It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I guess some people just can't get past believing what they see on Faux News. (Or CNN, or MSNBC, for that matter....)
Originally posted by beezzer
Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by beezzer
"Liberals see conservatives as evil, conservatives see liberals as wrong."
Conservative ideology is based on self, personal responsibility, personal growth, personal resources.
Liberal ideology is based on hate. In order for a liberal to exist, it must need an enemy. Be it smoking, eating meat, the wealthy, Caucasians, gun-owners etal.
How can you even say that with a straight face? Both ideologies have a defined enemy and SOME maybe even most within both view the other as evil. In actuality both are largely the same only separated by a few issues, most of which come under only two categories, social justice and religion.
Both grow government whether they mean to or not, both favor authority while simultaneously screaming about loss of liberty.
I will admit that it may been a bit harsh. But I see conservatism as a life choice and liberalism as a "movement".
Another way of saying it is, conservatism is like eating meat. If you do? Fine. If not? Fine also. It's an individual choice that requires no other person(s) to develop it.
Liberalism is a movement. It is more of a political orientation. It is a "pole" of a magnet, thus requiring another, opposite pole.
I have many friends that are politically liberal, but are conservative. There is no "cookie-cutter" shape for a conservative. I'm anti-abortion, but pro gay marriage. I'm all for the legislation in Oregon and Colorado, yet hate higher taxes.
Liberalism is more rigid in it's definition and requirements.
Again, no source, just a humble opinion.
Originally posted by AwakeinNM
Recently I commented in a thread where someone referenced Rational Wiki as its main source. I investigated the source material and found it to be extreme left-wing, which I stated in the thread. I was refuted and told that it was not, and in fact started by people who were kicked out of Conservapedia "for wanting it to contain those pesky things called 'facts'". I don't know if that is true or not.
So I investigated Conservapedia and it struck me that the two websites - one allegedly conservative, the other allegedly liberal - handled their subject matter quite differently, and I thought it might make for a very telling thread in which to have spirited discussion.
Let's look at the same entry in each website:
Bill Clinton (formally William Jefferson Clinton; born William Jefferson Blythe III) (b.August 19, 1946),was president of the United States, elected in 1992 and reelected in 1996. Previously he had served as governor of Arkansas. His administration was characterized by sustained prosperity, a budget surplus, free trade internationally, military interventions in southeastern Europe, reform of the New Deal welfare system, and an impeachment.
The preceeding was fact, verifiable in multiple domestic and foreign sources. Everything that follows is opinion and spin and can be expected to differ based on an analyst's point of view and purposeful spin.
While Clinton takes economic credit, most of the success in his era can be traced to Republican majorities in Congress that crafted welfare reforms and a budget surplus.
Back to verifiable facts: but do note the sense of distain towards the Senate's actions - the Senate would fail - rather than the Senate absolved/acquited (not sure of the proper terminolgy hence making a factual statement into an opinion of the outcome of the impeachment.
The House of Representatives would impeach Clinton for obstruction of justice and perjury, while the Senate would fail to convict, and he served out his term.
I have no idea of the facts of the following statement - I would want supporting facts about each issue - being found in contempt (who is the judge and date of the order, etc) and the disbarrment (that would be an entirely separate action). Should be two separate sentences. This is poorly written.
Clinton was later found in contempt by a federal judge for lying under oath and he subsequently was disbarred for ethical violations.
Opinions and spin to follow:
Clinton, a policy wonk, was (with Ronald Reagan) one of the two best campaigners in recent decades. Although a mediocre speaker Clinton became known as "the Great Campaigner." His discursive style is personal and intimate, yet, thanks to television, was vicariously enjoyed by large audiences. Like Ronald Reagan. Clinton used his rhetorical skills to achieve political success; he survived despite legislative defeats, repeated scandal (he was notorious as a womanizer) and an actual impeachment.
Saint Ronald Wilson Reagan, aka: Grandpa Caligula, Teflon Ron, or Ronnie Raygun (February 6, 1911 – June 5, 2004) was a god among men B-movie actor with a long career of destroying free societies.
If you want to know why the United States has become an international laughingstock in recent years, here's a pretty good place to start.
Originally posted by AwakeinNM
Originally posted by iwilliam
I can only wonder why some of you seem so intent on dividing people and perpetuating the media's "liberals versus conservatives" propaganda.
Read the sources. Tell me WHO is being divisive here.
This is in black and white for all to see. There is no debate over how these two organizations conduct themselves.