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.

 

Are Conservatives and Republicans holding back the U.S?

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


Aye, technically the Constitution says people have the right to bear arms in case militias need to be formed-to allow quick formation for defense. Many interpret the main portion of defending against internal corruption from letters between leaders-I believe anyway.

I am sure the gun amendment was put in to satisfy both. On one hand as a deterrent both against internal forces and to act as a buffer in case invaded. If everyone owns a weapon-and invading army would hestitate, or would have. Today they would probably just carpet bomb.

I had to laugh over that ignorant statement about a "progressive party" trying to do away with guns. First-there is no "progressive party" of any relevance-could be one here or there in certain states of course.

I consider myself an arch liberal. Ive got no problem with guns, Ive got lots of problems with many people who own them. Fools like to draw them out to flaunt power. Those people need to have their firearms stripped from them.

Firearms are not toys to be used to settle squabbles and those who treat them as such should be hammered down upon hard. I am all for those that are responsible adults who go through proper training and understand the potential harm-having them.




posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by muse7

We would support the health care system with higher taxes which would also go to support the better and improved social welfare safety nets that would be established.

This is not about an agenda and trying to turn America into a "socialist state", this is about everyone having access to good health care and not having to worry about feeding their family if they happen to go unemployed or under employed.
edit on 3/11/2012 by muse7 because: (no reason given)


Oh is that all? Well, you make it sound so easy. Why didn't we think of that? Look, simply put, what you want is a fantasy. It just can't happen. Exactly how are you going to insure people that kind of security, by raising taxes? Do you think only millionaires pay taxes?

It's like being a person who makes 20k per year and wants to live in a mansion. It ain't gonna happen. You don't have the money to pay for it. Same with america. It ain't going to happen, we don't have the money to pay for it. There is a limit to how much in taxes you can take from the middle class before you drive us into welfare too.

Conservatives do not want to see people suffer. They are not greedy. They see that we are broke and can't AFFORD to pay for the 49% of the population on welfare. (especially when many of them are capable of doing for themselves, they just don't want to, and yes, that is a huge problem in our society and a huge part of why we can't make it work.) Conservatives believe that we are capable of helping each other when we are allowed to prosper without government interference. We believe that government interference is only MAKING THE PROBLEM BIGGER. It's causing more and more people to fall out of middle class status. It's derailing our economy.

Instead of trying to carry half the population, we need to fix our economy and get them to work so they don't need assistance. We can do that by lowering taxes which will jump start our economy and get businesses hiring again. This will create jobs and that means less people on wellfare, and more people paying taxes. The more people paying taxes, the lower the rates need to be, and the happier we all are.



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by lordtyp0
Aye, technically the Constitution says people have the right to bear arms in case militias need to be formed-to allow quick formation for defense. Many interpret the main portion of defending against internal corruption from letters between leaders-I believe anyway.

I am sure the gun amendment was put in to satisfy both. On one hand as a deterrent both against internal forces and to act as a buffer in case invaded. If everyone owns a weapon-and invading army would hestitate, or would have. Today they would probably just carpet bomb.


That is taken to the extreme, in my opinion. Taken at its basics, the 2nd Amendment reaffirms the Natural Right of Self-Defense. That it is our Right to preserve our lives and our lively-hood. What do you say about the Natural Right of self-preservation? Is that something we should defer to a 3rd party or should that be a self-responsibility within reason?


I had to laugh over that ignorant statement about a "progressive party" trying to do away with guns. First-there is no "progressive party" of any relevance-could be one here or there in certain states of course.


Please tell me you aren't referring to me. Because I never stated as such. I was making a point that the question should be applied equally to each side of the extreme philosophical debate. I no more think "progressives" want to remove guns as much as I think "conservatives" want to make me go to church. Those are conjugated issues.


I consider myself an arch liberal. Ive got no problem with guns, Ive got lots of problems with many people who own them. Fools like to draw them out to flaunt power. Those people need to have their firearms stripped from them.


This is all based on perspective. I have plenty of friends who own guns and, unless I specifically asked them, would have no idea otherwise to their ownership of a firearm. Those that "flaunt" them -- are doing so on their own accord. To equate ownership of a firearm to power is looking very narrowly at the issue at a whole in my opinion.


Firearms are not toys to be used to settle squabbles and those who treat them as such should be hammered down upon hard. I am all for those that are responsible adults who go through proper training and understand the potential harm-having them.


Absolutely they are not toys and many law-abiding gun owners would damn well agree with you. They take the responsibility serious and understand the law. This isn't to diminish that there are some that do not, but overwhelmingly, lawful gun owners are rarely considered a crime risk. It is those that do not understand the responsibility nor lawful aspect of it.



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 




Please tell me you aren't referring to me. Because I never stated as such. I was making a point that the question should be applied equally to each side of the extreme philosophical debate. I no more think "progressives" want to remove guns as much as I think "conservatives" want to make me go to church. Those are conjugated issues.


Not at all, someone else is back there spouting things without apparent fact checking on any assertions. It sometimes gets hard to tell if these people are trolling, or just full of righteous conviction that they feel they don't need facts to back claims up. Maybe they think the internet isn't "real" and so it doesn't matter whats said.

Meh.

On point of thread. I believe the republican party was hijacked by a group who is intent on making the populace as stupid as they can and employ knee jerk emotional responses to create mobs and fuel their political power. (Palin, Santorum, Perry just to name recent ones).

Course, the republican party of today bears no semblance to the republican party of 20 years ago. The term "Conservative" is also conflated-they just lump social and economic conservatism into one-then scream that anyone who disagrees is an evil commie. I would love to say the best method of dealing with them is to ignore them-but they are too fanatical to stand being ignored, and too resistant to even reading a book to ever change.

Not sure what to make of tomorrows potential in light of today.



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by lordtyp0
Not at all, someone else is back there spouting things without apparent fact checking on any assertions. It sometimes gets hard to tell if these people are trolling, or just full of righteous conviction that they feel they don't need facts to back claims up. Maybe they think the internet isn't "real" and so it doesn't matter whats said.

Meh.



Passive aggressiveness aside, your point is spot on.



On point of thread. I believe the republican party was hijacked by a group who is intent on making the populace as stupid as they can and employ knee jerk emotional responses to create mobs and fuel their political power. (Palin, Santorum, Perry just to name recent ones).


And equally can be said of the Democratic party. To be blind of such is allowing subjective thought into the discussion. To think that Pelosi et. al. isn't the same is only seeing one side of the issue.


Course, the republican party of today bears no semblance to the republican party of 20 years ago. The term "Conservative" is also conflated-they just lump social and economic conservatism into one-then scream that anyone who disagrees is an evil commie. I would love to say the best method of dealing with them is to ignore them-but they are too fanatical to stand being ignored, and too resistant to even reading a book to ever change.


Ah but the same could be and should be said about the Democratic party. That it isn't the same party as of years gone by. The convergence of the two is prevalent into one party of power.



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


I disagree with the "One Party" idea.

To contrast-very generalized-it seems anymore that the Republicans see public office as a direct way to a multimillion dollar consultancy job with big companies. They pass laws which benefit them more than anything (examples-the airport body scanners, all the no bid military contracts etc. etc.). They are also unified behind talking points and seem to move like one beast. Also-consider what they are doing in Wisconson and Michigan.

The democrats are wimps. They are ideologues and naive and seem to cave to all sorts of bad things just to try and get anything done. They also can't seem to move unless they do a thousand polls to see how it tests out.

That being said there are definitely some opportunistic Dems.

The big party difference though is-pre 1970 the only real difference between the two parties was the economic policies. Then the Conservative movement happened-the idea that the American way of life was being destroyed due to decadence and from there-the religious right took sway in the Republican party. Back in the day both sides of the aisle were friends, went out to lunches to discuss issues and would find middle ground. Newt Gingrich changed all that and basically said anyone who "Fraternized with the enemy" would be black balled.

Fact is the Republicans changed all the rules mid game, and the Democrats are just meekly muttering "please play nice".

Now keep in mind-I am talking about the Parties themselves as personified by elected officials. Not citizens who are card members. The behaviors I cited are what I see all the time in caucus meetings on the local and state level. I have never been in the Fed level-but the republican control of party members is nearly epic in its orwellian form.

EDIT TO ADD:
The passive aggressive thing-I had more written but felt like I was calling someone out.. Suppose I still sort of did, but I was trying to not lead it down that way. When I chopped things out it sort of made it awkward and I didn't notice

edit on 11-3-2012 by lordtyp0 because: Meh



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by lordtyp0
I disagree with the "One Party" idea.

To contrast-very generalized-it seems anymore that the Republicans see public office as a direct way to a multimillion dollar consultancy job with big companies. They pass laws which benefit them more than anything (examples-the airport body scanners, all the no bid military contracts etc. etc.). They are also unified behind talking points and seem to move like one beast. Also-consider what they are doing in Wisconson and Michigan.


When I speak of convergence, it isn't that it is a one-party system -- though you delineate between card carrying members and elected officials later on. This is what I am getting at. The populace, retain their ideals that range from conservative to liberal.

I still contend you are speaking from a biased point of view (in which shouldn't be taken as a stance for the issues in which you have presented) and not looking at the whole of the Nation -- rather what we know. We know what is around us, what we naturally conjoin with and mass with.

There are those on the Democratic party side that agreed with body-scanners and no-bid contracts. That agreed we should be subjected to Governmental rule of some form of another; "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet".

When speaking of individual states, could it be the values of the local voters driving such attitudes? That the National Parties (Republican and Democrats) are merely attaching themselves to such issues to garner support and votes?


The democrats are wimps. They are ideologues and naive and seem to cave to all sorts of bad things just to try and get anything done. They also can't seem to move unless they do a thousand polls to see how it tests out.

That being said there are definitely some opportunistic Dems.


As are the Republicans! They are wimps.


The big party difference though is-pre 1970 the only real difference between the two parties was the economic policies. Then the Conservative movement happened-the idea that the American way of life was being destroyed due to decadence and from there-the religious right took sway in the Republican party. Back in the day both sides of the aisle were friends, went out to lunches to discuss issues and would find middle ground. Newt Gingrich changed all that and basically said anyone who "Fraternized with the enemy" would be black balled.


If you think this is all that had happened and it is all because of one party I cannot argue unless you are equally willing to view both sides from an objective point of view. To say one party has changed and not even mention the other is willfully ignoring the reality.


Fact is the Republicans changed all the rules mid game, and the Democrats are just meekly muttering "please play nice".


And here is where I diverge from normal banter with you. What facts? There are facts that both sides have "changed the game"; significantly, in many aspects.


Now keep in mind-I am talking about the Parties themselves as personified by elected officials. Not citizens who are card members. The behaviors I cited are what I see all the time in caucus meetings on the local and state level. I have never been in the Fed level-but the republican control of party members is nearly epic in its orwellian form.


You speak of only talking about card carrying members but then ramp it up to "Fed level".



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 11:43 PM
link   
Originally posted by ownbestenemy


When I speak of convergence, it isn't that it is a one-party system -- though you delineate between card carrying members and elected officials later on. This is what I am getting at. The populace, retain their ideals that range from conservative to liberal.

I still contend you are speaking from a biased point of view (in which shouldn't be taken as a stance for the issues in which you have presented) and not looking at the whole of the Nation -- rather what we know. We know what is around us, what we naturally conjoin with and mass with.

There are those on the Democratic party side that agreed with body-scanners and no-bid contracts. That agreed we should be subjected to Governmental rule of some form of another; "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet".


I am unsure where I am appearing as biased. If it is from when I said I was an arch-liberal-I am referring to social liberalism (personal freedom, the right of adults to do whatever they want so long as no harm comes, etc.). With societal items-I believe in UHC and am a proponent of free education-all the way through college because I believe a healthy well educated society is one that is powerful. The U.S. is losing so many jobs every day because to be "Intelligent" seems to have become a word to be mocked. I do tend to side with Democratic policies over republican because when I read the bills-the republican bills tend to be... not in the best interest of the country-blatantly so. They name them noble names in order to smear any detractors as well.

As for the body scanner. The dems fought tooth and nail and rejected the first 3-4 attempts to get the contracts pushed through-then the "Underwear bomber" happened and it became a "Tool against terrorism". No politician could hope to fight the label of "Making it safe to commit terror" by standing against the bill at that point. Most of the military and finance boards are republican controlled. They gave a couple seats to dems as favors basically, but they have very minor power. If they resisted pet projects they would never get anything through-it would all be sidelined or fillibustered. Hence my comment of letting bad things through to get anything done.



When speaking of individual states, could it be the values of the local voters driving such attitudes? That the National Parties (Republican and Democrats) are merely attaching themselves to such issues to garner support and votes?


The whole process is a bit too complex to give in detail, I can only give a summary which will have gaps-I referenced fed level earlier, but really I should have said National, or main party caucus. Essentially the national level controls the state level which in turn holds sway heavily on a more local level. Depends on the area and financial interests. In Utah-the national party sees it as a no-win, so there is little support from them outside occasional endorsements. Little money trickles in. The Republican side is-like I said-more like a single beast. You can be talking with them about things one day, and the next-boom-everyone has the same opinion and you are stonewalled. Most the members in the Dem party here are-basically hippies. Trying to get things like community gardens put though-seems to be the scope of what they think they can accomplish.
The higher up Dems I've interacted with honestly seem burned out/ready to give up. Most on the dem side seem like they are trying to be statesmen-reminds me of the governor in Oregon. He campaigned on fixing the roads. Then every budget that came through for road repair-the republicans tacked on a prayer at school rider forcing him to veto-then they smeared him as vetoing every road repair attempt. The republicans stopped playing fair, or even caring about the right thing unless it coincided with their agendas-which most the time seems all about consolidation of power.

Though for the most part this is just basically-hearsay. I am only attest to what I have seen/experienced.
edit on 11-3-2012 by lordtyp0 because: edit-cleaning up formatting

edit on 11-3-2012 by lordtyp0 because: clarified a point on the road repair bill portion.



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by lordtyp0
I am unsure where I am appearing as biased. If it is from when I said I was an arch-liberal


Granted -- you disclosed your stance and furthered it below.

I am referring to social liberalism (personal freedom, the right of adults to do whatever they want so long as no harm comes, etc.).


I do tend to side with Democratic policies over republican because when I read the bills-the republican bills tend to be... not in the best interest of the country-blatantly so. They name them noble names in order to smear any detractors as well.


Of course -- this is a topic for another discussion, but what is so blatantly so? What of the Democratic side has produced the desired effects of "personal freedom, the right of adults to do whatever they want so long as no harm comes"? Point being, we both could produce legislation from both sides that counter such desire. One side legislates morality, the other conduct. Both seek to produce the desired effect of control.


As for the body scanner. The dems fought tooth and nail and rejected the first 3-4 attempts to get the contracts pushed through-then the "Underwear bomber" happened and it became a "Tool against terrorism".


I am having a hard time finding information backing this claim. Can you help me?


Most of the military and finance boards are republican controlled. They gave a couple seats to dems as favors basically, but they have very minor power. If they resisted pet projects they would never get anything through-it would all be sidelined or fillibustered. Hence my comment of letting bad things through to get anything done.


Here is where I call out your bias. And please, I am not saying such bias is bad. Your opinion and views are just as valid as the next or myself. But to say you are neutral then continually only point out the bad of one group shows your bias. Case and point:

You state that "most of the military...boards...are republican controlled". What boards? Corporate board room? Congressional Committees? Senate Committees?

Then you levy the claim that Republicans passed on seats for show....understanding your point of view, can you verify this? Did they (the Republicans) merely pass on seats or were those seats warranted?

Both parties present pet-projects and both parties fight tooth and nail. Democrats and Republicans alike. There are those who fight diligently within each faction; who stand for the ideals of the party and they are to be commended.

I understand your stance and your point of view. You are speaking from your personal experience but have you ever heard of the concept of black swan theory? Your views, however validated in your sphere, are only invalidated when presented to the larger whole of the situation. What you experience and conceive isn't the whole of the situation. I may experience a completely different situation than what you have in your situation.



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 12:45 AM
link   
people who play into republicans vs democrats are what is holding the u.s back



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 01:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by muse7
Conservatives and Republicans generally support low taxes, don't support welfare systems and do not like the idea of a universal health care system. Most of them are also Religious.

I think the Republican/Conservative mindset would have made sense to people back in the day when they made only a few cents per day. However, we live in a different era now. The U.S. population is 300 million a large portion of the population lacks proper health care, and a lot of people die prematurely because of undiagnosed diseases that could have easily been prevented if they had access to good health care.

Now by having a better welfare system, that would be supported by higher taxes I do think the crime rate would decrease as people would not have the need to commit crimes to make money to support their families or themselves as they would have access to a good welfare system that would support them when they are unemployed or when under-employed.

Republicans and Conservatives also support gun ownership, but I do not believe that should be a right but more of a privilege. So by having a good welfare system to support you when you are under employed or unemployed and by having access to good healthcare whenever you need it, without the stress of having to pay huge bills and by knowing that your family will not go hungry or go without access to medical care would that not make you generally feel more happy and stress free?

Now throw in tighter gun control to all of that and the crime rate would go down significantly.

Call me a radical progressive/liberal or communist but the facts speak for themselves.

Just take a look at the list of the happiest, most prosperous countries on Earth and then look at what they all have in common.

Universal health care
Good welfare system
Tight gun laws

The U.S. should be higher on that list.


I won't insult you by saying you fit a label like radical progressive or liberal. I will say that after reading your OP, there is one thing I can accurately say though. Your beliefs are entirely incompatible with the United States as a nation, while it's entirely governed by and defined with the Constitution.

You're casually saying that Rights we are 'endowed with by our creator' should just be privileges. I don't know where that line of thought finds middle ground with, again, the very core of what defines the United States and has defined Americans since we stopped being Colonies.

In all fairness, our political leaders by an large have the same line of thought and world outlook. Hence...they need voted out at least and are welcome to move onward to other nations, at best.

Hey, there is A LOT of room to work with moving the nation in this way or that and accommodating everyone while staying within the bounds of the document that founded us. When the very substance of that document become the debate for validity though, I suppose it's gone into philosophy or somewhere else, because it isn't reality in our nation.

Again, our rights are not just a good idea.....a law....or even something we're entitled to. They are things we are endowed with by our creator. It's a simple concept and inviolate.



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 02:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Again, our rights are not just a good idea.....a law....or even something we're entitled to. They are things we are endowed with by our creator. It's a simple concept and inviolate.


And even if we do not believe in a Higher Power -- which many do not -- we cannot deny, as believers of the Individual Rights -- that we are not inherently free Men. That we do not have the power to protect ourselves and that we are able to acquire and secure private property. That our desires to pursue happiness are not subject to an overlord or other entity -- save ourselves.



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 04:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by muse7
 



Just take a look at the list of the happiest, most prosperous countries on Earth and then look at what they all have in common.


Do you have this list??

I’m curious to see the list of social welfare nanny countries more prosperous than US.



Right now any country that we have to borrow from to pay our debt is more prosperous than the US.



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 04:55 AM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 




I say people who want to change America into a socialist utopia should exercise their freedom to leave and move to a country on your list that more closely fits his/her ideals rather than mucking up this country.



You are also free to take your form of government elsewhere also seeing how the government you support is going against what the founders wanted. May I suggest Israel seeing how your such a big supporter of them.

The reason why the founders came to this country is because they were sick of what was going on in Europe. They saw what happened once the wealthy and the banks took control and they didn't want that to happen here.
edit on 12-3-2012 by buster2010 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 04:59 AM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 



And even if we do not believe in a Higher Power -- which many do not -- we cannot deny, as believers of the Individual Rights -- that we are not inherently free Men. That we do not have the power to protect ourselves and that we are able to acquire and secure private property. That our desires to pursue happiness are not subject to an overlord or other entity -- save ourselves.

Oh, certainly. I wouldn't want to suggest otherwise in terms of creator and I think our founding fathers were thinking in at least similar ways. The variety of Faiths actually represented there, to read about the details in this political science class, are interesting. It certainly does support the vehemence with which they all obviously agreed about freedom of religion without any interfering with another.

So, even no formal faith still means the rights come from a power above the state/government the document was written to limit. Of course the current Government has entirely forgotten that the Constitution was written to set limits and not to give power. It's all so backward these days, it's hard to even see a path back to what's right.



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 05:23 AM
link   
I think the extremists on both sides are holding us back...
either that or both parties are walking hand and hand down the road to a facist hell, and it's all just a ruse put out there to entertain the masses so they don't notice the hell they are being led into!!!

the more I think about it, the more I think it's the latter...



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 05:49 AM
link   
Holding the US back from what? "Happiness"?
If we could only see that the beastly system entraps us into thinking and acting according to it - the Mark in the hand and forehead - it's economic, political and religious. It drives our response (beliefs and actions) instead of the Kingdom above. When greed, gluttony and earthly pleasures are man's idea and measure of "happiness", then we act accordingly.
Liberalism is death to morality, to spirit, to God and to responsibility.
Charity is life through morality, spirit and responsibility.
These don't exist in any one political party as they were created to keep man divided and focused on arguing worldly things of the beast. The further we go down this road of allowing the beastly kingdoms to dictate our every belief and action, the deeper we dig the pit. And the more the Mark of Revelation is impressed upon each of us.
The beast divides, it creates the problem, manages the reaction then provides the solution. There once was a time when the community took care of it's needy - the widow, the injured and the orphan. Guess what the beast changed it to? The state through "entitlements". Why? To remove the love in our hearts for our fellow man, to remove a work ethic from the population and to create division between haves and have nots. We are arguing based on the Mark of the beast, that earthly systems and men of one group are more right than another group.

Both political parties work to the same program folks - they create the very problems in order to ultimately guide you to their solution by indoctrinating you into accepting their beliefs. Their motto is from chaos comes order. The chaos is artificial and created by them - take for example the two generations of many Americans who now shun work and feel that they are entitled to a handout. If we don't realise that this scenario was created on purpose to create chaos and hatred between haves and have nots, then we are forever arguing about which political party has the "right solution". Are more handouts the answer? Of course not, but somehow this youngest generation has been led down a path to believe that man can fix everything with money, that the only solution is a redistribution from those who work hard to those who had a good work ethic removed on purpose. How about focusing on what has been done to this group of people on purpose which in turn was done to create the hatred in your hearts towards them? This is how both groups have accepted the Mark of the beast. Neither turn to God for healing and wisdom, but both look to the beast that has created it through lying and deceit for the "solution". He will show you, He will show you where we all went wrong and why we couldn't see that the very beast who is offering "solutions" is the very same beast that created the problem.



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 05:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by muse7
Now throw in tighter gun control to all of that and the crime rate would go down significantly.

Not true. AND if you took away a persons right to own a firearm, then the only ones with firepower
would be the perps. That's a very bad idea.


Call me a radical progressive/liberal or communist but the facts speak for themselves.

Okay .. you are a radical progressive/liberal and/or communist.

Seriously though ... I wouldn't say you are a radical or a communist.
More like .. highly confused and/or too far left to see straight.
Have a nice day.



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 06:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by TDawgRex
 


I can see that. I was the same way (though I am now 26 and made my change to libertarian in the last two years), but it was a gradual change.

I was full on liberal, but around 23 I read about the incident at Luby's Diner and that turned me to pro gun rights. The first issue I disagreed with most liberals on. I still have heart though, but letting your heart and logic guide you will take you further than your heart and deceptive emotion.

My uncle told me this year when I was talking about libertarian views (he's republican, the only in my family, and not a libertarian, as I am. The rest are Dems.), he said you're 26 now huh? you might be about smart enough to vote now.

I thought about it and he was right, it takes to about the mid 20's for kids to get out of that liberal brainwashing mode. It's a very real thing too. They make you feel like if you are liberal about one thing you have to be liberal on all topics or you aren't hip or progressive and it's bull#. I am still liberal about some things, but they are things that are common sense and really have nothing to do with being liberal or conservative, they are just common sense. Those being that there has to be marriage equality for gays, it just has to happen, and it will happen so stop wasting time and money fighting it. I have a gay friend and he deserves to be as happy as me or anyone else. Next abortion, I am pro choice. I think it shouldn't even be looked down on is cases of rape and incest. In cases where a girl just "isn't ready" I will call it like it is, it's selfish. It's a selfish act, but I am not a woman so It's not my place to say no and it is their body. Finally there has to be a public healthcare option. There can be a concurrent free market alternative for people afraid of public healthcare, but everyone would use it (even those against it) and there wouldn't even be a tax increase if done correctly.

After that I am conservative. Pro gun rights, no fiat currency, no intervention, no war, lower taxes, etc.
edit on 11-3-2012 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)


Wasn't the incident at Luby's diner an example of lack of gun control - ie the perpetrator legally procured those weapons. I am always utterly fascinated by the lack of logic that people exhibit when it comes to guns in the US. Most of the mass murder gun shootings occur after some guy who is unfit to own a weapon has been legally granted one. Most of the school shootings occur because parents / relatives of children that get the guns did not secure / remove the weapon from the reach of children.

Rather than for example having detectors placed in schools upon entry, I've heard right wingers argue that teachers should be armed. I mean for a moderate / independent non US citizen the solution is simple - increase the checks on those allowed to own a weapon, make it a criminal offence for parents to leave their weapons lying around. Even in economic terms its easy to understand - supply of a product in unlimited, legally and illegally that product can be obtained even more cheaply than if the product was limited.

To the main question, I think that US politics is holding the country back, but on balance I have to say the right wing is doing more damage than the left. Its reference points is always looking to the past, to a golden age that actually never existed. People talk about becoming more conservative as they get older, generally as people get older they tend to glorify how things were when they were young and to forget the more negative aspects.

The US system needs to be changed, not to be conserved in its current paralysed state.



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 06:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by madhatr137
 


As opposed to the current direction that is working so well for the 99%? We have to get back down to bare basics and strip away the government power to straighten things out. It's just a fact. Falling back on the constitution is the last ditch effort before realizing a revolution.

Seems hard for some people to figure out, or maybe they are just afraid to say it.


And when I say that Conservatives are going to take us back to the Gilded Era, this is exactly the mentality that I mean, whether or not you are Conservative or not.

Do you honestly believe that dismantling our government will make you more free in a Globalised world?

Our political system is far from perfect, frankly, it's structure is archaic and ineffective, not to mention corrupted, but it is the only thing standing between us and global corporate neo-feudalism.

Yes, Feudalism. A type of feudalism that will make the fascism of the past look like child's play.

edit on 12/3/12 by madhatr137 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join