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.

 

Have conservatives become more socially liberal than "liberals"?

page: 2
26
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 01:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Krazysh0t

No.

Not covered under the first to shut down a presidential speaking engagement.

Not covered by the majority of liberal colleges across the country refusing to let conservatives speak.

Liberals are the very antithesis of what the word means.

Ah yes, single out a few bad examples to paint the whole movement as bad. Typical authoritarian propaganda there. I'm sorry but you are still wrong. Liberals still have the right to protest whether you like it or not and they will be using it in ways to continually make you upset and uncomfortable. You better get used to it.

PS: The Women's March the weekend during Trump's inauguration was the biggest protest in US history and was non-violent. Why aren't you talking about that one? Oh yeah, because it conflicts with your conservative strawman.
edit on 21-4-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: toysforadults

Partisans are inherently intolerant.



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Those are not just a few examples.

That has become normal operating procedure.

The liberals are Voltaire not.



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 01:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
Are Nancy Pelosi/Maxine Waters/Chuck Schumer, LIBERAL or MARXIST?


those 3 are left-centrist....the only public person I know that is far left is Noam Chomsky....and there isn't a MSM outlet that will bring him on to talk.....that's how far right this countries political voices has gone.....
edit on 21-4-2017 by jimmyx because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-4-2017 by jimmyx because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 01:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Those are not just a few examples.

That has become normal operating procedure.

The liberals are Voltaire not.


you do realize that the founding fathers of America were RADICAL liberals, right?.....



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 01:49 PM
link   
Oh joy... another thread with generic and broad-sweeping generalizations about "liberals". Yeah, I'm just as annoyed with the "SJW" fringe as most people are, but I'm not about to assume all liberals fall into that circle.

I have a dream that one day people could just accept that humans are individuals without having to pigeon-hole huge swaths of society into bi-partisan BS. The vast majority of individuals are simply "moderates" that can lean either way when it comes to each different issue.

The liberal and conservative charactures have grown tiresome, but the media keeps feeding the partisan false-dilemma fallacy while people suck it up and beg for second helpings.



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: jimmyx

The founding fathers never tried to shut down speech they didn't like.

They immortalized it in first.

And they sure as snip wouldn't be running around trying to blame Russia for one of them losing a presidential bid.

Liberal=Intolerant.



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 01:51 PM
link   
I find the left to be far more intolerant than conservatives. The left tends to justify shutting down opposition by attempting to take a moral high ground. Those who disagree are so morally repugnant that free speech does not apply in the mind of leftist. This is how they justify shutting down opposition on college campuses, etc. The playbook is pretty simple. Claim someone is racist and then shout them down. Facts be damned.



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 01:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: redmage
Oh joy... another thread with generic and broad-sweeping generalizations about "liberals". Yeah, I'm just as annoyed with the "SJW" fringe as most people are, but I'm not about to assume all liberals fall into that circle.

I have a dream that one day people could just accept that humans are individuals without having to pigeon-hole huge swaths of society into bi-partisan BS. The vast majority of individuals are simply "moderates" that can lean either way when it comes to each different issue.

The liberal and conservative charactures have grown tiresome, but the media keeps feeding the partisan false-dilemma fallacy while people suck it up and beg for second helpings.


100% Agreed! The real battle is humans vs. aliens, but that's for another forum



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 01:52 PM
link   
I cannot tell you what liberals are or are not anymore, because their very ideology is based upon wealth re-distribution (theft), the removal of merit-based advancement in our society (everyone loses), their hatred of traditional America (2nd Amendment rights, nuclear family, Christianity, etc...), and their inexplicable support of everything that is bad for America (which is why they never hold power for long).

But I can tell you how this constitutional conservative feels about individual rights...

I follow the literal interpretation of the Constitution as defined through the Original Intent of the Framers. The document itself was clearly intended to be a strong limiting factor on the size and scope of government going forward, as affirmed over and over again in the writings of the Framers.

I have never seen anything in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or writings of the Framers that would give government the "right" to think for you, tell you what to think (and say), tell you what to do with your body, or tell you where you can and cannot go. However, neither does it absolve individuals from responsibility and the consequences of their choices and actions.

As an agnostic I don't really have a dog in the religious freedom hunt, but the Constitution clearly states that the Federal government shall play no role in the establishment of any religion. I also acknowledge that America itself was certainly founded by men who overwhelmingly had very strong Judeo-Christian leanings and were not shy about it.

The Federal government has no business intruding in any way into your personal life. The individual should be free to live the way they choose. However, if that lifestyle creates an economic or social impediment to that individual or others, that is 100% their choice and responsibility. One individual cannot be forced to "accept" the personal choices of another if they find them aberrant.

Obviously, there are hundreds of individual social and economic issues we could address here, but as a basic rule-of-thumb from the perspective of constitutional conservatism, if it is not addressed specifically in the Constitution, it's a states rights issue.

Maximum freedom, personal responsibility, minimal government interference. That was the Original Intent of our Framers.
edit on 21-4-2017 by SBMcG because: Correction

edit on 21-4-2017 by SBMcG because: Correction



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 01:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: carewemust
Are Nancy Pelosi/Maxine Waters/Chuck Schumer, LIBERAL or MARXIST?


those 3 are left-centrist....the only public person I know that is far left is Noam Chomsky....and there isn't a MSM outlet that will bring him on to talk.....that's how far right this countries political voices has gone.....


Thanks for the reply. I'll look up Noam Chomsky now. Have heard of the name, but that's all.



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 01:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: jimmyx

The founding fathers never tried to shut down speech they didn't like.

Well except for speech from a Black man or a woman or a poor person who doesn't own land or well literally anyone except rich land owning white men.



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 01:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: redmage
Oh joy... another thread with generic and broad-sweeping generalizations about "liberals". Yeah, I'm just as annoyed with the "SJW" fringe as most people are, but I'm not about to assume all liberals fall into that circle.

I have a dream that one day people could just accept that humans are individuals without having to pigeon-hole huge swaths of society into bi-partisan BS. The vast majority of individuals are simply "moderates" that can lean either way when it comes to each different issue.

The liberal and conservative charactures have grown tiresome, but the media keeps feeding the partisan false-dilemma fallacy while people suck it up and beg for second helpings.


Yea but think how much easier life would be if you just separated everybody into one of two buckets and didn't make any effort to deal with people on a case by case basis!



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: redmage

Human beings use generalizations to make speech easier and more expedient. If we were to speak of every single individual case, talking would be impossible.



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 01:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

Yeah, I hate to invoke Godwin's law, but we've seen how well the "two buckets" worldview works... miserably.



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 01:58 PM
link   
a reply to: toysforadults

Wow........what a genius.........I've been saying this for months. Sadly, no one listens. I think the distinctions are just too difficult for most people to understand.



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 01:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: redmage

Human beings use generalizations to make speech easier and more expedient. If we were to speak of every single individual case, talking would be impossible.

So that makes it ok to generalize and stereotype?
edit on 21-4-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 01:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: jimmyx

The founding fathers never tried to shut down speech they didn't like.

Well except for speech from a Black man or a woman or a poor person who doesn't own land or well literally anyone except rich land owning white men.


And in the 21st century who is considered to be 3/5's of a person ?

Bankers,gun owners,ceo's and the list goes on.

Liberal can think they are better than the right.

They can delude themselves in to thinking they are just so tolerant.

Everyone knows it's just self delusion.
edit on 21-4-2017 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 01:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: jimmyx

The founding fathers never tried to shut down speech they didn't like.

Well except for speech from a Black man or a woman or a poor person who doesn't own land or well literally anyone except rich land owning white men.


compared to the British of that time, where all the land was owned by the king, there was no free speech, nor free expression of religion, no right to bare arms, etc......context my friend, context.



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 01:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: carewemust
Are Nancy Pelosi/Maxine Waters/Chuck Schumer, LIBERAL or MARXIST?


those 3 are left-centrist....the only public person I know that is far left is Noam Chomsky....and there isn't a MSM outlet that will bring him on to talk.....that's how far right this countries political voices has gone.....


Thanks for the reply. I'll look up Noam Chomsky now. Have heard of the name, but that's all.


Noam Chomsky has some very ardent backing. The New York Times says that he's the "most important intellectual alive". Quite a statement. Maybe he'll run for President in 2020, if the prediction he's making this week does NOT come true.

Noam Chomsky said this week that the Doomsday Clock is close to midnight.
amherstwire.com...

Should the world believe him?




top topics



 
26
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join