, everyone becomes inextricably tied together. People that will never meet are now dependent upon one another to do their jobs so that a product can make it across the ocean and into your hands. If the slave laborers in China are dying of dysentery -- the Nike shoe shipment will be late. If the shipment is late, Bloomingdales will loose sale revenue. If Bloomingdales posts a loss, investors might flee and the department store might have to lay off employees.

We're all tied together now in ways we don't even realize. Wanting all of us to do better, be better helps raise us all and reach more of our potential.



posted on Aug, 2 2015 @ 09:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: artnut

They also didn't live in a global economy with television, radio, and the internet. Goods they bought were made locally for the most part, not in China and part of an integrated, multinational supply chain.

The world is now a global community, it's not even close to the same world Jefferson and Washington lived in. Why do we expect the same morals, values, and beliefs should be translatable into a world that isn't even remotely the same?



Clearly it is not the same world. I am of the opinion that they would still remain fairly conservative in their viewpoints if living today. How do you think they would feel about the amount of taxation going on? About the government encroaching on just about every part of daily life? How many times are you taxed by the time you walk out your front door in the morning? What do you think they would think about almost half our population on some sort of government assistance, much less government sponsored birth control?

Again, I know a lot of conservatives, some more so than others, but they are far from mentally ill.



posted on Aug, 2 2015 @ 09:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: beezzer

Republicans are progressive liberal socialists?

If this is true; describing extremes, how does one define a Democrat (as a red commie?). In this scenario I would put captive Big City zoo animals as write in candidates on the ballot.
edit on 2-8-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2015 @ 09:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Liquesence

If you're comfortable in your ideology, does it matter what someone else calls you?


No, I don't care at all. But if by being comfortable in my ideology I try to change things that negatively affects others by making them conform to mine (both right and left), then there is a problem.


Then you're in luck.

The liberal/socialist/progressives are running things.



And conservatives are trying to ruin things for people when it doesn't affect them at all. Why do conservatives seem to care so much about what other people do when it doesn't affect them?


If someone tries to kill someone else, I have no say in the matter, but on a moral basis, I try to step in because sometimes, it's the right thing to do.


So what about the whole, you know, gay marriage thing? That comes to mind.


When have I ever been against that?

Please show me where I said that I am against gay marriage.

I'll wait.


Never said you were.

But conservatives in general are up in arms against it, including most of the presidential candidates. That's the point.


Nope.

People object due to religious reasons.

And that crosses all ideologies.

If republican candidates want to pander to religious folks on both sides, it doesn't make it a conservative stance.

Unless you're suggesting that all conservatives are anti-gay Christians.


Regardless of ideological stances, a religious *belief* is not valid for blocking someone's right to something.

And the republicans, under the conservative banner, do just that. On a massive scale (see recent events regarding gay marriage).

To add: I'm not suggesting the *all* of any group, and i never did. I'm suggesting the majority. Hence, it wouldn't be such a popular opinion and supported as much...but the *majority* in the group.



posted on Aug, 2 2015 @ 09:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Liquesence

If you're comfortable in your ideology, does it matter what someone else calls you?


No, I don't care at all. But if by being comfortable in my ideology I try to change things that negatively affects others by making them conform to mine (both right and left), then there is a problem.


Then you're in luck.

The liberal/socialist/progressives are running things.



And conservatives are trying to ruin things for people when it doesn't affect them at all. Why do conservatives seem to care so much about what other people do when it doesn't affect them?


If someone tries to kill someone else, I have no say in the matter, but on a moral basis, I try to step in because sometimes, it's the right thing to do.


So what about the whole, you know, gay marriage thing? That comes to mind.


When have I ever been against that?

Please show me where I said that I am against gay marriage.

I'll wait.


Never said you were.

But conservatives in general are up in arms against it, including most of the presidential candidates. That's the point.


Nope.

People object due to religious reasons.

And that crosses all ideologies.

If republican candidates want to pander to religious folks on both sides, it doesn't make it a conservative stance.

Unless you're suggesting that all conservatives are anti-gay Christians.


Regardless of ideological stances, a religious *belief* is not valid for blocking someone's right to something.

And the republicans, under the conservative banner, do just that. On a massive scale (see recent events regarding gay marriage).

To add: I'm not suggesting the *all* of any group, and i never did. I'm suggesting the majority. Hence, it wouldn't be such a popular opinion and supported as much...but the *majority* in the group.


Really?

How do then explain that every minister, rabbi, imam, etc., in the world can deny marriage if they so choose?

It's easy - There is no "right" to marry. You only have a right to something that imposes no obligation on anyone else in order for you to have it. Right to your property. Right to defend yourself. Right to your life.

But in order to marry, you need the agreement of at least two other people.



posted on Aug, 2 2015 @ 09:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Liquesence

Again, I don't think you know as much about conservatives as you've been told.



posted on Aug, 2 2015 @ 09:14 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Great point, but this a stream line ticket to a one world government, one that will be demanded by the liberal movement. While conservatives will be chastised and corralled, singled out and shunned until they conform or are forced to submit their morals and values under threat of persecution... which is starting to happen now. I think it's hilarious that the OP has a "police state" pun for a logo... you fruits are the tyrants and you don't even realize it.



posted on Aug, 2 2015 @ 09:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Liquesence

Is it that the majority of educated people are or just the majority of educated people in academia?

I've not seen the numbers on the ones in the private sector.



Good point.

Maybe that speaks volumes in itself.

The question is...why?


Of course, this is all a really round about way to come to my point which is that at some stage in the game the process of give and take and dialogue between the brainstorming and the criteria/judging broke down. Someone decided it had to be my way or the highway or someone interpreted someone's refusal as that kind of thing. Now we are where we are and no one will listen.


I wonder who the main cheerleaders are regarding "my way or the highway."

I wonder who drew such a stark line in the sand, and continues to do so.

Yes, we are where are. But some are more willing to compromise while others are too adamant to compromise simply because it's a compromise. See the conservative congresspeople blocking essentially everything tooth and nail simply because it's a proposal by a democrat or a democrat is in the White house.

People used to work together, even across party lines. Now, the party line is the point at which we will never concede or compromise, and during the last 8 years conservatives are largely to blame. They either fail to work with the Democrats or they propose such outlandish and off the wall things that the democrats work with it. Why is that? And what happened?

The loons took over, that's what happened. Conservatives are so far right they're almost off the map.

That's what sad.



posted on Aug, 2 2015 @ 09:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Liquesence

Again, I don't think you know as much about conservatives as you've been told.



I know what I see. Daily. On a massive scale.

And I also know my entire family is rabid conservative.

Hence, I know what I see, not what people tell me.



posted on Aug, 2 2015 @ 09:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: artnut

Our founding fathers were quite "liberal" for their day and age. They were very forward-thinking and progressive compared to their contemporaries. They would have been considered "liberal" in their day by the establishment.


Our Founders were liberal in a sense, but in what people today consider a conserve-libertarian (some call it Classical Liberalism to distinguish it from the modern brand). They had just come out of a time when their previous government taxed everything, quartered troops in their private dwellings by force, subjected them to searches on a whim and would seize private property (also on a whim) and many other things that led to the passage of the Bill of Rights that modern liberalism is working to hard to destroy under the auspices of the 14th Amendment - Equality for All.

So we are heading back to some of the very things Classical Liberals hated, fought a rebellion against, and tried their best to bar using the COTUS, and you think they'd side with modern liberals?



posted on Aug, 2 2015 @ 09:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Liquesence

Again, I don't think you know as much about conservatives as you've been told.



I know what I see. Daily. On a massive scale.

And I also know my entire family is rabid conservative.

Hence, I know what I see, not what people tell me.


I could tell you about some of the things I see from liberals, daily, on a massive scale too. Do you know why I ask if people are going to be there marching me and mine to the trains someday? It's prompted by what I see from them.



posted on Aug, 2 2015 @ 09:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Liquesence

If you're comfortable in your ideology, does it matter what someone else calls you?


No, I don't care at all. But if by being comfortable in my ideology I try to change things that negatively affects others by making them conform to mine (both right and left), then there is a problem.


Then you're in luck.

The liberal/socialist/progressives are running things.



And conservatives are trying to ruin things for people when it doesn't affect them at all. Why do conservatives seem to care so much about what other people do when it doesn't affect them?


If someone tries to kill someone else, I have no say in the matter, but on a moral basis, I try to step in because sometimes, it's the right thing to do.


So what about the whole, you know, gay marriage thing? That comes to mind.


When have I ever been against that?

Please show me where I said that I am against gay marriage.

I'll wait.


Never said you were.

But conservatives in general are up in arms against it, including most of the presidential candidates. That's the point.


Nope.

People object due to religious reasons.

And that crosses all ideologies.

If republican candidates want to pander to religious folks on both sides, it doesn't make it a conservative stance.

Unless you're suggesting that all conservatives are anti-gay Christians.


Regardless of ideological stances, a religious *belief* is not valid for blocking someone's right to something.

And the republicans, under the conservative banner, do just that. On a massive scale (see recent events regarding gay marriage).

To add: I'm not suggesting the *all* of any group, and i never did. I'm suggesting the majority. Hence, it wouldn't be such a popular opinion and supported as much...but the *majority* in the group.


Really?

How do then explain that every minister, rabbi, imam, etc., in the world can deny marriage if they so choose?

It's easy - There is no "right" to marry. You only have a right to something that imposes no obligation on anyone else in order for you to have it. Right to your property. Right to defend yourself. Right to your life.

But in order to marry, you need the agreement of at least two other people.


And no one is forcing them to marry people.

But it's largely the religious who are trying to prevent them to marry and be recognized as married, even by the state.

They have a *right* for equality under the law. They have the right to legal marriage and recognition by the state. No one is forcing pastors and priests to marry gays. Stop derailing the issue.

And who is largely to blame? Not liberals.



posted on Aug, 2 2015 @ 09:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Liquesence

Again, I don't think you know as much about conservatives as you've been told.



I know what I see. Daily. On a massive scale.

And I also know my entire family is rabid conservative.

Hence, I know what I see, not what people tell me.


I could tell you about some of the things I see from liberals, daily, on a massive scale too. Do you know why I ask if people are going to be there marching me and mine to the trains someday? It's prompted by what I see from them.


Oh yes, the whole "marching to the trains for a free ride to the Hillary camps." Get real.
Good night.



posted on Aug, 2 2015 @ 09:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: rexsblues
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Great point, but this a stream line ticket to a one world government, one that will be demanded by the liberal movement. While conservatives will be chastised and corralled, singled out and shunned until they conform or are forced to submit their morals and values under threat of persecution... which is starting to happen now. I think it's hilarious that the OP has a "police state" pun for a logo... you fruits are the tyrants and you don't even realize it.

Van Jones; (Obama whisperer) has this idea "lets tell the people it is OK to NOT PAY your mortgage" and break the banks.



posted on Aug, 2 2015 @ 09:32 PM
link   
a reply to: rexsblues

I really don't understand all the hate a one world government gets. If we are ever going to get off this rock and colonize the solar system and beyond, we're going to have be a lot more organized. If we meet aliens species, we're going to be referred to as "Human" not "American" or "French".

We went from having tribes of a few families, to towns with even more, to cities with millions of people all working together to keep everything moving in a positive direction. The natural progression is this on a global scale.

Any species that becomes sufficiently advanced will take on the task of running things globally. Just because there's a one world governing body doesn't mean that things like individual responsibility, the autonomy of the individual, and cultural uniqueness would be destroyed.

I think it's a scare tactic, a means of fear mongering to make people assume that things like cultural heritage would be stripped under a one world government.
edit on 2-8-2015 by MystikMushroom because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2015 @ 09:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Liquesence

Again, I don't think you know as much about conservatives as you've been told.



I know what I see. Daily. On a massive scale.

And I also know my entire family is rabid conservative.

Hence, I know what I see, not what people tell me.


I could tell you about some of the things I see from liberals, daily, on a massive scale too. Do you know why I ask if people are going to be there marching me and mine to the trains someday? It's prompted by what I see from them.


Oh yes, the whole "marching to the trains for a free ride to the Hillary camps." Get real.
Good night.

Hilary would figure out how to profit on this one.



posted on Aug, 2 2015 @ 09:35 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

They were intellectuals, and revered things like science. You are trying to estimate how they would act if you transported them into today.

You need to be thinking how they would react if they were RAISED into today's world.



posted on Aug, 2 2015 @ 09:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Liquesence

That implies you think it was all our fault.

When I wrote what I wrote. I didn't lay blame. You did, so what does that say? I know what my leanings are and you have been plain about yours.



posted on Aug, 2 2015 @ 09:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Liquesence

It's hard to derail something you keep bringing up.

I brought up the worries that are behind the issue, and you keep dodging those to keep making it solely about blocking gays from marrying which isn't the issue as a couple of us have pointed out before.

Either address the real issue or stop bringing up the strawman.



new topics




 
34
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join