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.

 

Well, of course ATS has a lot of liberal members!

page: 11
24
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 12:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: stevieray

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: DanDanDat

We could go into philosophy here - depicting every kind act as selfish and the like, I mean a person feels good when they help someone else, right? We could also discuss how everything in this world is perspective, therefore every single detail of this world is only the vantage point of that one person and truth could not ultimately be known....

I don't follow that line of thinking, daily, though.

My personal beliefs concerning the life of others is that men are free agents. We have agency, we can make choices, we can choose the way we live. I suppose you could say my thoughts on this matter would influence my decision making because I believe in making as few laws as possible.

I never would have made a law supporting gay marriage because it's am obstruction of living a free life to have ever assumed that gay marriage was against the law, in my opinion. Letting freedom reign is making as few laws as possible. Laws should only be needed to ensure freedom is not obstructed.. As in, ending or harming a life for instance.


But I can’t accept that those who do think that a fetus is a person are being ignorant because they want to legislate the practices of abortion … that is EXACTLY what they should be doing.


They can make this personal decision for themeslves all day, every day, for the rest of their life.

Legislating my right to my body is none of their business.


. . . if your belief . . .


Don't need to go any further.

The majority of anti-abortionist are so because of religious BELIEF. Not science, not statistics, etc.

I am a major supporter of separation of church and state. Legislating my body because someone else BELIEVES it's morally wrong in God's eyes ---- not OK.

And don't pull the victim argument. The fetus is not a viable human, no matter how much some BELIEVE it is.

Your God does not legislate my body, nor any pregnancy I might have, nor the results of that pregnancy.

As you, I do have personal experience.

---------------------------------------------------

Back to Liberal.

Honestly, I think the majority of people are politically mixed. On ATS, there are a few stand outs that definitely lean one way or the other. But, I think most look at issues independently.


Your “Belief’ is that a “fetus is not a viable human”


That is not a belief.

That is a fact.

Let's get this straight.

Your beliefs are facts.

Others' beliefs are something less.

Got it.


Belief or lack there of has nothing to do with a fetus not being a viable human.

Until you can live and breath on your own without the host --- you are not a viable human.

That is plain fact.


edit on 4-2-2016 by Annee because: Spelling




posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 12:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: Annee

A lot of people argue that ethics and laws based on religious belief is not the same as a state sponsored religion. In a way, they are correct and I personally wish they would change the language of the amendment to include that legislation cannot be based on religious belief, but must have other proof, statistics, etc to back it.

I wouldn't even be bothered if legislation began from a religious view, but then had merit on its own and was found to benefit society.

That's not typically the case, though.


I've been watching the change, religion losing its "tight fisted control" all my life (that's near 70 years). They are not giving up control quietly or easily. But, they are on the losing side most of the time.

And I do understand both sides, as I was still Christian when Madalyn Murray O'Hair took her atheism to court, and won. It's only about the last 10 years I claim atheist.

There are very good people who believe in a God or higher power. IMO the majority have become more liberal in accepting the rights of individuals.

The "Christian Taliban" who want to turn this country into a theocracy through legislation --- yeah, well . . . .unprintable.

As a "woman of age" who lived prior to the Woman's Rights movement, anyone trying to legislate my body is going to bring the claws out.

------------------

In trying to stay closer to topic.

I think the majority of people in America (and on ATS) are socially liberal in accepting the rights of individuals.




1. There is no Christian Taliban. That's just an embarrassing term coined by people with no rational or honest material left to offer. There is no theocracy in America. That's a term coined by people who can't live up to even the slightest measure of decency, and view even the concept of decency as "fascist".

2. Some think THEIR rights are limitless. Even when it crosses into impinging on others' rights. Sorry...not true in the real world.

3. Your rights don't include ending the lives of others. Even others who happen to be gestating. Otherwise someone can just run around snuffing out people in comas and the like. Doesn't make sense now, won't in the future, never did.

4. "Privacy" doesn't allow for murder. Otherwise I can kill whoever I want to in the privacy of my home. What a sad, despicable concept.



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 12:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: stevieray

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: DanDanDat

We could go into philosophy here - depicting every kind act as selfish and the like, I mean a person feels good when they help someone else, right? We could also discuss how everything in this world is perspective, therefore every single detail of this world is only the vantage point of that one person and truth could not ultimately be known....

I don't follow that line of thinking, daily, though.

My personal beliefs concerning the life of others is that men are free agents. We have agency, we can make choices, we can choose the way we live. I suppose you could say my thoughts on this matter would influence my decision making because I believe in making as few laws as possible.

I never would have made a law supporting gay marriage because it's am obstruction of living a free life to have ever assumed that gay marriage was against the law, in my opinion. Letting freedom reign is making as few laws as possible. Laws should only be needed to ensure freedom is not obstructed.. As in, ending or harming a life for instance.


But I can’t accept that those who do think that a fetus is a person are being ignorant because they want to legislate the practices of abortion … that is EXACTLY what they should be doing.


They can make this personal decision for themeslves all day, every day, for the rest of their life.

Legislating my right to my body is none of their business.


. . . if your belief . . .


Don't need to go any further.

The majority of anti-abortionist are so because of religious BELIEF. Not science, not statistics, etc.

I am a major supporter of separation of church and state. Legislating my body because someone else BELIEVES it's morally wrong in God's eyes ---- not OK.

And don't pull the victim argument. The fetus is not a viable human, no matter how much some BELIEVE it is.

Your God does not legislate my body, nor any pregnancy I might have, nor the results of that pregnancy.

As you, I do have personal experience.

---------------------------------------------------

Back to Liberal.

Honestly, I think the majority of people are politically mixed. On ATS, there are a few stand outs that definitely lean one way or the other. But, I think most look at issues independently.


Your “Belief’ is that a “fetus is not a viable human”


That is not a belief.

That is a fact.

Let's get this straight.

Your beliefs are facts.

Others' beliefs are something less.

Got it.


Belief or lack there of has noting to do with a fetus not being a viable human.

Until you can live and breath on your own without the host --- you are not a viable human.

That is plain fact.

um, a fetus of a certain age can certainly survive by itself. What exactly are you talking about ?

So let's kill all the people hooked up to iron lungs, ventilators, and so on.

The concept fails for all lives.



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 12:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: stevieray

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: Annee

A lot of people argue that ethics and laws based on religious belief is not the same as a state sponsored religion. In a way, they are correct and I personally wish they would change the language of the amendment to include that legislation cannot be based on religious belief, but must have other proof, statistics, etc to back it.

I wouldn't even be bothered if legislation began from a religious view, but then had merit on its own and was found to benefit society.

That's not typically the case, though.


I've been watching the change, religion losing its "tight fisted control" all my life (that's near 70 years). They are not giving up control quietly or easily. But, they are on the losing side most of the time.

And I do understand both sides, as I was still Christian when Madalyn Murray O'Hair took her atheism to court, and won. It's only about the last 10 years I claim atheist.

There are very good people who believe in a God or higher power. IMO the majority have become more liberal in accepting the rights of individuals.

The "Christian Taliban" who want to turn this country into a theocracy through legislation --- yeah, well . . . .unprintable.

As a "woman of age" who lived prior to the Woman's Rights movement, anyone trying to legislate my body is going to bring the claws out.

------------------

In trying to stay closer to topic.

I think the majority of people in America (and on ATS) are socially liberal in accepting the rights of individuals.




1. There is no Christian Taliban.


Hence, it is in quotes.

Never said there was a theocracy in America. Did say some want America to be a theocracy. And that is fact.

Try reading comprehension.



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 12:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: stevieray

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: stevieray

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: DanDanDat

We could go into philosophy here - depicting every kind act as selfish and the like, I mean a person feels good when they help someone else, right? We could also discuss how everything in this world is perspective, therefore every single detail of this world is only the vantage point of that one person and truth could not ultimately be known....

I don't follow that line of thinking, daily, though.

My personal beliefs concerning the life of others is that men are free agents. We have agency, we can make choices, we can choose the way we live. I suppose you could say my thoughts on this matter would influence my decision making because I believe in making as few laws as possible.

I never would have made a law supporting gay marriage because it's am obstruction of living a free life to have ever assumed that gay marriage was against the law, in my opinion. Letting freedom reign is making as few laws as possible. Laws should only be needed to ensure freedom is not obstructed.. As in, ending or harming a life for instance.


But I can’t accept that those who do think that a fetus is a person are being ignorant because they want to legislate the practices of abortion … that is EXACTLY what they should be doing.


They can make this personal decision for themeslves all day, every day, for the rest of their life.

Legislating my right to my body is none of their business.


. . . if your belief . . .


Don't need to go any further.

The majority of anti-abortionist are so because of religious BELIEF. Not science, not statistics, etc.

I am a major supporter of separation of church and state. Legislating my body because someone else BELIEVES it's morally wrong in God's eyes ---- not OK.

And don't pull the victim argument. The fetus is not a viable human, no matter how much some BELIEVE it is.

Your God does not legislate my body, nor any pregnancy I might have, nor the results of that pregnancy.

As you, I do have personal experience.

---------------------------------------------------

Back to Liberal.

Honestly, I think the majority of people are politically mixed. On ATS, there are a few stand outs that definitely lean one way or the other. But, I think most look at issues independently.


Your “Belief’ is that a “fetus is not a viable human”


That is not a belief.

That is a fact.

Let's get this straight.

Your beliefs are facts.

Others' beliefs are something less.

Got it.


Belief or lack there of has noting to do with a fetus not being a viable human.

Until you can live and breath on your own without the host --- you are not a viable human.

That is plain fact.

um, a fetus of a certain age can certainly survive by itself. What exactly are you talking about ?

So let's kill all the people hooked up to iron lungs, ventilators, and so on.

The concept fails for all lives.


Definition: Fetus -- UNBORN offspring.

Once born, no longer a fetus.



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 01:03 PM
link   
Im a big ole liberal and Im voting TRUMP !



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 01:06 PM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope

Well put you bring up the people of all types of knowledge and belief, this as long as you're denying ignorance is as perfect as one can almost be. Very well done.



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 01:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Medicator
Im a big ole liberal and Im voting TRUMP !


Why?



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Medicator

Well, I am voting for him in the primaries for rep. candidate bc I want him up against Bernie. Bernie will win bc even republicans will vote for him, however, if he doesn't, I do not think Trump would be as bad as they say. Cruz would be dangerous but Trump, Trump will just be Trump.

I also am a big ole liberal



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 01:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: veracity
a reply to: Medicator

Well, I am voting for him in the primaries for rep. candidate bc I want him up against Bernie. Bernie will win bc even republicans will vote for him, however, if he doesn't, I do not think Trump would be as bad as they say. Cruz would be dangerous but Trump, Trump will just be Trump.

I also am a big ole liberal



I'm seeing Trump doing/saying whatever he can to get votes --- pretty much same as all politician --- just a bit more extreme.

He knows you have to get elected first.

I try to envision how serious he would take the position as president and what he would actually do once in power.



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 01:29 PM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope

Kids learn about drugs at a very early age. DARE goes/used to go from school to school teaching kids about drugs. Pictures, stories, etc. The only thing that kept me away from drugs is the fear of my parents finding out and what would happen to me if they did. As far as sex, I just used my head (no pun intended), and it always worked. Sex Ed didn't teach me anything that wasn't already common sense, at least to me anyways. I always wondered how someone could be stupid enough to leave it in once you know it's starting to erupt. My only fear was that my girl would hold me in there with her legs. Heh.



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 01:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: LSU0408
a reply to: deadlyhope

Yeah but the only thing comparable to alcohol is marijuana. And moonshine (the heavy hard hitting alcohol) is still prohibited.


Those aren't comparable at all actually. You can die from too much alcohol but not from MJ. Alcohol also becomes physically addictive and you can die from detox if your addiction is bad enough. Not with MJ.

They aren't even close to being comparable. Alcohol is far more dangerous and destructive than MJ.


Well, my point was that it's not harmful like the other drugs. It impairs you, however, and 6 nanograms of THC is the same as 0.08 BAC after drinking. That's why I would decriminalize it, but you don't want it to be something that people do and then go cruising around, unless you can handle it.



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 01:42 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Then you can tell me what you consider powerful and what you don't.

Unless things have changed, I'm pretty sure it's illegal to make moonshine in some states still.



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 01:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: LSU0408
a reply to: mOjOm

Good question. I didn't say it changed anything with traditional marriage. I said I would have given all 250, or however many it was, rights and benefits to those united under a civil union.


This is from your post:

Instead of changing definitions and all the things that belong to the joining or divorcing of a man and a woman, I would have implemented all of those benefits into civil unions.

But there are no other things and nothing about the concepts within marriage belongs to them either. It doesn't belong to anyone. It's an idea.

Other than that I get what you're saying. But this idea that something changed for everyone's marriages past or future when gays were included is a myth. Absolutely nothing changed other than the definition for them and even that part of the definition doesn't even apply to them or their marriage if they aren't gay.


"The General Accounting Office in 1997 released a list of 1,049 benefits and protections available to heterosexual married couples. These benefits range from federal benefits, such as survivor benefits through Social Security, sick leave to care for ailing partner, tax breaks, veterans benefits and insurance breaks. They also include things like family discounts, obtaining family insurance through your employer, visiting your spouse in the hospital and making medical decisions if your partner is unable to. Civil Unions protect some of these rights, but not all of them."

Some of those changed before all of this, but not all of them. I'm just saying I would have had those rights and benefits included with a civil union.



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 02:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: mOjOm

We all know it's a control issue. It's a "we deserve the title of marriage, but you don't", or sneaky way of saying, "you are less than us". Anyone who says that it has nothing to do with intolerance of gays is being disingenuous.


You got a rat in your pocket?

Your assumptions are always so ridiculously far off base, from race to sexual preference. I blame it on your unwarranted hate for white Conservative Christians.



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Cobaltic1978

I don't know. I don't ever look for stars and flags.



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 02:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: kaylaluv

Yes I know and there is no argument they can come up with that makes any sense to me and I've heard them all. Because it changed nothing at all. Yet some people claim everything from it destroying the sanctity of all straight marriage to destroying families or turning married men gay and women into lesbians or corrupting children to it being the cause of natural disasters and even Armageddon!!

Yet in reality, it changed nothing. Talk about delusional. Some folks are just too crazy to believe.


Damn.... I thought you were better than that. We were almost on the path of a handshake and a compromise of differences.



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 02:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: DBCowboy

This would be a very boring site if everyone just said "agree to disagree", don'tcha think?


Yeah, I suppose.

But in real life, that's what people do.


That's what I do with my relatives, because I have to be with them during visits/holidays, etc - or with my work colleagues because it makes it easier to work with them. But this site is for discussion and debate - that is one of the major reasons this site exists. Just sayin'...


That's one of the problems with discussion boards and everyone being online.

I am trying to debate as if we're face-to-face instead of sparring on the web. I'm trying to treat people as if we're discussing at a bar. It has "tempered" my remarks and responses to a degree, though I still fail spectacularly on occasion.


Funny. That's exactly how I debate/talk on here.



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 02:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Gryphon66

And that's why I respect this site having a thorough T&C agreement. It keeps this site from denigrating to you-tube-like comments. You-tube is not discussion and debate - it's just nothing but cussing people out and telling them to kill themselves.



Blegh. I think we can all agree that YouTube is full of idiots and trolls.



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 02:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Medicator
Im a big ole liberal and Im voting TRUMP !


I'm a far right Conservative and I am too. Looks like he's gonna be the one to unites America again. Other liberals and Conservatives will just have to relocate once he's elected.




top topics



 
24
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join