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.

 

Interesting comment I found from a liberal

page: 3
30
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 23 2018 @ 06:11 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryMcGuire


Am I wrong to think that exactly the opposite is true? That this present question of Kavanaugh is not to keep the sc liberal but rather to keep it from becoming completely conservative? How many judges were appointed by ''liberal'' presidents and how many conservative?


Exactly. It's not just that's wrong, the whole premise of this idiocy is the opposite of reality. In the last 50 years, Republican presidents have made 14 SCOTUS appointments compared to 4 for Democratic presidents. (13 v 4 not counting Gorsuch).

It's been stacked right, it's going to continue to be stacked right and what they're really hoping for is to stack it 6 vs 3 to the right instead of 5 v 4 and do it with justices who are young enough that they can guarantee it remains stacked for at least another generation.

And the moment it's no longer stacked to the right, they'll be screaming about term limits for SCOTUS justices.




posted on Sep, 23 2018 @ 06:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: gernblan


To me, this reads like somebody who is taking a really big risk of alienating themselves from everybody. I think we need to at least support them for having the gall to actually stand up and talk some possible truth instead of just insane political rhetoric.


Risk, what risk? An unnamed poster claiming to be liberal on an unnamed conservative website who states things that sound good to all the conservatives here risks NOTHING.


The risk of alienating themselves from everybody. That's what I said.

When I look at the profile of the person who made that comment they've been around a long time I think they're sticking their neck out here a little further than they are even comfortable is what I gathered from it.

people are so willing to attack each other now a days over even slight differences of opinion, I think perhaps maybe this is what this person wasn't for referring to but I don't know maybe we should ask them.



posted on Sep, 23 2018 @ 06:21 PM
link   
Many of the things that are today called "American Values" have been fought for through the court system, much of it from the left.

Civil Rights, human rights, ending slavery (Lincoln was a Republican when they were a lot more left-wing than they are now), gay rights, womens' right to vote, 40 hour work week, and many other things that Americans of both left and right take for granted have come from court cases started by the left wing.

Many of the things that Americans like to say make them the moral authority in the world have come from the left wings of politics.

Without these things that the OP blames the left for, America would still be a country of slave owners with things like voting rights only available to white male landowners.

If that's the America you want, then fine. If you enjoy freedoms that you have today and like the fact that you don't work 16 hours a day, 6 days a left, then sure, blame the left.

You're Welcome.



posted on Sep, 23 2018 @ 06:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: babybunnies
Many of the things that are today called "American Values" have been fought for through the court system, much of it from the left.

Civil Rights, human rights, ending slavery (Lincoln was a Republican when they were a lot more left-wing than they are now), gay rights, womens' right to vote, 40 hour work week, and many other things that Americans of both left and right take for granted have come from court cases started by the left wing.

Many of the things that Americans like to say make them the moral authority in the world have come from the left wings of politics.

Without these things that the OP blames the left for, America would still be a country of slave owners with things like voting rights only available to white male landowners.

If that's the America you want, then fine. If you enjoy freedoms that you have today and like the fact that you don't work 16 hours a day, 6 days a left, then sure, blame the left.

You're Welcome.





lmao

Hope you paid off that college loan!



posted on Sep, 23 2018 @ 06:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Not only is the authenticity dubious, it's just plain wrong. Consider:


The left has only been able to advance any leftist causes, both socially and politically, through the courts and through litigation, never at the ballot box. This has been going on for at least 50 years, maybe even longer.


The implication here seems to be that the Left is unable to win elections for about two generations. This is absurd and easily disproved. 50 years ago = 1968. So in terms of presidents:

Nixon
Nixon/Ford
Carter
Reagan
Reagan
Bush 41
Clinton
Clinton
Bush 43
Bush 43
Obama
Obama
Trump

That's 8 Republican terms to 5 Democrat. And if you go back "even further" and count JFK/LBJ at the height of the Civil Rights Era, it's 8 Republican terms to 7 Democrat or dead even prior to Trump (and even again if Trump doesn't get re-elected).


Control of Congress:

90th: Senate - D, House - D (LBJ)
91st: Senate - D, House - D (Nixon)
92nd: Senate - D, House - D (Nixon)
93rd: Senate - D, House - D (Ford)
94th: Senate - D, House - D (Ford)
95th: Senate - D, House - D (Carter)
96th: Senate - D, House - D (Carter)
97th: Senate - R, House - D (Reagan)
98th: Senate - R, House - D (Reagan)
99th: Senate - R, House - D (Reagan)
100th: Senate - D, House - D (Reagan)
101st: Senate - D, House - D (Bush 41)
102nd: Senate - D, House - D (Bush 41)
103rd: Senate - D, House - D (Clinton)
104th: Senate - R, House - R (Clinton)
105th: Senate - R, House - R (Clinton)
106th: Senate - R, House - R (Clinton)
107th: Senate - split R & D/I, House - R (Bush 43)
108th: Senate - R, House - R (Bush 43)
109th: Senate - R, House - R (Bush 43)
110th: Senate - D/I, House - R (Bush 43)
111th: Senate - D, House - D (Obama)
112th: Senate - R, House - R (Obama)
113th: Senate - R, House - R (Obama)
114th: Senate - R, House - R (Obama)
115th: Senate - R, House - R (Trump)

12 congresses controlled by Dems, 9 by Republicans and 5 split. While it's true that Democrats have lost a lot of seats in the last few cycles clearly, it's not a 50+ year trend. That's just a dumb factually incorrect thing for anyone to say.


This is why the left is so freaked out when it comes to the Supreme Court. They see the SCOTUS as an end game. They see controlling the Supreme Court as their only chance "left" to get their way.

It's the only play in their playbook now: activism through a stacked judiciary.

If they lose that ability now, they feel that they have no voice left in government


Lose that ability? Here's why this is so funny. The person who wrote this is obviously both ignorant and projecting. Let's examine appointments for Presidents over the last 50 years and we won't even count those under Trump:

Nixon: supreme - 4, circuit - 51, district - 180
Ford: supreme - 1, circuit - 12, district - 52
Carter: supreme - 0, circuit - 59 , district - 203
Reagan: supreme - 4, circuit - 83 , district - 296
Bush 41: supreme - 2, circuit - 42, district - 149
Clinton: supreme - 2, circuit - 66 , district - 310
Bush 43: supreme - 2, circuit - 62, district - 263
Obama: supreme - 2, circuit - 55, district - 272

If we leave out Trump, that's 13 SCOTUS justice appointments for Republicans vs friggin 4 for Democrats. 250 circuit court justices for Republicans vs 180 for Democrats and 940 district court judges for Republicans vs 785 for Democrats.

The SCOTUS courts have been the Burger Court (1968-1986), the Rehnquist Court (1986-2005) and the Roberts Court. All Chief Justices appointed by Republicans. The Burger court transitioned to right leaning and SCOTUS has leaned right since. Basically two generations stacked not left but right.

So the idea that Democrats haven't been winning elections but have been stacking the courts over the last 50 years is some moronic delusion born of right-wing rhetoric and propaganda and the trope of "activist judges." It doesn't even make sense on its face considering that a party can't really stack the courts without winning elections.


No, that's a straw man argument. We're talking about scotus not POTUS.

You can't replace X with an unrelated Y when Y is clearly wrong and then prove Y wrong, while claiming that Y is the same as X. Apples and oranges.

Nice try though, that straw man argument, but that happens to be a very common thing that the radical left likes to do.

It is rhetoric.



posted on Sep, 23 2018 @ 06:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari


There are Progressives on both sides of the aisle. Bush was a progressive. McCain was a progressive, etc.


Lmao. Yikes.


Once you understand that politics get a lot less confusing.


It's a lot less confusing when you abandon trying to understand reality and make up your own simpler reality where everything you feel is right?


To the OP, well said and it has been a long time since I have met a real Liberal.


The OP didn't say anything. The OP cut and pasted something he found on a comment section somewhere. The OP wasn't claiming to be a liberal.



posted on Sep, 23 2018 @ 06:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Lumenari


There are Progressives on both sides of the aisle. Bush was a progressive. McCain was a progressive, etc.


Lmao. Yikes.


Once you understand that politics get a lot less confusing.


It's a lot less confusing when you abandon trying to understand reality and make up your own simpler reality where everything you feel is right?


To the OP, well said and it has been a long time since I have met a real Liberal.


The OP didn't say anything. The OP cut and pasted something he found on a comment section somewhere. The OP wasn't claiming to be a liberal.



Kinda effs up your cognitive dissonance to even think for a second the 2 party system is 2 wings on the same vulture doesn't it Ante?



posted on Sep, 23 2018 @ 06:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Lumenari


There are Progressives on both sides of the aisle. Bush was a progressive. McCain was a progressive, etc.


Lmao. Yikes.


Once you understand that politics get a lot less confusing.


It's a lot less confusing when you abandon trying to understand reality and make up your own simpler reality where everything you feel is right?


To the OP, well said and it has been a long time since I have met a real Liberal.


The OP didn't say anything. The OP cut and pasted something he found on a comment section somewhere. The OP wasn't claiming to be a liberal.


So you don't understand what a Progressive is. The movement. The ideology. The history. The facts.

But yet you are a follower of their ideology and a cheerleader for it.

Keep making fun of me, I'll keep laughing.




posted on Sep, 23 2018 @ 06:52 PM
link   
a reply to: gernblan

That was a really sad bit of Bulverist drivel and apparently, despite unnecessarily quoting my post, you didn't actually read it.

Otherwise you wouldn't be saying, "We're talking about scotus not POTUS" when I clearly talked about SCOTUS specifically. Also, I don't know what you're talking about but what I was doing was addressing the premise of the quoted comment from the OP. This part sums it up nicely:


The left has not been able to advance any of these causes through voting and through elections. They have failed utterly in that regard which is why they turn to the court system which they have worked overtime historically to stack with activist judges.


What's that say? It's says that "the left" can't win elections so they stack courts with activist judges. Right? Are you capable of acknowledging that much? More specifically, a time frame is given of the last 50 years (or longer):


The left has only been able to advance any leftist causes, both socially and politically, through the courts and through litigation, never at the ballot box. This has been going on for at least 50 years, maybe even longer.


Still with me? Do we need to take a break?

So what did I reply with? Irrefutable, empirical evidence that the ostensible Left (as much as the US has one) has in fact won plenty of elections over the last 50 years and that the Right has actually appointed FAR more judges. When it comes to SCOTUS, Republican presidents have appointed 14 justices to 4 for Democratic presidents and it's about about to be 15 v 4.

That's not a straw man, that's a thorough debunking of a moron's delusions.



posted on Sep, 23 2018 @ 06:54 PM
link   
a reply to: gernblan

Sometimes words are confusing. Like the word liberal:

The view that modern liberalism is a continuation of classical liberalism is not universally shared. James Kurth, Robert E. Lerner, John Micklethwait, Adrian Wooldridge and several other political scholars have argued that classical liberalism still exists today, but in the form of American conservatism. According to Deepak Lal, only in the United States does classical liberalism—through American conservatives—continue to be a significant political force.[

_______________________

The fraud of classical liberalism

Conservatism doesn't exactly have a great reputation these days. That's a problem for conservative (and even conservative-ish) public figures and intellectuals. After all, President Trump is not exactly a good #brand for people wanting to distinguish themselves as deep thinkers.

One solution adopted by pundits like Jordan Peterson and D.C. McAllister is to reach back into the 19th century and claim the mantle of "classical liberalism." That provides a nice aura of "Serious Philosopher" while also implying that modern liberals have abandoned the true traditions of their own politics.


So is this person a liberal - or a classic liberal? Identity these days (for what it's worth) is not what it used to be. We can all be whatever we need to be to sell a point


edit on 9/23/2018 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2018 @ 06:55 PM
link   
Can we break it down?

There are those that want to have less freedom and there are those who want more freedom.

Those who want less, go by many names.

Those who want more? Go by just a few.


Easy enough to break it down and identify.

*shrugs*
edit on 23-9-2018 by DBCowboy because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2018 @ 06:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: tinner07
a reply to: gernblan




Maybe this is why people that are out there that think like this don't post more?


Exactly. Trump could shove a pickle up almost anybody's ass on this site and the would claim he is doing great.

They claim to hate the liberals but every one of them will claim their social security as soon as possible.

Honestly you guys make me sick. You have turned this site into such a pro trump site that it is appalling.


Slow your roll there princess...

It's people like yourself who would criticize the man if he solved world hunger. They are the opposite side of the coin you inhabit friend. The more you buy into the manufactured outrage the more classical liberals like myself must defend a man we may not see eye to eye with politically.

That's true liberalism. Not this bullying, whining, pathetic attempts to destroy people's credibility rather than engaging in a legitimate debate or discussion.

ATS has always been a bastion of critical thinking and denying ignorance. It still is. The problem is it doesn't fit a particular groups perceived reality of the world. Or at least the world that want. Don't let me stop you from bandwagoning though.



posted on Sep, 23 2018 @ 07:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari


So you don't understand what a Progressive is. The movement. The ideology. The history. The facts.


No, at some point, you decided that your emotions and ill-informed opinions were "facts" because that enabled you to make sense of things in a way that was pleasing to your ego.


Keep making fun of me, I'll keep laughing.


I'm not making fun of you. You're doing that all by yourself. But hey, as long as we're all laughing and having a good time!



posted on Sep, 23 2018 @ 07:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Lumenari


So you don't understand what a Progressive is. The movement. The ideology. The history. The facts.


No, at some point, you decided that your emotions and ill-informed opinions were "facts" because that enabled you to make sense of things in a way that was pleasing to your ego.


Keep making fun of me, I'll keep laughing.


I'm not making fun of you. You're doing that all by yourself. But hey, as long as we're all laughing and having a good time!


You just said that I made up the Progressive movement.

Think about that.

Did I go back in time to the late 1800's and "make" the progressive movement?

This is a new low for you indeed.

So I was laughing, but now am sort of concerned about your mental health.

You were once a brilliant contributor here.

Then you got TDS.

Now it seems that you don't even understand basic political movements in the United States.

Seek help, brother.

Something seems to be wrong with you.
edit on 23-9-2018 by Lumenari because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2018 @ 08:10 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

It's almost like Alice Through the Looking Glass. Up is down and in is out and to such a degree that they seem to indicate that that is exactly how they see it as well, except, well, the opposite.



posted on Sep, 23 2018 @ 08:14 PM
link   
One small problem
That would be a True Blue Democrat speaking
Not a liberal.




posted on Sep, 23 2018 @ 08:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog
One small problem
That would be a True Blue Democrat speaking
Not a liberal.



Interesting!



posted on Sep, 23 2018 @ 09:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: gernblan

originally posted by: Gothmog
One small problem
That would be a True Blue Democrat speaking
Not a liberal.



Interesting!

Interesting and true.
You have to keep the 2 apart
Liberals infiltrated and enslaved Democratic leadership well before 2000 and has only gained momentum since
The last True Blue Democrat passed with Ted.
From an old "Tree Hugging Hippie Liberal"



posted on Sep, 23 2018 @ 10:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
Does no one else here even question the veracity of this unknown persons claim to being a classical liberal?
Is no one even willing to consider that it is a ruse? A conservative claiming to be a liberal and then exhorting fellow conservatives to ''step up'' against the liberal courts, one of the most prolific conservative memes of the last half century?



No...For years I was a conservative Democrat...In fact most all of the Democrats I knew were conservative Democrats...The Democrat Party used to support working men and women...Families...

Your party has been taken over by Communists who call themselves progressives now...Democrats used to love American and the American flag...That's not your party, is it...



posted on Sep, 23 2018 @ 11:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Iscool

So you are unwilling to consider an alternate possibility for that supposed ''liberal'' story. You automatically take it at face value. Is that what you admit? You take it for granted that it is true?
You have further shown to me at least the narrowness of your own mind by automatically assuming that the dems are my party. Life is not as simple as the ''either/or you seem to assume it to be.



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join