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.

 

Constitution Loving Liberals

page: 1
15

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 01:19 PM
link   
Now that's a catchy title eh?

I would like to explore the furthering divide among the ideals that founded the United States vs the regulations and policies that have progressively shred the constitution over the history of the United States and course of time.

Now this is not to say that there are not Liberals who love and would defend the constitution or so called conservatives that disregard the constitution.

One example may be President Bush and his post 9/11 policies and to be followed by liberal Obama and his continuity of such policies yet differences regarding, things like say for example the Bush Tax cuts.

Now I am of the belief that communism is not dead. I believe that it has in fact captured the democratic party as far as congress as concerned and that the Democratic lefts, policies have bordered on such things as communism and socialism. Now that is not without saying that there are not those on the right promoting the same things. I believe that in part it has also captured the right, but the presence is way more noticeable on the left.

Now let me make this perfectly clear I am not here to offend anybody. You can in fact be a liberal who would stand and defend the constitution and have a solid belief in it's founding and principals. That said I do think that communism has been divided into two different categories, both have the same goal but they have different sets of goals in which to achieve them. Those two ideas are communism and socialism.

Being a Liberal does not qualify you as either, but your belief in said ideals might. Neither does being right qualify you as a constitutional loving individual. Just trying to be fair.

Now the other idea I want to discuss is the word apathy. Apathy in my own definition is when a person becomes depressed and feels power less to change things. The opposite is called flow and is a state of productivity and accomplishment.

en.wikipedia.org...

The idea is that people in the country, have become highly apathetic and this has killed creativity and entrepreneurship or general productivity in this country.

I believe that a truly apathetic person when given power or control can become a very controlling and dominant especially when it comes to things that they can not control that don't necessarily apply to them personally like say animal rights activism or say environmental activism.

These are the issues in which become highly regulated and detached and obscured.

Now the purpose of this thread is not to become highly argumentative. I want to discuss in detail the differences of the conflicting ideals and how apathy has played a role post 9/11 especially it also before since the 1960's and even before then.

That said, if you are a constitutional liberal please stand up and let your voice be heard, if not for the sake of a good discussion that is okay too, please state that and let us know how you feel.




posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by thehoneycomb
 


The problem with this ideology is that you are assuming that the POTUS is really calling the shots and they are not.

The Owners control both sides of the election ....called the Heglian dialectic. so it doesn't matter which candidate wins, conservative or liberal , the NWO agenda marches on.

Plain and Simple.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 01:52 PM
link   
APATHY
Apathy (also called impassivity or perfunctoriness) is a state of indifference, or the suppression of emotions such as concern, excitement, motivation and passion. An apathetic individual has an absence of interest in or concern about emotional, social, spiritual, philosophical or physical life.

They may lack a sense of purpose or meaning in their life. He or she may also exhibit insensibility or sluggishness. The opposite of apathy is flow.[1] In positive psychology, apathy is described as a result of the individual feeling they do not possess the level of skill required to confront a challenge. It may also be a result of perceiving no challenge at all (e.g. the challenge is irrelevant to them, or conversely, they have learned helplessness). In light of the insurmountable certainty of universal doom, apathy is the default mode of existential nihilism, and, as such, is not considered to be a pathological state by those who experience it.

Your definition and implyed use of the term to suggest a luring to socialism is absurd,but i'm sure it will be good baiting.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by nh_ee
 


I am not suggesting that. I am suggesting that the POTUS and others are the mouth piece and some members of both parties follow suit.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by OLD HIPPY DUDE
 


I think that as a nation, both parties have become somewhat apathetic and I see apathy as a social conditioning tool. When we become apathetic and feel powerless we a re more willing to allow TPTB pass on their ideas in HOPE that things will CHANGE.

HOPE and CHANGE.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by thehoneycomb
 


I'm a Constitution loving Liberal!

We call ourselves "Libertarians" .. some call us "Classical Liberals"

But if you're meaning a Constitution loving Democrat.. I'm certain it doesn't exist.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


LOL thanks for sharing.

I am curious to see what happens here.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by thehoneycomb
 


We call ourselves "Libertarians" .. some call us "Classical Liberals"


Woah there Rockpuck....

Libertarian and Liberal are two different parties.
I don't see how you can say liberals call themselves Libertarians.





posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by havok
 


"Constitution Loving Liberal"

en.wikipedia.org...



Classical liberalism is the philosophy committed to the ideal of limited government, constitutionalism, rule of law, due process, and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.[1][2]


The Democratic type of Liberal is called a Social Liberal


Social liberalism is the belief that liberalism should include social justice. It differs from classical liberalism in that it believes the legitimate role of the state includes addressing economic and social issues such as unemployment, health care, and education while simultaneously expanding civil rights. Under social liberalism, the good of the community is viewed as harmonious with the freedom of the individual.[1] Social liberal policies have been widely adopted in much of the capitalist world, particularly following World War II.[2] Social liberal ideas and parties tend to be considered centrist or centre-left.[3][4][5][6][7]


Which is obviously NOT a Constitution Loving Liberal.

Just depends on what the OP means by Liberal. Since he didn't specify I can honestly say I'm a Classical Liberal .. thus a Constitution Loving Liberal. Note I did say a Constitution Loving Democrat does not exist.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by thehoneycomb
 


ahem.. you mean:
www.bluerepublicans.org
?



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


You know what's funny, Rockpuck?
The absolute definition of Classic Liberal is what most "Conservatives" stick to today.
Most "Conservatives" wear the Republican name, also...

But I don't think any of them research their parties names.
At least, the "Conservatives" I know.
They just go by what the television tells them.

Politics.
Pick a party and we'll decide your fate.





posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by havok
 


The word "Conservative" is the word that has changed.



Most "Conservatives" wear the Republican name, also...


Considering the vast portion of the Republican party is not "Conservative" but "Social Conservative" which is entirely different.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 03:07 PM
link   


Just depends on what the OP means by Liberal. Since he didn't specify I can honestly say I'm a Classical Liberal .. thus a Constitution Loving Liberal. Note I did say a Constitution Loving Democrat does not exist.



All good points. I intentionally left a gray area in my OP thats what I would like to discuss.

All good comments so far.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


That link is not working for me. Server not available.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 03:53 PM
link   
Depending on who you ask, I am neither liberal nor am I conservative.

My "liberal" friends think I'm a pariah because I believe in the 2nd Amendment (and liberty in general guaranteed to us by our birth). My "conservative" friends think I am a pariah because I believe in the 4th amendment (and libert in general guaranteed to us by our birth).

I know that both parties simply work for the same few folks, and that the agenda has the D mask or the R mask put onto it depending on which "side" is floating the idea. This is the reason why Obama's presidency has really just been GWB's next 4 years.

Now IF there truly were two separate parties and if there were 2 candidates that echoed my beliefs in the Consitution, whom would I vote for? Most likely the Democrat as the Republican party just comes across as a good ole boys club that hates the poor, minorities, women, sex, has a love affair with Mussolini's facism and non Christians.

Derek
edit on 23-1-2012 by Viesczy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by thehoneycomb
 


Hmm.. don't know why it wouldn't work. Try it with www. maybe?
Works for me.


We are former non-Republicans who are joining the Republican party for one year to help Ron Paul win the GOP nomination for President in 2012.

Here www.bluerepublican.org...
edit on 28-1-2012 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by thehoneycomb
 


Why do I have to love the constitution? Can't I just love my neighbor and do what I think is right for our community?

Why do conservatives not believe in human or civil rights? Why are only 'natural' rights the ones we should defend and protect?



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by thehoneycomb
 


1. Obama is a MODERATE. Get it right.

2. The Democratic party isn't much different from the Republican party on certain key issues.

3. Real Communists/Socialists shun Obama. He is neither.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by links234
 


Who says they don't believe in human or civil rights?
Conservatives came up with the first civil rights act.
Actually they do believe in civil rights, we just haven't seen any true conservatives in a long time. What we have parading as conservatives are these neo conservatives that are really corporate shills using any empty promise they can think of bundled with billionaire backers and corporate money to get elected.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by thehoneycomb
 


I'm a Constitution loving Liberal!

We call ourselves "Libertarians" .. some call us "Classical Liberals"

But if you're meaning a Constitution loving Democrat.. I'm certain it doesn't exist.


Why yes, I do indeed call myself a Classical Liberal A true member of the Real Liberal Class.

However, I'm a Canadian. But since I'm an enlightenment buff, and the US constitution is based on the thoughts and works of those, I'll comment anyways.
edit on 2012/1/28 by Aeons because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
15

log in

join