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: 3
24
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 11:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: yeahright

originally posted by: Annee
One example: atheist threads used to get shut down. Equal Rights was fought for. And now I think we have it.


I can tell you for certain, threads were never shut down because they were 'atheist threads'. But that's a whole other kettle of Mulligatawny soup.


OK

I will accept the words of the moderator.




posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 11:59 AM
link   
If ATS is too liberal for anyone, I recommend they go to godlikeproductions, the pro-Trump, anti Muslim rhetoric over there has become perpetual & rather disturbing.



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 11:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: yeahright
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I remember when we were a hotbed of conspiracy theories, UFO and alien topics, and Bigfoot sightings. Or as I like to say, the good old days.





Well, when I joined, I did so because of the political discussions... I wasn't a conspiracy theorist, or interested in UFOs, aliens or Bigfoot. But I call them the good old days, too!
Can we go back??? Please??? LOL



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 12:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: DanDanDat

You bring up a good point - Observing all data and coming to a conclusion is definitely what I advocate.

The priest is great in his own beliefs. He has that right, that freedom.

However, I would call a law-maker ignorant to pass laws rejecting the freedom of gay marriage, based on the opinion of said scholar. Why? It's against our constitution, and I have to assume that those men have great enough minds to have had great ideas - In fact, I see the evidence of those great ideas all around me.


I would have to disagree; I think it would be ignorant of me to believe that any law-maker could possible divorce themselves from their beliefs; even if those beliefs come from a religious stand point.

I am vote for or against him because I agree or disagree with his beliefs; but I wouldn’t call him ignorant because he has a particular belief.

That’s how a “healthy” democracy works; a bunch of people with different opinions get in a room together and decided collectivity what set of laws they could all agree to follow. It’s not a place where some people are deigned entry because the rest of the people think they are too “Ignorant”. A constitution (or similar tool) is just the rule book the group agreed to follow at some point; and if they so decide they can change those rules when they want.

As for our constitution; it doesn’t have a single word about Gay Marriage in it. There for any inference that it speaks to Gay Marriage is just an interpretation. People with in our collective will have different interpretations and the majority will rule.



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 12:03 PM
link   
a reply to: deadlyhope

Ancient Aliens on the History channel brought me here. I wanted to know why you only heard one side of the story on the tv show and never got any other perspectives. Now I accept that AAT is likely not true, and at the very least, HIGHLY embellished.



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 12:04 PM
link   
It's pretty balanced in terms of overall numbers but the extreme polarisation means there's not much room for actual discussion or idea sharing.

You're either a rape enabling, society destroying liberal or an evil racist nazi depending on who's doing the disagreeing.

It would be cool if things could just be debated on a point by point basis instead of having to constantly be designated teams. There are some of us that lean more to one side than the other but still see validity in some of the ideas of the other side.



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 12:04 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

a different opinion is not ignorant but these are...(as OP posted)

Anti-gay discrimination.
Minority discrimination.
Racism/Bigotry
Infringement of privacy concerning health, sexual relations/preference, religion.
State-sponsored religion.
Disagreeing with separation of church and state
Denying beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt scientific evidence.



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 12:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: DanDanDat
As for our constitution; it doesn’t have a single word about Gay Marriage in it. There for any inference that it speaks to Gay Marriage is just an interpretation.


The constitution doesn't have a single word about marriage in it at all, gay or otherwise. It just talks about how laws will apply to ALL citizens equally. Marriage is a law and gay people are citizens. Pretty simple.



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 12:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: MagnaCarta2015
It's pretty balanced in terms of overall numbers but the extreme polarisation means there's not much room for actual discussion or idea sharing.

You're either a rape enabling, society destroying liberal or an evil racist nazi depending on who's doing the disagreeing.

It would be cool if things could just be debated on a point by point basis instead of having to constantly be designated teams. There are some of us that lean more to one side than the other but still see validity in some of the ideas of the other side.


Well said. I've found myself wishing this many times too. I admit I've gotten wrapped up in the name calling too, but I'd prefer not to do it and just discuss the points we present each other. When I get a rare chance to engage with someone who disagrees but does it on a point by point basis and with respect, I cherish those discussions.



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 12:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
Well, when I joined, I did so because of the political discussions...


Oh. YOU were the one.




posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 12:06 PM
link   
a reply to: DanDanDat

I'd certainly act against my religious and personal beliefs while in office. I don't think this makes me better, or anything, but I do like to think that I would not be as ignorant as to write legislation according to religious beliefs, nor include my personal beliefs when it comes to interpretation of the law. I logically analyze laws and come up with my own interpretation after said analysis. Am I right/correct? That's debatable for sure.

Would I be biased/influenced by personal views and would I bring religion into a place that constitutionally it is not allowed, due to separation... I would not. I would like to think I could separate the two, and like to think that all senators can, and should.



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 12:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: mamabeth
It all boils down to whatever floats your boat.

I am sticking to what I posted and have nothing else
to say on this topic.


Not surprising.
What you have to say on most topics is conservative claptrap.

Interesting OP. I would have suggested that this site is more full of conservative members, given the volume of their postings.

Whatever it is, this site appears to be becoming more conservative over time....it's like a march to WWIII



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 12:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic





The constitution doesn't have a single word about marriage in it at all, gay or otherwise. It just talks about how laws will apply to ALL citizens equally. Marriage is a law and gay people are citizens. Pretty simple.


Not according to Ted Cruz....




edit on 3-2-2016 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 12:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I'm actually pro-removal of ALL marriage concerning government. They don't need to be in my personal life hardly at all.. My state can deal with many of the things they do now, but marriage? I don't know.

How consenting adults spend their life is no one else's business, I'd say.



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 12:08 PM
link   
I don't think ATS is very liberal at all. I think it's very well mixed. Outside of the phenomenon people call Trump I remember the board being very split between Conservative and Liberal. Unless you were a conservative that was a glutton for punishment you kind of let the liberals have their left leaning threads, and the same for the right leaning threads.

What I did notice though is that the conservative base tended to be a little more diverse when it came to the politicians they supported where as the left leaning members tended to mostly support the mainstream democratic candidates.



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 12:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheTory
a reply to: deadlyhope

I know there are many who hold universal liberal principles to everyone, but then again, there are those who utilize them only when it suits them.

Which makes them hypocrites, not liberals.



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

Ted cruz also says he's anti-establishment/elite class while being huge into petroleum, and being funded by goldman sachs so...I just take whatever the guy says.. No, I just don't listen to him at all.



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: aorAki

Probably because most Liberal arguments and rebuttals are losers and chock-full of fantasy.




posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 12:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: veracity
a reply to: DBCowboy

a different opinion is not ignorant but these are...(as OP posted)

Anti-gay discrimination.
Minority discrimination.
Racism/Bigotry
Infringement of privacy concerning health, sexual relations/preference, religion.
State-sponsored religion.
Disagreeing with separation of church and state
Denying beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt scientific evidence.




And that is your opinion.




posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 12:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12
Not according to Ted Cruz....



I'd like to see a source for that.
Here's the full text of the speech he gave that day, courtesy of the Washington Post. I don't find anything like that in there.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join