Obama and Liberals are a Threat

page: 11
23
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 01:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by cfnyaami
reply to post by darkbake
 

Oh, so you think feminism leads to decay? Sorry, I don't get it. I don't understand why some think it's threatening when historically oppressed people demand equality.


One person's decay, another person's progress.

There is this idea (and I'll not go into it deeply - happy to answer questions) that there are two streams of entropy (evil, decay) in the world. One that pulls us into the past (tradition, dogma, conservatism) and another that pushes us into the future (whatever is new is best and will save us, change is always good, liberalism) and that the task of humankind, individually and collectively, is to balance the two streams. It's an idea that makes so much sense of my experience of life and truth that I keep it in mind at all times. It allows me to get up in the morning.




posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 01:22 AM
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??


I welcome input from those outside the US. I think the citizens of other countries have a lot of experience that we don't and can teach us much. Just having an outsiders perspective is conducive to getting a clear picture.

I really don't understand this US arrogance. We talk about other countries, judge other countries and cultures all the time. There is something truly childess about imposing rules on others that you don't follow yourself (and it is a common US trait).

Why do you oppose the input of extra-nationals? How is it any threat if you are confident in your own viewpoint?



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by darkbake
reply to post by rockoperawriter
 


What does Crawley's "Do as you will" mean? That came up in another thread.
edit on 23-1-2013 by darkbake because: (no reason given)


It's the Wiccan Rede (wikipedia)

The Wiccan Rede (pron.: /ˈriːd/) is a statement that provides the key moral system in the Neopagan religion of Wicca and other related Witchcraft-based faiths. A common form of the Rede is An it harm none, do what ye will.
The word "Rede" derives from Middle English, meaning "advice" or "counsel" and being closely related to the German Rat or Swedish råd. "An" is an archaic Middle English conjunction, meaning "if." "Ye" is an archaic or dialectal form of "you" (nominative plural).
Other variants of the Rede include:
Eight words the Wiccan Rede fulfill, An it harm none do what ye will. Note: this is the first published form of the couplet, quoted from Doreen Valiente in 1964. Later published versions include "ye" instead of either "the" or "it": "Eight words the Wiccan Rede fulfill – an ye harm none, do what ye will" (Earth Religion News, 1974); "Eight words ye Wiccan Rede fulfill – An' it harm none, Do what ye will" (Green Egg, 1975)
An it harm none, do what thou wilt
An it harm none, do as thou wilt
That it harm none, do as thou wilt
Do what you will, so long as it harms none

The important part being: ...and it harm none



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 03:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Propulsion

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...


dammit, you beat me to what I was going to say *sigh*

ah well,

I was going to say that I have never been good with labels, I don't like being labeled. I have never been good with religion either, I believe in a supreme being, a "God", but the one I believe is in my heart and lives through my actions, not from a book. I believe in equality for all, I believe in the Constitution and the right to bear arms, I believe in women's choice. I do not believe prostitution is evil and the ideology that those who participate in it willingly will burn in "hell".

As you can see, my beliefs are all over the spectrum, so my message to you is this.....

YOU are YOU, BE YOU..........

True friends will be your friends because you are you.....not because of your beliefs.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 04:14 AM
link   
reply to post by darkbake
 


Hitler and Stalin wanted to make the world a better place?! You must be out of your mind. Take it from someone who has read Mein Kampf and communist texts, Hitler and Stalin had one goal: to control society. They wanted to control society in order to meet their twisted ends. Their very ideology is filled with hate and despise for people. And you say wanted the greater good. Hitler and Stalin believed in one thing and one thing only: whoever stands against their ideas are the enemy and must be destroyed. Needless to say that this ideology is still followed by all politicians who want to exploit people to fulfill their own goals by all means necessary.

You can be a conservative (I think you've implied it) that's your freedom, that's your choice. However you have no right to bash feminists, liberals and atheists based on nothing. Obama is no atheist, and judging by his administration he's no liberal either.

I'm tired of people coming to the conclusion (without any basis) that all liberals, feminists and atheists are Obama/devil-worshiping minions who are set out to "take over the world".



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 08:26 AM
link   
What you are doing is "Questioning your own beliefs'. It is something we all do at one point in our lives ( or should). In my case an event happenned that made me realize that my belief system was wrong. I believed what I was told and what I thought wasnt necessarily true.might be true after all. We are all individuals and should never adhere to peer pressure. I respect and applaud you for thinking for yourself and having the guts to voice your doubts! Flag to you-----Chard



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 08:31 AM
link   
You should be an equalist. The belief that all people are created equal and all should be treated equally. No "group" should be singled out for any "special" treatment.
For some reason people want to put themselves into groups they feel are wronged and then they push an agenda that only benefits said group.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by darkbake
 




I am under the impression that however ideal these ideologies might be, they are not going to actually work. I am starting to doubt.

People of all ages finally reach adulthood. Welcome to life! It is good to have you with us!

I know an old Jewish lady who lived through the Holocost. She was but a child then, but clearly remembers many things. She tells me that many things she sees here are exactly as things she saw as Hitler rose to power. Have you seen those videos where school children are taught songs to praise Obama? That has not been done on behalf of any other President as far as I know. I am 63, so I've seen several Presidents. German children sang to Hitler. Many people don't know that Hitler was elected ... and then he set out to destroy the German equivalent of Congress. Odd that Obama is doing what he can to circumvent Congress, don't you think?

Both political parties in our Nation are acting against Liberty, perhaps just out of ignorance. I tend to think it is thirst for power.

Now that you Doubt, you will see many frightening things. Love you, babe!



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 12:25 PM
link   
I grew up around conservatives, and was raised in a church. I am now what most would consider a liberal, but I'm not an atheist. I still believe in God, and still maintain most of my beliefs from my childhood. One thing that differs greatly about myself now, is that I think for myself. I woke up one morning to see my family for what they truly were, people doing their best with what they had, how they were raised, and what their church told them to think at that time. It really woke me up, when I was disowned for knowing gay people, put on the alter for holding hands with a friend(in a non-sexual way), and then my mother wouldn't walk next to me for having green hair. I've seen the best of both worlds, and the worst. The same preacher that was a racist homophobe was having an affair, the same mother that disowned me had me out of wedlock, and would make out with boyfriends on the couch when I was a little girl. Reading the Bible for myself , and having real life experience taught me more about God than hearing about God from people with hatred in their hearts. A few years ago, when I was becoming an adult, I saw people bashing president Bush. On one side were liberals, talking cold-heartedly about war and this religious war going on. I saw them disagreeing with a man that my family adored. I saw the conservatives call the liberals anti-patriotic. Then over the last few years, I watched the tables turn. Now, the liberal president is bashed by the same people that called the liberals anti-patriotic for doing the same thing. It makes me laugh that neither of the groups want to see it for what it is..division. It's OK to have you're own belief systems, its OK to stand up for what is right, but only when we do so because it's the right thing and not the popular thing.

I consider myself more of a liberal now because I don't see anything wrong with gay marriage. Based on the bible, I know what it says, I've read it for myself. My spiritual walk and personal struggles have told me that it's not up to me to judge them, when I see the very holiest of people(or claimers I call them) to struggle with their own personal sins. It's up to God, not me to push laws upon people that restrict their freedoms based off an idea I got out of a book(holy or not). I consider myself a liberal because while I believe abortion is wrong, I don't think it's my right to legally push a woman to have a child that she does not want, or a child that will physically kill her. In my own personal logic, God is greater than the mistakes of man. God will not put a seed into a woman that he already knows she is going to abort. So, while the bible says " I knew you before you were born"..does that not mean, God knew that child's mother to abort it..so why would God go through the trouble of implanting a purposeful child into a mother that would abort it? The God I know is bigger than that. So maybe I'm more of a middle person, but to the conservatives I'm a liberal, and to the liberals I'm a conservative. You know what? It doesn't matter, we're all human. We're all passionate about how we think, and tend to value our opinions. I think this country is divided enough right now, and unity is what will harmonize the world, not dissonance. We're all imperfect and we're all human. end of story.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 12:59 PM
link   
I am a liberal, but I did not vote for Obama this time for several reasons. He is a warmonger, he gave all our money away to the big banks, he is even more secrecy oriented than "W" was, I don't trust him, and he scares me. Hillary scares me too. Joe Biden I like. I think I could vote for him. But you want to know who was the really scary guy? Dick Nixon. Now there was a real, honest to God fascist. He even had the White House Marine Guard dressed up like something out of a banana republic.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by JuniorBeauchamp

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.


Not really. Read up on some of his comments about slaves.

You will have to produce some proof of the others.

Locke's "Of Slavery" also states his support (at least during one period of his life) of slavery as the right of conqerers.

Madison had a great deal of trouble with the issue of slavery, but declares that the two races cannot exist together if both are free and equal.

You can google the rest -- rest assured, that I checked references first.



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

No, we don't take people from their homes who are NOT criminals, strip their rights from them, allow them no access to legal advice or redress, and force them to work at a job until some authority declares that the debt is paid. We have other methods of dealing with debt today. You may be thinking of "indenture", which is different.


debtors' prisons


Proof please
The Founding Fathers did not abolish debtors prisons. They were common until outlawed by Federal law in 1833. There's other sources on this... check Google.



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


Proof please.


Errr... (astonished look) you have NOT heard of Sally Hemmings????? The facts are well-known (so I thought) -- her first child dies after they come back from France (Sally was then about 15 years old) I did mistake the "10 years old" figure for him -- misread date, but remembered that she was fairly young (about 14) when Jefferson took her to bed -- young enough that he'd have been in legal trouble in most states today.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by JuniorBeauchamp

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.


They were also aware that the Constitution would need to be changed as society changed.

Whatever be the Constitution, great care must be taken to provide a mode of amendment when experience or change of circumstances shall have manifested that any part of it is unadapted to the good of the nation. In some of our States it requires a new authority from the whole people, acting by their representatives, chosen for this express purpose, and assembled in convention. This is found too difficult for remedying the imperfections which experience develops from time to time in an organization of the first impression. A greater facility of ammendment is certainly requisite to maintain it in a course of action accommodated to the times and changes through which we are ever passing." source: www.famguardian.org...


I saw this on the wall of the Jefferson Memorial in Washington DC earlier this year.

They did not see it as a dead document; a set of laws like a religion where it was all sacred and nothing could be changed. Many conservatives favor a "return to the original" doctrine, something that Jefferson (and others) would have found abhorrent.

They wanted progress, they understood that society and mores change (which is something that not everyone seems to "get") and that laws must change with the society to remain relevant or they will strand you forever in time (which happens in countries where a strict ideology is maintained over long centuries.)

For their time, they were quite the bunch of radical liberals.
edit on 24-1-2013 by Indellkoffer because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indellkoffer

Originally posted by JuniorBeauchamp

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.


They were also aware that the Constitution would need to be changed as society changed.

Whatever be the Constitution, great care must be taken to provide a mode of amendment when experience or change of circumstances shall have manifested that any part of it is unadapted to the good of the nation. In some of our States it requires a new authority from the whole people, acting by their representatives, chosen for this express purpose, and assembled in convention. This is found too difficult for remedying the imperfections which experience develops from time to time in an organization of the first impression. A greater facility of ammendment is certainly requisite to maintain it in a course of action accommodated to the times and changes through which we are ever passing." source: www.famguardian.org...


I saw this on the wall of the Jefferson Memorial in Washington DC earlier this year.

They did not see it as a dead document; a set of laws like a religion where it was all sacred and nothing could be changed. Many conservatives favor a "return to the original" doctrine, something that Jefferson (and others) would have found abhorrent.

They wanted progress, they understood that society and mores change (which is something that not everyone seems to "get") and that laws must change with the society to remain relevant or they will strand you forever in time (which happens in countries where a strict ideology is maintained over long centuries.)

For their time, they were quite the bunch of radical liberals.
edit on 24-1-2013 by Indellkoffer because: (no reason given)


Yes however, change is through the amendment process, not by issuing executive orders to circumvent the representatives. We F'd up and it is time to put a foot down and make the people responsible adhere to the correct way to change things.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by olaru12
 





So you lied to your friends about your vote. Why should we believe you NOW?

What exactly are you suppose to believe from him...his opinion? lol



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 07:23 AM
link   
reply to post by FyreByrd
 

I think you are referring Allester Crowley. Heavy in the occult and practiced Satanist Magic in the black arts. He wrote the book "the Law" where he proposes "Do what thou wilt."



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by PeaceNLove123
reply to post by darkbake
 


Hitler and Stalin wanted to make the world a better place?!


In their twisted minds they did.

Which is why it is important to look past sound bite bumper sticker slogans, and into exactly what is MEANT by the words used.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkphoenix77

Originally posted by Indellkoffer

Originally posted by JuniorBeauchamp

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.


They were also aware that the Constitution would need to be changed as society changed.

Whatever be the Constitution, great care must be taken to provide a mode of amendment when experience or change of circumstances shall have manifested that any part of it is unadapted to the good of the nation. In some of our States it requires a new authority from the whole people, acting by their representatives, chosen for this express purpose, and assembled in convention. This is found too difficult for remedying the imperfections which experience develops from time to time in an organization of the first impression. A greater facility of ammendment is certainly requisite to maintain it in a course of action accommodated to the times and changes through which we are ever passing." source: www.famguardian.org...


I saw this on the wall of the Jefferson Memorial in Washington DC earlier this year.

They did not see it as a dead document; a set of laws like a religion where it was all sacred and nothing could be changed. Many conservatives favor a "return to the original" doctrine, something that Jefferson (and others) would have found abhorrent.

They wanted progress, they understood that society and mores change (which is something that not everyone seems to "get") and that laws must change with the society to remain relevant or they will strand you forever in time (which happens in countries where a strict ideology is maintained over long centuries.)

For their time, they were quite the bunch of radical liberals.
edit on 24-1-2013 by Indellkoffer because: (no reason given)


Yes however, change is through the amendment process, not by issuing executive orders to circumvent the representatives. We F'd up and it is time to put a foot down and make the people responsible adhere to the correct way to change things.


It may be too far down the road to work through Big Government.

It may be time for this:


When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.


www.earlyamerica.com...



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by JuniorBeauchamp

Originally posted by PeaceNLove123
reply to post by darkbake
 


Hitler and Stalin wanted to make the world a better place?!


In their twisted minds they did.

Which is why it is important to look past sound bite bumper sticker slogans, and into exactly what is MEANT by the words used.


That's what I'm saying, Hitler and Stalin wanted to make the world a better place, that was their motivation. They even had followers who believed in them for a while, Hitler was Man of the Year in 1938 on the cover of Time Magazine, and Stalin in 1939.

Wikipedia: Time Person of the Year

It wasn't until after that they started committing atrocities.
edit on 28-1-2013 by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Evanzsayz
 





What exactly are you suppose to believe from him...his opinion? lol


My opinion on things does fluctuate, I believe I said that, and it was an accurate expression of my thoughts at the time. So I would agree. And no matter what I am thinking, those thoughts are always floating around.
edit on 28-1-2013 by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by FyreByrd
 





One person's decay, another person's progress.


I think this is accurate, both streams of thought would end up balancing each other out - I have this theory that if they become too polarized in one space / time location that it can result in a blowout.

Also, the view of the future is not always the same, for Hitler rose during the 1930's and rode the tide of Darwin - wanting to create the Master Race.

Wikipedia: Master Race

At any rate, I agree with your viewpoint quite a bit. It is good when new ideas are allowed to be thought of, and then attempted, what doesn't work usually gets weeded out and what does work hopefully latches on to or helps evolve the existing system.
edit on 28-1-2013 by darkbake because: (no reason given)





new topics
 
23
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join