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.

 

The Forgotten Liberals

page: 2
10
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by BubbaJoe
 


We do not need to have federal. funding of abortions. Obamacare apparently does this. It is certainly being done by this administration. De-population agenda anyone? The co-counsel for Roe V wade in fact was for de-population in a most dehumanizing way. The spiritual implications of it are deep. So-called Libertarian Masons who hate Christian conservatives may have a thing or two to learn. They are supposed to have knowledge of the incarnation of avatars, and yet they think that aborting the souls is being an advocate of freedom and liberty. And they dare call us stupid.




posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


I have never called you stupid. I am pro choice, not pro abortion. Perhaps if you properly educated your children, there would be less need for abortion. You don't want to teach your children about sex, but want to punish them if they discover it. I am assuming you were a teenager at one point in time, and if you have children, I am assuming you have figured out what it is good for.



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 11:02 PM
link   
I am a long haired tree hugging liberal. There are states in this country that I can be arrested for owning a sex toy, states I can be arrested in for having consensual sex with another man, and states I can be arrested in for having sex with a woman that is not my wife. However you fools believe you are free, screw that, I have known true freedom, and you fools have no idea.



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by BubbaJoe
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


I have never called you stupid. I am pro choice, not pro abortion. Perhaps if you properly educated your children, there would be less need for abortion. You don't want to teach your children about sex, but want to punish them if they discover it. I am assuming you were a teenager at one point in time, and if you have children, I am assuming you have figured out what it is good for.




It was actually another guy who called Tea Partiers stupid. Sorry.

Ok let's look at your argument on education. You say if we only just educate the children. Are you a parent? What age would you introduce the subject? How would you do it? Would you be scientific?
Now, let's look at sex ed in schools. I remember the subject in 6th grade, but even in Catholic schools it is now 3rd grade. I remember, as I was shocked by it in our own family. So, now tell me why all this sex ed in schools hasn't completely eliminated teen pregnancies and then tell me why the culprit is parents not teaching their kids.



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by BubbaJoe
 


dont be so sure back in the day i could walk into any walmart,sears hardware store and jcpenny

and buy a gun and ammo without a second look or thought.

that was freedom and cant do that today and the reason i cant do that today is because of all those "tree hugging liberals"

and of course there are many many other examples.



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 11:11 PM
link   
reply to post by BubbaJoe
 


You say you have had true freedom. May I assume it was either in the deep of the Ozark Mountains or was it in some other country? What is your definition of true freedom? Is it to do anything you want without responsibility to society or others? As a tree hugger, do you support regulations that would necessarily sky rocket energy prices and limit your use of toilet paper?



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 11:43 PM
link   


What is your definition of true freedom? Is it to do anything you want without responsibility to society or others?


All this arguing about Freedom and "liberty" (as if using an older word makes it more emphatic) is worthless because there is no such thing as absolute freedom in a society, and everyones' priorities for freedom differ.

A republican may think freedom is being able to buy guns and ammo everywhere without question, while to a democrat freedom is feeling safe from rampant weapons.

A great example is loud cars. To a young person cruising around town, racing, and blasting loud music in a muscle car is the epitome of freedom. To a middle aged or old person, freedom is not having to hear that obnoxious crap because the cops ticket the hell out of any wild young people and keep them out of your neighboorhood.



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Janky Red
 


Janky, I will say the same thing to you I just said to the other guy, that you don't know me, you don't know what I/ve done for 30 years, and anyone can be a "Libertarian" these days. Do Libertarians feel they own the Tea Party by being associated with that Party?


Frankly, the Tea Party was a libertarian movement, that is why some many people say the movement
has been highjacked, they don't say it for fun you know. It appears suspect when you have a bunch of
people who voted in Bush, all of a sudden moaning about the state of the country and size government.
This Tea Party is comprised of a large electorate who installed and supported the last president, who
initiated the final implementation with 8 years of methodical policy. Due to this past support it appears
as though the "RINOS" had to shed the RINO associations for something less dirty. You can put
a dog in a cat suit and call it a camel if you want, but I think otherwise.



Sounds to me like an elite club then. Then they can be all smug and say stupid things like all conservatives are for corporatism.


The thing is, corporatism can thrive and do optimum "wonders" in a state that is run by people who are
pro business oriented, as opposed to being pro citizen like myself. The Tea Party talks in turns of what
it will do for the business world, I saw the debates, the alligence is pretty obvious.




Everyone else knows that free enterprise means you cannot put an arbitrary limit on growth without flirting with Marxist Socialism.


And when is the last time this government has stayed completely out of business affairs?
Since before the birth of Marx? within the first year of the drafting?

If we were mates having a beer, I would ask you to tell me some examples of this Socialist cabal that
is ellegidy defeating the business sector in the this country. I mean, for the love of god, I have met
2 self identified socialists in my entire life, you would think that there would be rallies and speeches
all over the place. I can say with my hand on my chest, I have never experienced a communist
anything that I know of.




I am not for giant oligopolies or monopolies, or for corporations running government.


See, what I am talking about is the private sector, dictating the rules and virtual laws to
society using their collective wealth and size to dominate over the individual. It is
common to see the wealthily forces in any country create a self serving system,
because that is the smartest business manuever any business can institute. If you
let the mortgage corporation create the entire guidelines for lending and barrowing,
you create a situation where recourse and equity can be extinguished at contract level.
Nowadays most contracts can be amended without any notification... I think consolidation
of so much power, via a completely hands of marketplace will create more fraud, not less.
My bank already tries to screw me EVERY single time they can get away with it, do
I think they should have every avenue conceivable available to screw me with their legal
conjuring? Hell No.




If anything, I have been yelling about how the UN Agenda 21 uses terms like "public-private partnership". Guess what that means? If you have a head on your shoulders you will admit the meaning of it and who is implementing it today.


I just read about it, I would suggest that would be some power hungry group of people, some misguided people
and some evil people too. I am not implementing it, doesn't seem like you are either, whats the problem here?




Perhaps I am not the typical Tea Partier, because I don't fit the neat little stereotype whats his face Master Mason thinks he can put on me.


all I know is what you type here, I feel I have offered the same
valid points at least 50 times to you thus far. I think you are unwilling to look at the Corporatism aspect
because it would put the purity of you ideological outlook off kilter. I am very aware that liberalism
has some very screwed up aspects, constantly bringing up race, being against war (yet starting many of them)
being intolerant to Christians, but being overly kind to Islam... those things suck to me.



Where's the line between the communist hatred of the bourgeoisie and capitalism, and a healthy dislike for corporate monsters running our lives? Maybe I should start a thread on that and see what happens.


That's a good question, I just hate the abusive stuff, I just want an environment where everything is as
square as possible.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 12:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 


And you think that if we just have more govt regulation then lenders wont make sudden changes without your consent or knowledge? Good luck with that, really. I have zero faith in govt right now. Thanks for clarifying your positions for me. I sure don't want a bunch of giant corporations who are too big to fail have a baillout and access to my paycheck because the govt says it's a necessary evil. See how that works? Goldman Sachs CEOs getting bonuses after sacking mutual funds and other customers...no thanks, not on my dime. Should I not take Sarah palin's word on no crony capitalism? However, I am keenly aware that communists have historically railed against capitalism in general in al forms. That is a problem I seriously have with that system, because the alternative is Statism and abolition of private property. The Communists have hated the bourgeoisie and have waged class warfare since Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto. So when I see people railing against corporations, I see it can be one of two things. They either hate Capitalism altogether, or they just oppose the abuse of capitalism. I take note of what else those people say and try to determine if they show other signs of hating the bourgeoisie or free enterprise.
There are other things which denote Communist mindset. The hatred of the traditional family is one. We know from the Communist Manifesto that Karl Marx believed that the State is supreme to the family unit. Thus communists have used all sorts of means to attack the stability of the family. They employed feminists in their campaign, due to women already being tired of being considered second class citizens. Is it the fault of Capitalism that women were treated that way? I'd say that Medieval women were victimes regardless of their ecnomic stature.
I have to be careful because this is a major hot button but it has been exploited for purposes of breaking the family apart.
People have bought into the socialist welfare state without even being aware of it as an ideology. That is the irony of it.
edit on 12-9-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 12:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 




I thought of Perry and Bachman as being the quintessential neocons,


Agreed, Perry, Bachman, Obama, doesn't matter .. we loose, corporate influence gains. The Tea Party's worst act since coming to power, claiming to be the "true conservative" has been to sacrifice the entire budget except the Military Industrial Complex. How is that being a "true conservative" I don't know. Anything attached to the GOP is the GOP.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 




but I can tell you I would vote for Perry just to get that nut out of the WH.


Perry? Really? The guy's a social conservative tool .. you'll be trading a peanut for a walnut. Take away his social conservatism (which he could never do anything with in the WH) and you get what? A pasty Barrack Obama. A corporate shill.



Yes sociaism is exactly that which our Founding Fathers would not like to see prevail,


Really? I thought they fought for equal rights and civil protection from the powers of the royal over lords? How is the Oligarchy any different? How is the top 10% of the population controlling 95% of the wealth not the exact thing we fought the revolution for? I may not like Socialism, but the level of dependency on the "system" is not a natural reaction to our culture, it's dependency produced on purpose by the government. I'm certain our founding fathers would favor an equal society where workers profit just as much from industry as CEO's do.

There's nothing conservative about income inequality.


Because Socialism is nothing but Totalitarianism with a smiley face.


And Fascism is Capitalism's answer to Socialism.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 12:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 





people who voted in Bush, all of a sudden moaning about the state of the country and size government.


I of course cannot represent all members of the Tea Party, but I can say that it certainly was not a sudden thing for me, and I did not vote for Bush in 04, though I am glad Kerry did not win. That was about the time I was looking into the Libertarian party, but I saw that there were some things I couldnt abide. But no I was against the Patriot Act and I was against the wars. I have been watching the steady encroachment on liberty from both left and right. But that's just me. It was definitely not sudden my any means. It may have appeared sudden to you because conservatives generally don't walk around with protest signs, with the exception of the Pro-Life crowd, and I never carried a sign in my life up until recently.
If you must know, I have been watching the slow takeover of govt by the CFR and the NWO since the 70's.
edit on 12-9-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 12:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


How does Socialism fight for equal rights when they are seizing my paycheck to give to others? What is fair about me working an hours wage and then having the govt take 49% of it and give it to someone else arbitrarily for whatever reason? That is not real justice by any stretch of the imagination. You want the esoteric version of my argument? It circumvents the law of karma by forcing a fake equality. It is totally different from the true compassion of the Buddha. He sought to relieve human suffering but just redistributing wealth by force is not and never has been a true spiritual solution. In general, reliance on the welfare state only serves to give people a false sense of security. What the govt giveth, the govt can taketh away. A case in point of how the govt is not reliable is the Social Security system. After decades of paying into the system, someone like Obama can come around and say oh we cannot guarantee that people will get their SS checks. See how that works? So, if I paid in all those years and some guy can be POTUS and just make statements like that, and he seems to think he can do anything by EO, it seems to me bordering on dictatorship. And people still want the govt to run healthcare on top of all of that? The whole dialogue should be a sign to the people that govt officials cannot be trusted.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 01:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 





civil protection from the powers of the royal over lords? How is the Oligarchy any different?


I haven't said an oligarchy is better. See my post to Janky about corporations. By the way, excessive regulations force smaller businesses out because they have a harder time financially with compliance. So how is that helping keep oligarchy from happening? My sister is a small rancher and I have heard her stories.
edit on 12-9-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 01:21 AM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 




How does Socialism fight for equal rights when they are seizing my paycheck to give to others? What is fair about me working an hours wage and then having the govt take 49% of it and give it to someone else arbitrarily for whatever reason?


I'm not advocating for Socialism. All you have to do is look at the historical data.. from the 1940's - 1980's the income inequality was relatively low, in the past 30 years it has skyrocketed. It's probably not coincidental that it just so happens that income inequality exploded from Reagan onward .. the founder and champion of Neoconservativism.

It's not fair to take money, especially from the middle class, and give it to the poor for the sake of being poor. It's also even more unfair to use inflation against the middle class and the poor to create an indirect taxation .. which since the 1990's has been absolutely insane. Republican / Neoconservative ideology does not favor the middle class or the poor .. which is 90+% of the entire society. It favors the wealthy and only the wealthy.

If you want to get spiritual the only spiritually pure form of Society is Communism. Which of course could never exist given the Human Nature Complex.



By the way, excessive regulations force smaller businesses out because they have a harder time financially with compliance. So how is that helping keep oligarchy from happening? My sister is a small rancher and I have heard her stories.


I agree.. I am against regulation on businesses. So long as they are national businesses, the majority of their employees are American and they are not domestically based yet importing goods.......



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 06:16 PM
link   
There are those who chose to label themselves...I once did...but no longer will....although I will labeled by others...and i've been "labeled" everything in the book.

My beliefs range across what could be all of the political spectrum....and of course...that varies on opinion of those read my opinions...opinions that often change.

Really, i don't think there is a great alignment that leads to the promised land. It doesn't matter how parties are split, most people are going find things they agree and disagree with on both parties...no matter what the issues are.

To me, a great mixture of beliefs and minds is the best way to make a better life for us all....not a strict ideological belief...no matter what it may be. I tend to look at what worked in the past...look at what was done right.

Myself, i believe Country and citizens first. That means our businesses, our middle class, and poor. If that means taxing imports to make businesses here grow and create better paying jobs for our citizens...then I am for it. No matter what we do, we are going to have to absorb more pain.

If it's to protect our borders, then I'm for it.

If it's to protect our nation from harm, then I'm for it.

If it's to protect our elderly, sick, and children...then i am for it.

Quite frankly, I don't think i'm that extreme on those things.

Thank you for the thread Misoir...S/F...and glad you are still around.



BTW.

Just received some paperwork from my employer....25 percent INCREASE in my insurance premium...and it's certainly no cadillac plan. The premium is already insane, and I often skip going to the doctor when I probably should because i don't want to be saddled with a huge bill..but yet I'm paying a ridiculous amount each month for something I'M AFRAID TO USE.

yeah, it's offtopic...but that's what's on my mind right now and i'm pissed.

Good day guys.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck

And people who claim Beck or Palin are Libertarians.. it's the Neocon movement infiltrating them .. Foxnews showed "Conservatives" waving the yellow Gadsden Flag and using keyword like "Libertarian Ideologies" and all of a sudden a huge portion of the Social Conservative Republicans think just because they don't agree with the Governments fiscal policies makes them Libertarianish.

People are stupid.



I say the same thing when people call Barack Obama, a corporatist criminal, a "socialist".




reply to post by Misoir

Personally I think the best merging of political beliefs would be Libertarian coming together with a Workers party, what the Democratic party once stood for before Progressive Marxist took over the show. Combine personal freedom, Small government and a strong protection for blue-collar workers and union rights, working to rebuild the middle/working class and our economic production.


I agree with this. Good post.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by David9176

Myself, i believe Country and citizens first. That means our businesses, our middle class, and poor. If that means taxing imports to make businesses here grow and create better paying jobs for our citizens...then I am for it. No matter what we do, we are going to have to absorb more pain.

If it's to protect our borders, then I'm for it.

If it's to protect our nation from harm, then I'm for it.

If it's to protect our elderly, sick, and children...then i am for it.

Quite frankly, I don't think i'm that extreme on those things.



This is my thought process in a nutshell.

It's refreshing to see another American that believes in this kind of outlook. After wading through posts of people who claim to love this country but would gladly spit on those that are less fortunate, I didn't think that there were many here on ATS. Starred.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
r
How does Socialism fight for equal rights when they are seizing my paycheck to give to others? What is fair about me working an hours wage and then having the govt take 49% of it and give it to someone else arbitrarily for whatever reason? That is not real justice by any stretch of the imagination.


Let's cut right down to reality.

These days, the ones who get all pious about opposing "socialism" in practice are adamant defenders of the ability of certain hedge fund managers being able to pay 15% tax rate, while you and I pay 28% plus 15% FICA.

In practice, those who think that this is immoral, are the ones being vehemently decried as socialist, like those notorious """"socialist""""" hedge fund billionaires Warren Buffet and George Soros.

btw, here is a graphic illustration of what actual socialists (I am not one) think about Obama:

www.forbes.com...



edit on 12-9-2011 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1   >>

log in

join