a "conversation" with anyone who still believes...

reply to post by RealSpoke

what is "liberal values"? or "conservative values"?

liberate who/what?
conserve who/what?

all just labels you have to choose from. im a gun toting bisexual who likes Dethklok and doesnt drink but smokes herb. what am i ? will you conserve or liberate me?

Originally posted by RealSpoke

 

Yeah, but there will still be liberals and conservatives that exist, even if the parties disappeared.

But what are they? Neither one lives up to the reputation given them, though it seems it is the "conservatives" that give those labels and supply their definitions.

Liberal and conservative I guess are supposed to be like left and right. Less important distinctions in American politics since neither really fit where they claim to. The important one is more likely authoritarian/libertarian but the latter is becoming less distinct as more baggage is foisted on its definition as well. How do we get to self-ownership? That is what I want.

There is supposedly a psychology behind it.

But basically I believe

Conservatives = social Darwinism

Liberals = social empathy

reply to post by RealSpoke


two words stand out in your post "supposedly" and "believe"
good ted

so step out of the moral matrix and

honest answer . who would you vote for?

obama or rommney?


if you vote

anything other than Jeremiah for Congress/Senate/POTUS 2012

you are a conservative . trying to hold on to a corrupt, decaying...dying , antiquated system.

a system you have invested so much in .and so cant let go.

but it is time

i want to be this one party systems yang.

reply to post by Another_Nut


If I had to vote, I'd vote for Obama. I do not want Bush's' neo-con crew in office again. They tried to go to war with Iran back then but was stopped. They'd probably try again this time around.

See this thread/post www.abovetopsecret.com...

WTF is Jerimiah?

reply to post by RealSpoke

If I had to vote, I'd vote for Obama. I do not want Bush's' neo-con crew in office again. They tried to go to war with Iran back then but was stopped. They'd probably try again this time around.

But the neo-cons never left 'office'.

Little distinguishes the foreign policy agendas of the past three presidents – Clinton, Bush, and Obama. Those who question this claim should review Clinton’s national security strategy, which reads like a carbon copy of the Bush administration’s strategy – articulated only a few years later.

Obama’s behavior as commander in chief is identical in most respects to that of the Bush regime, as he’s displayed a fundamental contempt for the rule of law, for the sovereignty of foreign nations, and for the basic securities of the people of the Middle East and surrounding regions.
link

Wouldn't you want the 'original' officially in charge for all that's to come, so it can't be blamed on the liberals. Although the point is moot, cause blaming doesn't spare anybodys life.

I'll vote for Jeremiah and the cat and i want furryballs as currency.

reply to post by RealSpoke


Jeremiah is not a "what" Jeremiah is a person who has only thought of one thing in life. making sure humanity survives happily forever. now he wants you to vote for him . vote any and all open seats in Congress and the Senate for Jeremiah . POTUS 2012 also.

you are the new conservative RealSpoke. someone who wants to keep the status quot. who cant let go of a broken system for fear of the pain that you might receive. i think you need to watch your ted vid a reread this thread..

i am Jeremiah . i wont bs u like obama or rommney. i will answer for my actions.

and i want to be your dictator.

reply to post by Another_Nut


Well I'm not voting for either of them, they are both Goldman Sachs candidates and fascists. You asked me if I HAD to vote, who would I vote for.

I'm not for the status Quo, I want the USA to be broken down into counties, instead of states , or a federal government. The less population a government has to deal with, the better the chances and higher living quality of the people within it.

reply to post by talklikeapirat


Obama isn't a Zionist, and Obama's admin does not have the Bush admins neo-con war hawks in it. We are talking about the same exact people....

Awwwwwh, look at us ATSers coming together in unity and love and agreeing on something! So we agree that both parties are poop slinging, money hungry, double talk speaking,war mongers.....

Now what if we all just wrote in the family pet for prez? Wonder what would happen to our great democracy then?

Seriously though.....what alternative to the two party system do we have that is strong enough to take them on? And honestly, in order to be strong politically you have to have the cash, which means you have to pander to some company or interest group?

Would a third option really be any different? Seems like it would be the same BS wrapped in a different package.

Now if every voter really voted for a third option, then maybe it might work, but even then, how do we know the ballot boxes aren't rigged? And if they did get through that part of the process how do we know they wouldn't be JFKed? and even if then, after all of that, how would we know once in power they would not become just as corrupted as well? Power changes people.

My dad once said, "you can never change anything by the outside, you must become a part of it, learn how it works and take it down from within".

But I agree with immortal tech, who to paraphrase said "the problem with becoming part of the system is that it is not you who changes the system.....it is the system that changes you".

There are no easy solutions for this problem.....our government is man made, and so it is inherently flawed just as man is flawed.....there is no perfect system.....but ya'd think we have evolved enough to come up with something better than this mess!

Can I get an amen and a what what on that one?

reply to post by RealSpoke


What constitutes a 'Zionist', his ideologies, his religous beliefs or his actions? You probably didn't read the article i posted, if you did you would have noticed that the (foreign) policies of the Clinton, Bush & Obama Administration are essentially the same.
The same policy, the same ideologies, the same approach and to a certain extent the same people. Here is another rather lengthy article describing it in deatil. Note that it is from 2008. If you judge a man by his actions , than yes, Obama is a 'Zionist'.

Obama has a momentous opportunity to do what he repeatedly promised over the course of his campaign: bring actual change. But the more we learn about who Obama is considering for top positions in his administration, the more his inner circle resembles a staff reunion of President Bill Clinton's White House. Although Obama brought some progressives on board early in his campaign, his foreign policy team is now dominated by the hawkish, old-guard Democrats of the 1990s. This has been particularly true since Hillary Clinton conceded defeat in the Democratic primary, freeing many of her top advisors to join Obama's team.

The prospect of Obama's foreign policy being, at least in part, an extension of the Clinton Doctrine is real. Even more disturbing, several of the individuals at the center of Obama's transition and emerging foreign policy teams were top players in creating and implementing foreign policies that would pave the way for projects eventually carried out under the Bush/Cheney administration. With their assistance, Obama has already charted out several hawkish stances.
This is Change?

reply to post by RealSpoke


I never said "HAD" at all . I asked you honesty who you would vote for. The correct answer was neither. But why just "not vote" when you could vote for me .

reply to post by Mijamija


I dont think there may be any viable option other than a dictator . The massive changes we are talking about rarely come about though anything other than dictatorial powers wielded by a person who regards the good of the people above all. If that has ever happened. I dont think it has because the good of the people involves giving everyone a right to live as the see fit. And there just isn't enough room on this planet for that. Which is why we need to know if space travel is possible. Can't live with people here? Round up a few of your friends and head for your own planet.

If we can't leave our system then we all need to have a big sit down. And have a real and frank discussion on our future.

im thinking about voting in favor of the green party... jill stein

i dont see why most people just think there is only 2 people to vote for.. its all i hear, vote for either obama, or romney..

i dont want either of them... so if i do vote, which is a big if... ill probably vote for jill stein, if i am not able to vote for ron paul, since i hear hes not running anymore?

no thanks...i see how republicans run this country, and i wil not be voting for them....if i need to say why, then you haven't been paying attention

Originally posted by willrush
im thinking about voting in favor of the green party... jill stein

i dont see why most people just think there is only 2 people to vote for.. its all i hear, vote for either obama, or romney..

i dont want either of them... so if i do vote, which is a big if... ill probably vote for jill stein, if i am not able to vote for ron paul, since i hear hes not running anymore?

with all due respect...if our country had a parlimentary form of government it would be different...but, with the current form of government, we indeed have only 2 candidates. the dilution of votes among candidates of a similar way of thinking, leads to the exact opposite candidate being elected for whom you would never vote for.

I took one of those tests to see which presidential candidate most closely matched my beliefs. The answer was the Green Party candidate. But I am not going to vote for her -- I will vote for Barack Obama, and furthermore, I will vote straight Democratic ticket. Why? Because there is a difference, a HUGE difference, between the policies favored by the Republicans and the policies favored by the Democrats, and one of those two will win. At times they appear to be the same because they both angle to get the median voter's support, because that is how they win elections. So they are always aiming for the political middle (at least in the general elections), but in fact they govern quite differently.

Claiming both parties are the same and then not voting or throwing away your vote is a total cop out. People do that because they are afraid to commit to what they really believe, and like almost every other situation in life, they allow their emotional brain (primarily fear) to make the decision, then they use reason to justify the decision. It is the easy way out, the path of the coward.

reply to post by Grumble

I will vote for Barack Obama, and furthermore, I will vote straight Democratic ticket. Why? Because there is a difference, a HUGE difference, between the policies favored by the Republicans and the policies favored by the Democrats, and one of those two will win.

what is this HUGE difference?

Claiming both parties are the same and then not voting or throwing away your vote is a total cop out. People do that because they are afraid to commit to what they really believe, and like almost every other situation in life, they allow their emotional brain (primarily fear) to make the decision, then they use reason to justify the decision. It is the easy way out, the path of the coward.

they are the same. i didnt say dont vote i said vote for me. and you are the one who is afraid. you continue to cling to a corrupt system and are willing to propagate that system out of fear of change. instead of standing up and trying to fix it you go with the lesser of two evils theory. and as we all know the lesser of 2 evils is still evil.

i believe you sir are wrong. the two parties are run by the same people. the only way to waste your vote is to vote for the 1 party system . want to be brave? want to stop the fear? vote for me.

I will be honest. It's unusual that I reply to threads I have not read completely, as to not waste anyone's time and give a cogent response.
Yes, I read your OP. My impression: much the same as my response to the current campaign. After years of thinking there was an actual difference and voting was the same (a statement to make a difference), and being a democrat, philosphically, despite my reading of Ayn Rand and much agreement with her philosophies, I have found myself recently defending the republican point of view--especially after the outing of Mr. Romney's supposedly private fundraiser comments of the "47%," which have aroused in me, surprisingly, a total frustration of the lack of philosophical and concrete response from the republican party, for which they are supposed to stand. My reaction to this is that it is not surprising, as we are in times where people fail to represent their labels because they have invested in them and accepted them, while betraying them......
Having said that, who are we all? And what do we believe? I would write a thread on this, if I wasn't so deficient. I before E, except after C.......see what's happening here? We have "rules," which we encourage investing in, and then the opposite is represented..... I spelled something, quoted the grammatical rule for an opposite spelling, and encourage you to see that your spellcheck will kick in the moment you follow that rule for almost any word applying to the rule.
Yes, the times we live in are demonstrative of just that.
Who knows what the rules are now? I challenge ATS to a discussion of that, as your thread is about the game, an election, where even the parties no longer seem to be in touch with their "supposed" message, what they stand for. It is now about celebrity, or flash mob mentality...... for those who know what that really is, we know that no reason, logic, or party theology can compete with it, for we are all subject to what we "feel," which is what the flash in flash mob objectifies and subjectifies. BTW, spellcheck tells me the latter is not even a word.
anyway......

reply to post by Another_Nut

that they have a choice

who does, in the current circumstances, really? first, you would have to all be playing by the same rules, wouldn't you, to have a choice. I find this, singularly, the most telling aspect and language of your OP, not to be critical--just using your own words, to illustrate how much the reverse is really true, these times.