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: 3
26
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 02:01 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Way to deflect the point. You mentioned the Founding Fathers and how they approached speech. How many Founding Fathers are still alive now in the 21st century?


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.

No one is saying this but you. At no point have I ever declared myself a better person than a conservative. I may not like a few of them, but I don't think I'm better than them. There is no better. There is just a difference of opinion. Stop ranking political opinions and maybe you can join the rest of us in the big boy discussions.




posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 02:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




So that makes it ok to generalize and stereotype?


No, I said people speak in generalizations. You just might have to figure out in your own head that no one is speaking about every single liberal.



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 02:03 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

Chomsky has done more to defend liberalism than most conservatives.



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 02:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx

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.

I'm not saying that the founding fathers' approach to speech wasn't liberal for their day. It certainly was, but Neo's declaration that they were open to all speech is flat out false. The founding fathers weren't moral gods. They had great ideals, but they too were flawed and pretending like the flaws don't exist is history revisionism.



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The found fathers created the amendment process to take care of it.

But hey.

If liberal were really concerned with all things RACIST they'd ban the democrat party like confederate flags since it was started by a slave owner.

Hell they get government out of marriage because it's involvement began when that same party tried to keep blacks from marrying whites.

And they'd ban gun control because AGAIN that same party used it to keep blacks from being armed.

They'd also ban reservations. 21st century still trying to keep the brown man down.

So get real.

CTRL LEFT FAKE TOLERANCE.



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 02:05 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So you support simply assuming the intentions of a speaker instead of relying on their own words.



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Well you might not generalize all liberals, but it is certainly going on in this thread and among the conservative ATS population at large. It happens quite often. I've had people tell me that MY liberal beliefs were wrong because they didn't align with their idiotic and biased misconceptions about violent liberals, not in this thread though.

To pretend like this isn't going on is just naive. I know that people generalize and I know that seeking nuance is hard, but that is all the more reason why we should seek it out. It is more rewarding and more fairly covers a topic of discussion.
edit on 21-4-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 02:07 PM
link   
a reply to: redmage




So you support simply assuming the intentions of a speaker instead of relying on their own words.


No, I just think pointing out that people are generalizing is redundant, and is more a case of virtue-signalling than anything else.



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 02:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96

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.


so the right's more tolerant?.....hahaha.....thanks I needed a laugh today...talk about being delusional



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96



Liberal=Intolerant.

Conservative=Intolerant (examples: Westboro Baptist Church, LGBT)

Thanks for playing.



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 02:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The found fathers created the amendment process to take care of it.

But hey.

If liberal were really concerned with all things RACIST they'd ban the democrat party like confederate flags since it was started by a slave owner.

Hell they get government out of marriage because it's involvement began when that same party tried to keep blacks from marrying whites.

And they'd ban gun control because AGAIN that same party used it to keep blacks from being armed.

They'd also ban reservations. 21st century still trying to keep the brown man down.

So get real.

CTRL LEFT FAKE TOLERANCE.

There is so much history revisionism in there that I don't even know where to start. I tried, but like every sentence is just wrong or wildly misleading about what actually occurred and how it relates to the present.



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 02:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I thought you were socialist.

Sure people may apply their generalizations mistakenly, but then again, big deal.



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

That's what I told someone in another thread and they told me that I'm not violent enough.

Sure people may apply their generalizations mistakenly, but then again, big deal.

It's becoming a HUGE deal because overgeneralized and largely false opinions are driving modern politics.
edit on 21-4-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 02:12 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope



big deal

Apparently it is to conservatives when people apply it to them.



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 02:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: neo96

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.


so the right's more tolerant?.....hahaha.....thanks I needed a laugh today...talk about being delusional


We sure as snip didn't go around destroying property and throwing things, and beating people with bike locks because our guy lost in 2008.

So yeah the right is more tolerant.



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Virtue-signalling? Is that one of those hip new phrases like "dog whistle" where you have to, again, assume the intentions of another?



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien




Apparently it is to conservatives when people apply it to them.


So what?



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 02:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96

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


Marxist.

The collective.

The individual only exists to service the wants of the collective.

They might have a hipper rap than communism.

But it is still the commodification of oneself to the mob.



Lets ask Ronald Reagan



realclimatescience.com...
edit on 4/21/17 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Reagan also rode the end of his Presidency out with onset Dementia, escalated the very racist war on drugs, had the government sell drugs, and all sorts of other fascist #. Why are you even listening to his opinion?

By the way, how can liberals be fascists right now? We aren't in charge of the government!
edit on 21-4-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 02:21 PM
link   
I'm liberal
But I don't stand on the left
I support Trump
But I don't stand on the right

What does that make me? A paradox?




top topics



 
26
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join