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.

 

Meet The Liberal Elites

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 10:24 AM
link   
I love this video. I disagree with some points made the gentleman/CGI, but overall feel that it is a great retort to the "liberal" mindset.

The video is full computer generation, so prepare for computer generated voices....but the content is pretty solid.

Yes, it is a slant piece. I don't hold it up as something on behalf of the GOP, but rather in criticism of the DNC. In my view, they both want tyranny. The liberals just want a little more.





posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 10:40 AM
link   
Not sure who came up with the idea of these videos, but there almost spot on at every turn and are quit entertaining to say the least



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 10:45 AM
link   
So...they took the most retarded views of what liberalism "probably is".

so bad...so damn bad.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 10:55 AM
link   
By far the BEST description of the left EVER!
This small video completely describes a ton of members here on ATS, also.

Makes you think why anyone would support a liberal.
You will see those sad individuals bash this video shortly...

I have researched the democratic party and the issues raised are spot on.
And I have NO political party affiliation...
I have more conservative views but want no label.

I am American.
Period.


Awesome video!

Thanks bigfatfurrytexan!!




edit on 5-1-2011 by havok because: Spelling



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 11:20 AM
link   
That is absolutely hilarious, because as ridiculous as it is, its the truth. Sure, a lot of conservatives have their own set of issues, but this is an excellent video and a great representation of the typical liberal's mindset, including a fair percentage around here.
edit on 5-1-2011 by vor78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 11:26 AM
link   
11 seconds in and they have stated the largest misconception.
Lets take a rundown of how the "liberals" want to decide for people in comparison and you will see which side actually is far more controlling of a person

Libs on Abortion:
Let the woman decide

Libs on death penelty:
Do not decide who dies

Libs on Economy:
Protect the people from corporations (this is a point of contention and the area most debated about)

Libs on education:
Fund local schools, let free market decide where the child goes (public or private).

Libs on stem cell research:
Let experimentation continue unhindered

Libs on energy:
Stop being oil addicts

Libs on euthanasia
Let a person DECIDE ON THEIR OWN LIFE!

Libs on environment:
Our kids might like trees and air...lets save em

Gun control:
Split. Ultimately, nobody needs a nuclear bomb in their personal arsenal. Some regulations needed

Health Care:
Government has a role to regulate crushing industry that hurts the economy. the health of citizens is part of that when insurance companies only allow for the rich to get treatment.

Homeland Security:
Draconian secret police and naziesque measures to clamp down on citizens must be eradicated.

Immigration:
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Religion:
Government should not tell us which or any deities or ceremonies we should observe. That is a personal decision that should be out of officals hands.

Same sex marriage:
Why is government in the game of observing a religious ceremony anyhow? A union between two people are fine, let a church sort out who can marry who, but since its demanded government observe this religious ceremony with tax breaks and all sorts, fine...just don't expect it to remain unequal.
A better argument would be for a demand of government to stop acknowledging marriage to begin with, and instead use civil unions...then the marriage issue is fully a church issue...where it should be.

Social Security:
Seniors who given their life should get during their retirement...especially considering they suck at digging ditches. a person in their 20s or 30s can barely balance a checkbook, much less make the effort to put away 10% or so towards their declining years...and its not a good thing to see millions of homeless elderly starving and dying on the streets.

Taxes:
Close to economy in regards to alot of disagreement. Simply put, taxes -is- a way to spread the wealth around...regardless of what snippets are there to candy coat it. If wealth is not spread around, a entire nation will go bust really quick with consolidated corporate interests. No country has ever survived for long without measures to spread some equality amongst the people..the rate however is in question as to what is fine, and what is too much.
Typically, history has always punished poor while giving breaks to the rich. Historically every country that follows this meme busts.

War on Terror:
Its a tactic. Your more likely to die of toilet seat malfunctions than a terrorist attack. Warring on nations that produce terrorists only produce more terrorists. its backwards, ineffective, and expensive.

Welfare:
Toss a net and ladder down for the most unfortunate in society so they may find a way back.


11 seconds...11 seconds into that video and they got it totally wrong, almost backwards. Social liberalism is keeping out of the day to day decisions, not imposing government sanctioned thinking, and to maybe try and produce a somewhat level playing field so power isn't consolidated into just a few hands.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 12:11 PM
link   
You are a bright individual, and i really appreciate your viewpoints. I disagree with some of what you say, and I will address it separately, in line below. However regarding stances on things like abortions, death penalty, schools, etc, it seems that there is a LOOONG way from what they say they want, and what actually happens. Ineffective? Lying? Not sure...both parties are guilty. Part of why i think all elected officials should be voted out, regardless of who they are (sorry Ron Paul...i like you, but a cleanse is a cleanse).


Originally posted by SaturnFX
11 seconds in and they have stated the largest misconception.
Lets take a rundown of how the "liberals" want to decide for people in comparison and you will see which side actually is far more controlling of a person

Libs on Abortion:
Let the woman decide

Libs on death penelty:
Do not decide who dies

Libs on Economy:
Protect the people from corporations (this is a point of contention and the area most debated about)

Libs on education:
Fund local schools, let free market decide where the child goes (public or private).

Libs on stem cell research:
Let experimentation continue unhindered



Libs on energy:
Stop being oil addicts

The answer for this is "Carbon Credits" That is using socioeconomic warfare to drive a decrease in the commodity without effecting how the non affluent will afford this credit.

A lot of lip service and a poorly thought out plan. If the first response is to create a new tax structure, i can promise you the response is wrong.



Libs on euthanasia
Let a person DECIDE ON THEIR OWN LIFE!

Libs on environment:
Our kids might like trees and air...lets save em

Gun control:
Split. Ultimately, nobody needs a nuclear bomb in their personal arsenal. Some regulations needed



Health Care:
Government has a role to regulate crushing industry that hurts the economy. the health of citizens is part of that when insurance companies only allow for the rich to get treatment.



Once again, if the solution is to create an entire new tax structure, the solution sucks.

A few ideas that might help:

1 limit Visa's for foreign medical personnel. Any idea how many billions of US dollars are exported back to India? These same doctors, while nice people, generally tend to segregate from their communities as well. Charity is dminished, as they already have the charity of their dirt poor families to consider

2. change the payout structure for Medicare, putting in incentives to patients for reducing unneeded treatment (doctors do it all the time...pile on tests and shots just to charge more to the insurance/medicare)

But forcing a health care industry on us, that is decidedly not free market, is tyranny. As well, it carries business crushing taxes (trust me...my business will not be able to stay in business if ObamaCare isn't diminished greatly).




Homeland Security:
Draconian secret police and naziesque measures to clamp down on citizens must be eradicated.


I call utter BS on this. Absolutely utter BS. My rage, currently, is based on the draconian measures that have been put in place. From the death of internet freedom to the gate raping happening at the airport, the one thing that has gotten exponentially worse is the draconian secret police and naziesque measures to clam down on citizens.




Immigration:
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Religion:
Government should not tell us which or any deities or ceremonies we should observe. That is a personal decision that should be out of officals hands.

Same sex marriage:
Why is government in the game of observing a religious ceremony anyhow? A union between two people are fine, let a church sort out who can marry who, but since its demanded government observe this religious ceremony with tax breaks and all sorts, fine...just don't expect it to remain unequal.
A better argument would be for a demand of government to stop acknowledging marriage to begin with, and instead use civil unions...then the marriage issue is fully a church issue...where it should be.

Social Security:
Seniors who given their life should get during their retirement...especially considering they suck at digging ditches. a person in their 20s or 30s can barely balance a checkbook, much less make the effort to put away 10% or so towards their declining years...and its not a good thing to see millions of homeless elderly starving and dying on the streets.

Taxes:
Close to economy in regards to alot of disagreement. Simply put, taxes -is- a way to spread the wealth around...regardless of what snippets are there to candy coat it. If wealth is not spread around, a entire nation will go bust really quick with consolidated corporate interests. No country has ever survived for long without measures to spread some equality amongst the people..the rate however is in question as to what is fine, and what is too much.
Typically, history has always punished poor while giving breaks to the rich. Historically every country that follows this meme busts.



Just because it has always been done a certain way does little to validate the policy.

Taxes should be levied fairly, flatly, based on consumption. Not income. I have no problem with taxes. I DO have a problem with the current tyrannical tax system. What the Dems want to do with those taxes, however, is even worse.



War on Terror:
Its a tactic. Your more likely to die of toilet seat malfunctions than a terrorist attack. Warring on nations that produce terrorists only produce more terrorists. its backwards, ineffective, and expensive.


I agree with some of the points you make here (especially stem cell research). But this point here is the Creme de la Creme.

The greater terror is felt over what other rights will be eroded for my "safety".




Welfare:
Toss a net and ladder down for the most unfortunate in society so they may find a way back.


11 seconds...11 seconds into that video and they got it totally wrong, almost backwards. Social liberalism is keeping out of the day to day decisions, not imposing government sanctioned thinking, and to maybe try and produce a somewhat level playing field so power isn't consolidated into just a few hands.


No, they don't want to meddle. Just provide a way for financial control of a larger portion of the populace.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


It seems your biggest issue with liberalism is the fiscal philosophies.
To be honest, I feel the same way. I am a off the charts lefty socially, fiscally, I am middle, right leaning (in philosophy, not practice...in practice, the right has proven for the last 50 years to be absurd spenders and massive debt machines)

Keep in mind also, liberal idealism isn't implemented...nor for that matter is any form of actual conservatism in finances.

I think the corruption of the ideals is the issue. Fiscally, if there was a non-corrupt version of conservatism, I frankly don't see how anyone could complain about that, unless it had shown to be a disaster no matter how fair. Then you have to make changes to create a stable environment.

Sort of like...everyone can have a nuclear bomb because its our rights...well, after about 2-300 go off, its time to toss the whole concept and remove the nukes from the average joe's because reality interferes with ideals.

In my view, there are two progressive movements, and two conservative movements. The progressives I am proudly part of simply want to get to the freaking part where we are colonizing space and the poorest person on the whole planet has a comfortable middle class style living. Its what the vision is, it is whats worked on.
The other progressive movement is some sort of forced socialism...this is actually not very prominent, but it is there and becomes the loudest cry from the other side.

Conservatives (like ron paul) are the purists...they are in fact trying to remove themselves from your decisionmaking and are trying to focus mostly on fiscal matters...of course, they are sweeped under the rug for the neocons whom are corporate owned emotion monkeys whom try to make everything about God and guns and how the constitution must be followed word for word...except for where they don't want it to be, like the first amendment and pretty much everything after the 3rd amendment...actually, if they could truncate it down to just the 2nd amendment, they would be happy.

About the energy thing...I fall in line with the conspiracy theorists that suggest there are supressed energy technologies that would destroy the oil industry..corporate and political destruction of progression for financial gain..But even if that isn't the case, we could stop a couple wars and use that money to install solar panels across the nations highways, removing the need for coal and oil by a massive amount



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by havok
By far the BEST description of the left EVER!


Political satire that exaggerates what one side looks like and thinks is a good description?

Well, in that case.... I guess all Repubs/conservatives are just a bunch of fat, white christian extremist war mongers who want to take over and destroy the world....


Look, here is some advice for both sides of the political fence.... No two "Liberals are the same or think the same. No two " conservatives are the same or think the same. We all have different opinions politically, religiously and so on.... Sure some have similar opinions but I promise you. Get two liberals or two conservatives together and they wont agree on everything.

So how about this? let's finally get past this whole divisive two party system. let's understand that we are not democrats or republicans. we are citizen of the United States and we all have one thing in common. We want what is best for our country....

We can either get past this division and work together to achieve a better country and government or we can stay divided and point fingers and watch the country rot....

United we stand, divided we fall.... Anybody? Anyone at all?



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 

Now you are bringing one of my problems with liberals to the fore.


About the energy thing...I fall in line with the conspiracy theorists that suggest there are supressed energy technologies that would destroy the oil industry..corporate and political destruction of progression for financial gain..But even if that isn't the case, we could stop a couple wars and use that money to install solar panels across the nations highways, removing the need for coal and oil by a massive amount

I have found that most of the energy "solutions" to be poorly thought out. I hope you were jesting about the solar panel thing. The impact on the environment of any new energy initiative must be examined. Are we trading a bad thing for a worse thing? The light bulb issue still bothers me. How long till the EPA is telling us about all the mercury poisoning our environment [more]?
I'll agree to disagree with some other points, but this is one that really bothers me for the short sightedness.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by hangedman13
reply to post by SaturnFX
 

Now you are bringing one of my problems with liberals to the fore.


About the energy thing...I fall in line with the conspiracy theorists that suggest there are supressed energy technologies that would destroy the oil industry..corporate and political destruction of progression for financial gain..But even if that isn't the case, we could stop a couple wars and use that money to install solar panels across the nations highways, removing the need for coal and oil by a massive amount

I have found that most of the energy "solutions" to be poorly thought out. I hope you were jesting about the solar panel thing. The impact on the environment of any new energy initiative must be examined. Are we trading a bad thing for a worse thing? The light bulb issue still bothers me. How long till the EPA is telling us about all the mercury poisoning our environment [more]?
I'll agree to disagree with some other points, but this is one that really bothers me for the short sightedness.


So...you are against solar panels then?


I guess I won't then discuss hydro, nuclear, wind, and tidal...

Yes...short sightedness to find different energy solutions..we must be carbon addicts forever..what was I thinking...



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


It seems your biggest issue with liberalism is the fiscal philosophies.
To be honest, I feel the same way. I am a off the charts lefty socially, fiscally, I am middle, right leaning (in philosophy, not practice...in practice, the right has proven for the last 50 years to be absurd spenders and massive debt machines)

Keep in mind also, liberal idealism isn't implemented...nor for that matter is any form of actual conservatism in finances.

I think the corruption of the ideals is the issue. Fiscally, if there was a non-corrupt version of conservatism, I frankly don't see how anyone could complain about that, unless it had shown to be a disaster no matter how fair. Then you have to make changes to create a stable environment.

Sort of like...everyone can have a nuclear bomb because its our rights...well, after about 2-300 go off, its time to toss the whole concept and remove the nukes from the average joe's because reality interferes with ideals.

In my view, there are two progressive movements, and two conservative movements. The progressives I am proudly part of simply want to get to the freaking part where we are colonizing space and the poorest person on the whole planet has a comfortable middle class style living. Its what the vision is, it is whats worked on.
The other progressive movement is some sort of forced socialism...this is actually not very prominent, but it is there and becomes the loudest cry from the other side.

Conservatives (like ron paul) are the purists...they are in fact trying to remove themselves from your decisionmaking and are trying to focus mostly on fiscal matters...of course, they are sweeped under the rug for the neocons whom are corporate owned emotion monkeys whom try to make everything about God and guns and how the constitution must be followed word for word...except for where they don't want it to be, like the first amendment and pretty much everything after the 3rd amendment...actually, if they could truncate it down to just the 2nd amendment, they would be happy.

About the energy thing...I fall in line with the conspiracy theorists that suggest there are supressed energy technologies that would destroy the oil industry..corporate and political destruction of progression for financial gain..But even if that isn't the case, we could stop a couple wars and use that money to install solar panels across the nations highways, removing the need for coal and oil by a massive amount


You nailed it. Except i am not quite as liberal socially...i make that a personal choice. I am a hardcore libertarian. Your average run of the mill libertarian would look at me and say, "Damn, he's pretty hardcore". I could almost support anarchy, if i were not interested in seeing some level of mutual cooperation among humanity. While I may personally be socially conservative, i want for others to have the right to be as liberal as they want personally. I would rather see all concepts of "marriage" relegated solely to common law. Get the courts and the church out of it.

BTW, solar panels are fine and dandy...but piezoeletrics should be the way we go. You can make just about everything out of piezoelectric switches, creating a free energy grid from all manner of constructed materials. Maintenance is easier, too. You replace the piezoelectric panel when new construction and repairs happen.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth


Well, in that case.... I guess all Repubs/conservatives are just a bunch of fat, white christian extremist war mongers who want to take over and destroy the world....


Is that where i went wrong? I got the "fat, white" part...but am a non-christian pacifist.
Shoulda taken that right turn at Alberquerque.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Are you serious??? Why does it seem each solution poses bigger problems the they solve? Using your solar panel solution, what are the side affects? What animal habitats could be endangered, could they pose a hazard to people driving on said highways or will they just end up being inefficient? I live in a area where hydro-electric power would be highly feasible, yet it hasn't been used in many years. I would love to see a solution to our so called oil addiction as long as its not trading one problem for another. That is what I consider shortsighted, your response to my post could have been included in the video the op posted for it's comic value alone
Barreling through heedless of consequences is not a solution.
edit on 6-1-2011 by hangedman13 because: to stump any replies



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth

Originally posted by havok
By far the BEST description of the left EVER!

Political satire that exaggerates what one side looks like and thinks is a good description?

Not much of an exaggeration when it comes to the party's history.
Besides...it's my opinion of the liberal side of things.
I don't agree with their fiscal views at all.



Well, in that case.... I guess all Repubs/conservatives are just a bunch of fat, white christian extremist war mongers who want to take over and destroy the world....


I concur, but it's the conservative views that make sense.
Save not spend.
I don't like that Republicans have too much support for mega-corps that make money and not enough support for those that work to make it. But smaller government is ideal.



United we stand, divided we fall.... Anybody? Anyone at all?

I believe that is exactly what certain groups...*ahem....elites want.
Division.
Divide and conquer.





posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by havok
 


Divide and conquer...that is exactly right. With the advent of mass media, it has become so easy that it is almost silly.

And when the issue at hand is something that you cannot create divisions over? Find the next celebrity death and make it a 24 hour news cycle.

Look at todays news...very little about the wrangling going on on Capitol Hill, and repeats of a homeless guy with a nice voice, and gossip about Elizabeth Edwards' will.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


I did some more research on the Bilderberg group and it seems the localized opinion is clear.
They've been orchestrating divide and conquer techniques for decades.

It's just now coming to a faster fruition.

That's why I don't fall into political affiliations.

Obviously we will fight among ourselves while the distractions take place.
Completely destroying ourselves from within.




posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


All of your first page items; Unconstitutional. Therefore should be eradicated. Null and void.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


I wanna reply to one thing Why should we have pay for welfare.They shouldn't get stuff for free. They should have to work for it.It should be called Workfare



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


I wanna reply to one thing Why should we have pay for welfare.They shouldn't get stuff for free. They should have to work for it.It should be called Workfare



new topics




 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join