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.

 

Help! We dont fit the stereotype!

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 13 2008 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


I agree that it is most unfortunate to cut things up in a right/left fashion, what a different world we would have!
The paradigm of right/left division we are stuck in does have a historical origin and so it would be odd if people did actually stick in their beliefs to such a simplistic view. I think it is our duty to transcend such thinking and the very fact you voice such beliefs probably means you know a little more than the average disinterested voter that campaigns are aimed at.
Sorry to mention it AGAIN, but wouldn't Ron Paul, from what I've heard, had been a first step if he had had more support (votes)?




posted on May, 13 2008 @ 10:19 AM
link   
Concervative vs Liberal. Blue vs Red. Etc...etc...etc. Yadda, yadda, yadda.

While I will admit to being somewhat conservative in many of my views, I'm also a democrat.

Go figure. Given the state of the democratic party, where does that leave someone like me? Out in the cold is where...

In November, I'll find a nice 3rd party alternative that I can live with, and vote for him or her. I agreed with a lot of what Ron Paul had to say, disagreed alot as well. I'll study this summer and see what shakes loose.



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 10:19 AM
link   
You are definitely not alone. I consider myself a conservative, yet I think the present 'War on Drugs' is a scam and marijuana should be treated no differently from alcohol. I believe we do need a welfare system, just one that actually helps people to regain economic footing, not just gives them a nice easy way to pay a few bills at everyone's expense. Those are more liberal views, but somehow I just can't stand by everything 'conservatives' preach. There has to be a balance.

I have never seen a Presidential election so un-balanced. McCain is a continuation of Bush, unapologetically and openly. I believe Hillary is a continuation of Bush, as in running against his policies in order to continue them. And I'm not exactly trusting of Obama, as he has a very liberal background on all the issues.

If the truth be known, I liked Duncan Hunter. He lasted a few months. I liked Tom Tancredo, ditto for him. Except that he scared me about the Iraqi War, I liked Ron Paul. He's still technically running, but has about the changes of a snowball in a turbocharged microwave right now. Of all the Republican candidates, McCain took it?!?

I'm like you, Skyfloating. I wish there was someone, anyone, who could represent my values. Isn't that what democracy is about? A choice between different ideals? We have no choice.

The only way this country can ever return to the policies that made it great (i.e., freedom and tolerance and diversity) is for there to be an armed revolt. That will remove the present regime, but will cause an untold amount of suffering, especially when one compares this society to the great ones of the Revolution, Civil War, and WWII. I fear we as a whole are simply not up to the task.

I can only look at the-country-formally-known-as-Burma and say thank God we're not them... yet.

TheRedneck



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kupios
Sorry to mention it AGAIN, but wouldn't Ron Paul, from what I've heard, had been a first step if he had had more support (votes)?


I actually donated money to Ron Paul.

I like Ron Paul...but he´s still far away from what I would consider real politics.



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


I couldnt have said it any better.

I thought I was a conservative. But conservatives dont think Im a conservative when I start talking about the need to legalize drugs, stop all war and foreign interference, and pro-abortion-in-exceptional cases.



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 11:08 AM
link   
Come to think of it...


I dont want to be voting for peace or prosperity but for peace and prosperity.



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Which parts? I always see people demanding "smaller government" but never with any quantification of the statement.



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


Smaller in all parts. Generally more localized and self-responsibility.



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


No, it doesn't work like that. Sorry Skyfloating, but government isn't a single entity, You pare off from specific sections. Some portions of government truly are more vital than others, and reducing spending in the fashion you're advocating has one result - Same problems, less effectiveness.

Apply some thought to the topic, rather than shouting at clouds.

Myself? I'd shred the hell out of Pentagon spending. It's bloated and wasteful beyond imagination, and we could cut it by two thirds without losing any defensive capabilities.



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


I was going to say "cut down on defense" first, but thats too one-sided for me.

Its that one-sidedness that is being critisised in this thread.



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox

Apply some thought to the topic, rather than shouting at clouds.



Point out which part of the opening post you dont understand.

This is not about political issues but about our fundamental understanding of politics itself.

[edit on 13-5-2008 by Skyfloating]



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
I tend to do a lot of talking on the phone while I'm out driving, usually with certain friends who also love to debate, both 'conservatives' and 'liberals'. What's strange is that when a difference of opinion comes up, I am more at odds with the 'conservatives' than with the 'liberals'.

I probably agree with Limbaugh on over half of my feelings, but I consider him to be an arrogant hypocrite. Hannity, just another face for the GOP (I listen to him occasionally to try and get an idea of what they have in store for us next)... and I have found myself screaming at Glenn Beck recently.

But every time I try to listen to Ed Schultz or anyone else on America Left, I get told how ignorant and evil I am. So I just tend to ignore them.

You and Walking Fox just gave me a great idea for a new thread... now if I can figure out how to word it.

edit: No one panic, K? I use a hands-free kit and my eyes are always on the road...


TheRedneck


[edit on 13-5-2008 by TheRedneck]



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


Smaller in all parts. Generally more localized and self-responsibility.


Skyflo', if you're unwishingfully thinking of "anarchism", just begin here : Prince Pyotr Alexeyevich Kropotkin.

If you wishingfully think of individual-scaled-localism and of auto-gestion, then go directly there : XXIst Century Resistance.




posted on May, 13 2008 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck

What's strange is that when a difference of opinion comes up, I am more at odds with the 'conservatives' than with the 'liberals'.

[edit on 13-5-2008 by TheRedneck]


Welcome to the paradoxal, witty, salvific and substantific world of unconscious Christic Anarchists.



REVOLUTION



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 12:18 PM
link   





I think this chart is pretty interesting as it shows at least 4 sides, as opposed to 2.



[edit on 13-5-2008 by Skyfloating]



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Rigel
 


You tend more to the left-bottom side of the chart, me to the left-top-side of the chart.



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 12:24 PM
link   
Similar:






posted on May, 13 2008 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


At least you make quick progress... I let you be StiRnerian, I keep being Anarcho-Christic.

By the way, if the both schemes [> source ?] were to be analogized, then any Stirnerian would laugh of being called a communautarist : more individualist than Stirner, you die...

Stirner is the founder of the only anarchist trend that supports private property. Property is to me the core of Yeshua's Revolution regarding Moses' Law.

Essenians, thought by many to have been "Netsah'ites" i.e. "Nazorean", had practically established the "Community of Production Goods" long before Marx difficultly theorized it...




[edit on 13-5-2008 by Rigel]



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating

I think this chart is pretty interesting as it shows at least 4 sides, as opposed to 2.


That chart is in 2 dimensions, don't we live in (at least) a 3-D universe?


TheRedneck



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Ah, the question of the year! Having considered myself a passionate liberal Democrat for the past 16 years I thought nothing could cause me to reconsider this stance. Then along comes the 2008 primary debacle and I feel as if the world is turned upside down. If I support Hillary, which I have, instead of Obama I am considered a racist who only supports her because she is a female. On the other hand, the unbridled sexism against her has been one of the ugliest things I have ever witnessed -- both in the mainstream media and online. I am appalled. At this point I won't consider voting for Obama because I have come to loathe the bias for him in the media, as well as the hateful tone of many of his online supporters. Not that this matters very much because I live in a red state that will vote for McCain anyway.

Living in a red state as a liberal Democrat has been hellish enough these past years. Now, I don't care very much for the Democratic party and am indeed a woman without a party.

That we need more viable political parties in this country goes without saying.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join