Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Why is "liberal" thrown around like a curse word?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 23 2004 @ 09:23 PM
link   
Maybe at the age of 17 I am just naive in my understanding of the differences between liberal and conservative, but it seems to me that it boils down to:

Liberal - wanting change, wanting progress, wanting adaptation

Conservative - happy how things are. Opposed to traditional roles, values, ideas, and beliefs changing.


So why is it that in every thread I see people throw the word "liberal" around like it is a curse word?

In the Homosexual marriage threads I see those against equal rights...err allowing homosexual marriage...calling those for equal rights "liberals" as if it is a curse word. Whenever there is a thread that calls the president out on an obvious lie or mistake (WMDs in Iraq), some responses will eventually say "you liberal you!" like a curseword.

It seems to me that whenever someone questions something (sheesh, who would have ever thought we had the right. What, with the 1st amendment and all...) that is widely accepted, they are called a liberal and insulted. Whenever someone calls for change, they are called a liberal and insulted.

Now I am just curious - what is wrong with wanting change? What is wrong with questioning things? Is that not what this country is for? Why is being a "liberal" such a bad thing if "liberals" are simply excersizing the rights granted in our constitution; simply excersizing human nature to question and adapt?



[Edited on 23-5-2004 by Cutwolf]




posted on May, 23 2004 @ 09:36 PM
link   
Because "change" needs to be specified?
Here is the political breakdown of Liberal and Conservative:
Political Ideology Definitions



seekerof



posted on May, 23 2004 @ 09:42 PM
link   
Sheesh, what the hell am I?

My beliefs:

Business - Ease Regulation

Taxes - Increase

Abortion - Pro-choice

Defense Spending - Increase

Death Penalty - Maintain

Government Size - Decrease

World Peace - Through Strength

Same-Sex Marriage - For

Affirmative Action - Against (and I am part black; ironic, eh?)

ANWR Drilling - For

Crime - Rights of accused

Doctor Assisted Suicide - Against

Missile Defense - For

Three Strikes Law - Against

Minimum Wage - Increase

Social Security - Privatize

Health Care - Government controlled

Malpractice Lawsuits - Capped

Religion - Complete sep. of church and state.



posted on May, 23 2004 @ 09:43 PM
link   
I think there used to be a difference in the parties but I dont know anymore. You are always told by the conservatives, that democrats want to give away everything. They say democrats want to give to social programs.
Then the neo-cons give away cash(tax rebates) instead of social programs, like there is a difference. Neo-cons are the liberals of the conservative party.
Neo-cons are the war party, liberals are the peace party, conservatives can probably go either way as well as democrats.
The whole two party system should be done away with and probably is heading that way with the new versions(liberal vs neo-con).
Democrats are good with thinking and conservatives are good at christianity.
Democrats fix the mistakes of conservatives.
Conservatives read the bible, democrats read.

You know I really dont know the difference, Iv'e been registered independent for 20+ years, but yes liberal is an insult as well as neo-con is an insult to the original beliefs of the parties.



posted on May, 23 2004 @ 10:12 PM
link   
It is time for people to think. You don't take a stance about something because that is what you are told to. I'm Con. or Lib. so I must think this way. These sides have had their time, it doesn't work. You can be for the death penalty and against abortion. Stop this madness where you listen to others, develope your own thoughts on issues. Screw both and think for yourself.



posted on May, 23 2004 @ 10:24 PM
link   
It's just fear and manipulation. Liberals are um, pretty liberal. Blacks, gays, women, etc. they don't have a problem with. They believe taxes should be for public works, and it shouldn't be that the richer you are the lesser you pay. But all of these things 'take away' from you. Blacks, gays? They take away from attention devoted to you. Taxes? They take your money. Common sense matters are twisted to invoke fear. 'Those blacks... Those gays...' or 'I feel scared because of the blacks and gays but I don't want to pay cops or teachers more money because it would raise my taxes'



posted on May, 23 2004 @ 10:32 PM
link   
They shouldn't be called liberals, rather Neo-commies. Its not right just to give a new name to one party.

Neo-commies vs Neo-cons. I'll rather be a Neo-con, althou as I have said before, there are some thigns i don't agree with "Republican" views, but there is a lot more "Democrat" views I disagree with.



posted on May, 23 2004 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
They shouldn't be called liberals, rather Neo-commies. Its not right just to give a new name to one party.

Neo-commies vs Neo-cons. I'll rather be a Neo-con, althou as I have said before, there are some thigns i don't agree with "Republican" views, but there is a lot more "Democrat" views I disagree with.


That is my point, think about an issue, think how YOU feel about it. Don't take a party line. If more people did this, we would have less disention. I agree with SOME Lib. meathods. I agree with SOME Conserv. meathods. THINK, FOR CHRIST SAKE.



posted on May, 24 2004 @ 09:48 AM
link   
I find that when two opposing sides do battle, they tend to polarize themselves.

I don't think Colonel is the way he is because he hangs out with hippies all day.

It is probably also in some part that the different sides see the extremists as the norm of the other side.

Example:

Conservatives - blood thristy, sadistic, homophobic.... eh, just read a Colonel post

Liberals - hippies or communists who want super taxation for all sorts of government programs so people don't have to work but only suckle off the tit of those who do.



posted on May, 24 2004 @ 11:00 AM
link   
vote liberal and you jepordize our troops by not giving them the money to get the technology thats gonna save their lives.



posted on May, 24 2004 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro

Liberals - hippies or communists who want super taxation for all sorts of government programs so people don't have to work but only suckle off the tit of those who do.





right on man! same first name to thats creepy, but great minds think alike.



posted on May, 24 2004 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyIvan
vote liberal and you jepordize our troops by not giving them the money to get the technology thats gonna save their lives.


That is completely incorrect.

Also, if one had voted "liberal" we wouldn't have to worry about our troops having the proper technology for we would not be in a Junior Vietnam that we are now in. The "liberals" stated all this would happen and the CONS just stuck their head in the sand and went on with it.



posted on May, 24 2004 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyIvan
vote liberal and you jepordize our troops by not giving them the money to get the technology thats gonna save their lives.


Damn, doesn't that sound like emotional blackmail.



posted on May, 24 2004 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyIvan
vote liberal and you jepordize our troops by not giving them the money to get the technology thats gonna save their lives.


Like that crazy high-tech stuff like body armor? Why would you rush a war if your troops were ill-equiped? Were you afraid that if you waited people would learn the truth and not support you? Have you seen what Zinni said about this war on 60 Minutes yesterday? "They screwed up" Let's not pawn this on off on the Libs. Google about the weapon programs Cheney cut when he was Sectretary of Defense. The same ones he accuses Kerry of not supporting!
Boston Globe So if we don't have any of the technology thats gonna save their lives, blame Cheney, who calls himself a conservative.



posted on May, 24 2004 @ 12:17 PM
link   
Amen curme... People have to realize that everyone has an agenda and Bush isn't a saint, but on the other hand realize that neither is Kerry...

What people have to realize is what is important to them and vote accordingly not just on the basis of conserv. vs. liber.

I like certain aspects of both parties and I still am unsure whom I will vote for in November...

The Republican party and the Democratic party work together to create a whole system, and thus neither is worse than the other. Each is better suited at different tasks, you wouldn't use a fork to eat a bowl soup and likewise you wouldn't use a spoon to eat a steak... Each situation the U.S. encounters must be weighed by both sides and voted upon accordingly... this was the idea behind the U.S. and the Founding Fathers.

Of course this system may or may not worl as well as it should today, and I am sure that there are many members here that could agree with both sides to this arguement; but this form of government, in my eyes, is the best way to protect the interests of as many citizens as possible in a given country.



posted on May, 24 2004 @ 04:21 PM
link   
IT's a dirty word to many because many who are over 30 grew up with their formative years hearing the complicit corporate media attacking the boogeyman. Liberal became a code word to cover the untouchables: equal rights advocates/womens right advocates/anti war advocates/pro choice.
Those younger than 30 grew up just seeing the cartoon; like some cloistered NEw Englander who never met a black person believing that they must be like those Sambo cartoons.

Simple minds look for simple uni-faceted answers or enemies. Also, there is no such thing sa symetry if you were to simply divide into RIGHT or LEFT:
Liberals make up a small percentage of the Dem base....most are Progressives. The same can't be said for the Right; most are conservatives and set to follow single item candidates regardless.



posted on May, 24 2004 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
They shouldn't be called liberals, rather Neo-commies. Its not right just to give a new name to one party.

Sorry, old chap, but Communism is an extremist conservative position and not a liberal one. They have one idea of reform and once it's in place, they don't allow changes to the system and they're very much opposed to free trade and other concepts that we think of as liberal.

You'll have to find some other label for liberals.



posted on May, 25 2004 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bout Time


Simple minds look for simple uni-faceted answers or enemies. Also, there is no such thing sa symetry if you were to simply divide into RIGHT or LEFT:
Liberals make up a small percentage of the Dem base....most are Progressives. The same can't be said for the Right; most are conservatives and set to follow single item candidates regardless.


How's that for a biased statement? Thus the reason listening to closed minded individuals like BT will lead you astray. Basically he's putting forth his usual lie about, "democrats think, republicans can't". Total crock of crap. The same could be said by a conservative about the left wingers, and they would both be liars.

Not withstanding BT's crappola, both parties have their extremists. People do not usually buy every plank on a parties platform. I believe that most people have the ability to think for themselves and make the choice that best fits their values. Those that don't are the sheep that follow and pull the one big lever in the voting booth...



posted on May, 25 2004 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Affirmative Reaction
Not withstanding BT's crappola, both parties have their extremists.


True enough. Dems have PETA and Greenpeace while Repugnants have the Nazis and the KKK.



posted on May, 25 2004 @ 08:21 PM
link   
From colonel:


Dems have PETA and Greenpeace while Repugnants have the Nazis and the KKK.



Robert Carlyle Byrd (born November 20, 1917) is a West Virginia Democrat serving in the United States Senate.

Senator Robert C. Byrd is considered a walking encyclopedia on the history of both the American and Roman senates. He has risen to national prominence as the oldest member of the Senate (after the retirement of Strom Thurmond) and recently as being an eloquent and strong critic of the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive war.

Byrd was a member of the Ku Klux Klan for a period of time in the early 1940s. In a letter he wrote in 1946, he said, "The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia."







new topics




 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join