Obama and Liberals are a Threat

page: 10
23
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkbake

Originally posted by JuniorBeauchamp
Unfortunately, we will have to continue this at another time. It's my bedtime.

Or, if you have other questions, which may require a longer, more indepth answer, please feel free to send them by private message and I'll get to them.


That sounds good, I want to hear more about your perspective on Christianity.


Any time.




posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkbake
reply to post by jonnywhite
 



However, what we really need are more people who are not tainted by either side so that they can see the issues clearly.



So called "moderates" don't see any more clearly than the so called "partisans". They are tainted by their own "moderate" positions.

It's like those who claim to be "non-conformists", while in conformity with other "non-conformists".

In reality, there is no such thing. Everyone conforms to something whether they want to admit it or not.

When I am taking a position on anything political or social, I ask a couple of questions.

Is it morally right?

Is it Constitutional?

For instance, I am staunchly against the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, that is in place.

The reason I am is because the answer to the two questions above concerning it, is NO.

Therefore, I am against it as evil and constitutionally illegal.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkbake
reply to post by Mike.Ockizard
 


Culture is SO not your friend, it is most definitely the enemy.


It is not wise to use such a broad stroked brush. Not all culture is bad. Some is good, some, maybe at this point in history we can even say most is not good.

The object is to identify that which is not good, and change it. Some times that takes a long time.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkbake

Originally posted by WeRpeons



So becoming a Christian, Right Wing conservative, female doormat is an alternative?
reply to post by olaru12
 


I was thinking the same thing when I read the OP. If you're a feminist, the last thing you would want to align yourself with is the republican party.


No kidding. I would prefer promoting responsible feminism. With great power, comes great responsibility.
edit on 22-1-2013 by darkbake because: (no reason given)


I have yet to see your definition of "feminism"?



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
We need to stop calling them "liberals". Im a very liberal person...."live and let live", "tolerate a great variety of viewpoints", "love diversity of cultures". And as a liberal and free-thinking person I cant possibly support the fierce totalitarian/communistoid/eco-fascist/religion-hating/success-hating monsters calling themselves "liberals" these days.

These certain types of liberals arent "liberal" about anything. They want to have everything controlled, regulated, "made equal", enforced, collectivized. They run around as PC-thought-police and ostracize anyone who disagrees with them.

We need to stop calling them "liberals". True liberals are people who are easy-going, good-willed and tolerant (not only of minorities, but of anyone).
edit on 23-1-2013 by Skyfloating because: (no reason given)


You are correct. Classical liberalism in the tradition of Jefferson, John Lock, Adam Smith, James Madison holds up the God given rights of the individual, Natural Law, and that the role of government is to protect the liberty of "We the People" not to lord over us in a Big Brother totalitarian state.

What are called "liberals" today have more in common with the old style Soviets than Jefferson, Madison, Lock and Adam Smith.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by rockoperawriter
reply to post by darkbake
 


because i will do as i will, i will interperet as i will. my interpretation is that i will remain unbound by the constraints of malevolence as long as i am in this vessel. so be it to my own end i will pursue personal freedom and influence others to do so as water carves stone


In other words, you are the supreme judge of what is right and wrong for yourself and others.

Which makes you, your own god, and is part of the social darwinism of Neitzche that played a major influence on Hitler and the Nazis.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkbake


I will encounter conservatives that really piss me off



Maybe you are not encountering true conservatives.

True conservatives are actually the classical liberals in the vein of Jefferson, Madison, Lock and Adam Smith.

There are many who wear the moniker of conservative but are not.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by OBone
Incorrect! The threat is anyone or group of people thinking their the keeper/possessor of something so profound, that they know exactly what everyone else should but doesn't know/do or is incapable of knowing/doing as a result of socio-economic/political, cultural , racial, etc... belief/lifestyle. Most of us know instinctively and intuitively what is right/wrong or will result in some form of discomfort or harm to others or ourselves but due to our free will and self worship do wrong things anyway. I do not believe anyone has a corner on the market of enlightement and/or the "right way" to live and die, those who think they do are the biggest threat to our contentment and survival. If the day comes we can all Love and Respect each other as different as we are and seek to truly make the World a better place for all, we will have accomplished Nirvana.


It's interesting that you say this:


I do not believe anyone has a corner on the market of enlightement and/or the "right way" to live and die, those who think they do are the biggest threat to our contentment and survival.


While at the same time promoting your way as THE way.


I however, think we're incapable of such
(on our own) and will be needing and seeing the loving Master return to lead us back to our our purely Spiritual creation.


What "Master" is that?



Be that which you desire.


Does that apply to pedophiles?



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by UmbraSumus

Originally posted by jimmiec
If you study history it is easy to see that the bigger government got the more problems America had. Today government is on the verge of collapse under it's own weight. I support smaller government because it is less intrusive and allows the people to thrive through opportunity instead of entitlements. We are on the brink of disaster today because we allowed government to get too big.



They were certainly different times;

At the time the U.S. Constitution was signed the population was only 4 million people.

Greater numbers = greater social complexity = greater need for social regulation ?


Social regulation is done on the local level, in self governing communities, which is why the founders restricted the federal government in the Constitution, not from Big Brother government that looks at human beings as nothing more as what the Obamacare regulations call, "human resource units", like bees in a hive. It is a collectivist/hive mentality that exalts the State above the individual, which is tyranny no matter what label it gives itself.
edit on 23-1-2013 by JuniorBeauchamp because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by noxvita83
Those from outside of the US commenting on US Politics really don't see the real issues of our politics. Sometimes the 3rd person perspective is usually the most enlightening, but the same time, you often miss the subtle nuances what you are observing. Liberalism, Conservatism is not the issue in the US. Atheism or Theism isn't the issue in this country either. Feminism is the closest thing that touches what is wrong with this country. Now, feminism isn't what's wrong with this country, but how feminism acts is. And don't get me wrong, it isn't feminism, because you also see the same issues happening in Liberalism, Conservatism, Theism, and Atheism. And the issue is Extremism. Feminism was originally created to bring equality to women. This is good. But modern day feminism is not at the roots seeking this. They are seeking a reverse chauvinism in which instead of Men being "the superior sex", instead of men and women being equal, they are looking to make women "the superior sex".

What we really need in the US is actually moderation. Some conservative values are good, as are some liberal/progressive values are good. Theism and Atheism does not belong in Politics, nor does it belong trying to interfere with each other. You don't believe in a God, or a religion? Good for you. You are a Christian? A Muslim? A Jew? Good for you. Let people practice what they choose to practice, just don't force your beliefs (or lack thereof in the case of Atheists) onto other people. It is simple as that.



You mean like the way you are trying to force your ideas on me and others?(wink)



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkbake
I used to be a liberal. I used to be an atheist. I used to be a feminist. And I still might be. But after seeing how these three things are causing society to decay first-hand, I am under the impression that however ideal these ideologies might be, they are not going to actually work. I am starting to doubt.


Having read the whole thread (all ten pages of it), I suspect that you really weren't a liberal, atheist, or feminist. I do see a man disappointed in love and fed up with a lot of things. I see someone who labels himself a "scientist" but who admits (in responding to others) that he's not aware of a lot of things.

So let me ask you a few things:
* do you like the idea of a single "minimum wage" or would you rather that companies paid people whatever they felt like, no matter how little (while paying the owner and executive top dollar?) If you like minimum wage, that's a liberal ideology. It's also feminist (check feminist.org for this and other issues that feminists advocate.)
* do you think that a scientist should get a Nobel Prize for their work no matter what their gender, or do you think that the Nobel Prize should go to the men who took her work and came out with a later paper (Watson and Crick (yes, I oversimplified the situation))? If you think Nobel Prizes should go to both men and women if they merit it, this is a liberal ideology as well as a feminist one.
* Do you think that women should be able to buy a car without having their father or husband or uncle or brother co-sign and co-own the car (I wasn't able to do this in the late 1960's because I'm a woman.) If you think anyone of any gender should be able to own any car they can afford, that's both liberal and feminist.
* Do you think only women should raise children? If so, that's non-liberal and NON-femnist.
* Do you think that women and men in the police force should receive the same salary if they have the same experience and the same education? That's liberal and feminist.
* Do you think that men and women should be able to work any job that they have the skills and education and physical stamina for? That's liberal and feminist.
* Do you want a 40 hour work week? Liberals did that.
* Do you want employers to pay for treatment if a worker gets injured on the job? Liberals did that.
* Do you want Army veterans to have free access to psychological and medical care? That's a liberal polciy.

These are only a few examples -- it's not the whole "manifesto" of either group and none of that is special to athiests.

Groups and philosophies change over time as society changes. The feminists of today are addressing different issues than we addressed back in the 1960's (I was one of millions of women in the early feminist movements and I'm still a feminist. I'm a real one, not some 20-something who enjoys the results of what we did and sneers that we're out of date.)

Everyone (no matter what philosophy) is capable of being a jerk.

Everyone is capable of having various "spins" on core ideas.

Everyone (no matter what philosophy) is capable of making bad relationship choices.

I think that if you want to be a scientist (not a term I'd throw around here lightly, because there are several real scientists on ATS -- and at least one of the moderators is a scientist), that you should do what a scientist does -- do heavy (dozens of books and papers) research on your topic.

Cruise real feminism sites (start with Feminist.org, and check out the Facebook groups as well), real liberal sites (Daily KOS is probably the most famous liberal political blogs (I imagine that once you read THOSE blogs you will discover that you were probably conservative rather than liberal... those are Real Liberals there), and Athiests.org (I think there's probably better ones out there but since I'm not an atheist, that's the best I could do.)

I suspect you'll find that you're actually moderately centrist-to-conservative, niether feminist nor nonfeminist, and a deist or theist rather than an athiest.

Or not.

In any case, I don't think you should judge "feminism/liberal/atheist" on the experience of young friends.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by JuniorBeauchamp
You are correct. Classical liberalism in the tradition of Jefferson, John Lock, Adam Smith, James Madison holds up the God given rights of the individual, Natural Law, and that the role of government is to protect the liberty of "We the People" not to lord over us in a Big Brother totalitarian state.

What are called "liberals" today have more in common with the old style Soviets than Jefferson, Madison, Lock and Adam Smith.


While technically correct, one should also note that if you're going to equate conservatives with Jefferson, Madison, Locke, and Adam Smith as heroes, then you should also admit that those four also approved of slavery, bond-servitude, debtors' prisons, public hangings, and had no trouble with men (Thomas Jefferson) having sexual intercourse with 10 year old girls (Sally Hemming.)

I submit, sir, that broadly painting any group with a broom leads to some unjust comparisons.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indellkoffer

Originally posted by JuniorBeauchamp
You are correct. Classical liberalism in the tradition of Jefferson, John Lock, Adam Smith, James Madison holds up the God given rights of the individual, Natural Law, and that the role of government is to protect the liberty of "We the People" not to lord over us in a Big Brother totalitarian state.

What are called "liberals" today have more in common with the old style Soviets than Jefferson, Madison, Lock and Adam Smith.


While technically correct, one should also note that if you're going to equate conservatives with Jefferson, Madison, Locke, and Adam Smith as heroes, then you should also admit that those four also approved of slavery


Jefferson had slaves, but did so in violation of the principles he heralded, knowing it had to end, putting in the Constitution the means of it's end.

You will have to produce some proof of the others.


bond-servitude


Bond servitude was a long established means for someone to work off a debt to an individual. We still have forms of it today.


debtors' prisons


Proof please,


public hangings


Those are a good idea.


, and had no trouble with men (Thomas Jefferson) having sexual intercourse with 10 year old girls (Sally Hemming.)


Proof please.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indellkoffer

Originally posted by JuniorBeauchamp
You are correct. Classical liberalism in the tradition of Jefferson, John Lock, Adam Smith, James Madison holds up the God given rights of the individual, Natural Law, and that the role of government is to protect the liberty of "We the People" not to lord over us in a Big Brother totalitarian state.

What are called "liberals" today have more in common with the old style Soviets than Jefferson, Madison, Lock and Adam Smith.


While technically correct, one should also note that if you're going to equate conservatives with Jefferson, Madison, Locke, and Adam Smith as heroes


I'm dealing with specific principles that are codified in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution.

Morally, there are enough moral failings of us all, indeed all of humanity to be cause to restrict government as Jefferson and Madison sought to do. They were fully aware of their own failings, as common to humanity, and took them into consideration when framing the Constitution.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by GrandStrategy
 


Tyrant 0bama is not right wing.
I suggest maybe you leave American issues to Americans??? maybe??


He's a capitalist. Capitalism is right wing last time I knew.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by darkbake
 


I find it funny that many responses assume right away that you are going far right now.

We have been socially engineered perfectly to always polarize ourselves. That polarization is what allows us to be controlled.

Stop being polarized.

Once we stop placing labels on each other, we might be able to tear down all division between the people of our country .

I harbor both conservative and liberal values. Everyone does.

Sometimes I think that someone just decided to split the answer to society by splitting the answer into liberal and conservative values. Then they extremely polarized their differences so they can never be brought together to solve our problems

Now that polarization is used to control us by keeping us divided.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
Anyone who is after my money and my guns and thinks government is the solution to "make people equal"



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkbake
reply to post by seeker1963
 


Yeah, that's basically what I'm realizing. I'm not sure what to do next, though, considering the friends I have. And I don't really want to ruin friendships just because of one day's thoughts, so. I have to think about things.
edit on 22-1-2013 by darkbake because: (no reason given)
Real friends will RESPECT your thoughts and opinions. And if not, are they REALLY friends? It's called individuality! Be a leader, not a follower...



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by darkbake
reply to post by watchitburn
 


I don't think I've overlooked this fact, I've written posts railing on these people as well. Oh my gosh! Corruption and especially propaganda are huge issues! Propaganda on both sides! Like Fox news is terrible, but so is MSNBC.
edit on 22-1-2013 by darkbake because: (no reason given)


Personally, I don't see any facts in your opening posts - just opinion and vitrol. Maybe you should look into being the person you want others to be. Move beyond beliefs and into living. Ideals are important to keep sight of as you go about the work of being the best you can be - and that includes not lying because it's convenient for you or so others will like you.

If you wait for others to do something - you'll wait your whole life.

It takes courage to speak up, to friends and family, when you disagree with them. Integrity requires it.

(Sensationalist Headlines don't speak well either - imnsho)



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 12:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by GrandStrategy

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by GrandStrategy
 


Tyrant 0bama is not right wing.
I suggest maybe you leave American issues to Americans??? maybe??


He's a capitalist. Capitalism is right wing last time I knew.


Well I think you need to learn the difference between Politics and Economics. The two overlap but are very different domains of theory and practise.





new topics
top topics
 
23
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join