Should Liberals Be Allowed To Emigrate To Conservative States?

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
I say we set up a committee where people will testify against each other to determine just who deserves what label !!!

bring your torches !!!!!




posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by DarthMuerte
 


Being as how many Liberals are minorities and people of color....Jim Crow anyone?

www.u-s-history.com...

Segregation of those that have different opinions? See my sig please!
edit on 30-3-2013 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by syrinx high priest
 


Be surprised how many people lean one way or the other.

An example, I believe in Gay marriage. I also am very Conservative......

You can blame everything on "we the people". For putting these politicians in control. For not holding them to higher standards, and for not kicking them out, when they let Government run amok. In the end though, its up to the citizens of America to change the status quo. Not "force" people to move, because of how they think. Its Fascist to think that way.



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
I say we set up a committee where people will testify against each other to determine just who deserves what label !!!

bring your torches !!!!!


You got it right!!

That is exactly what has happened. Because of our 2 party system. Each side tells wretched lies about the "other side" and claims their gross exaggerations are true; all the while demonizing the "other side". As long as we keep this up the only end in sight is a red/blue split. Let me be clear the current administration is as guilty of this as the previous administration was, both sides should be tossed out on their respective butts.

The only truly American party is the one that neither party will let have a voice, whom they both ridicule, out of fear, who both media lackey's regularly impugn - the Libertarian Party. Abandoning the divisive, name calling, living high on the hog with your and my money parties. By not allowing a third party and creating a deep division that is nearly equal they keep their wretched money grubbing nanny-state intrusive controlling sh-- holes in power. The only way out is one that the media lap dogs will never allow is a rise of a third party.



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by DarthMuerte
 


I think you have a severely distorted idea of what America means.


A liberal in the classical definition would not have a problem with what he thinks since the word means FREEDOM.



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96

A liberal in the classical definition would not have a problem with what he thinks since the word means FREEDOM.



Absolutely misrepresented. I didn't seek to forbid him from having his opinions or to silence him - I merely voiced my opinions about them.

What part of this strikes you as un-American?



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 05:13 PM
link   
So what does it mean to be an American really?

Free food,healthcare, and corporate products are human rights?

Punish everyone because bad people do bad things which is why I have to ask government for permission to own a gun?

Is that what it means to be an American?

Really what does it mean to be an American to be so materialistic and naive that people just can't live without government interventionism in their lives?

That is not what built this country never has been.



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


Misrepresented?

Sat there looking down at him telling him your thinking is better than his.

So what does it mean to be an American?




What part of this strikes you as un-American?


Voicing his concerns with this country is completely American.

To be an American ?

Someone who supports others rights to say what they want even if we disagree with them,
edit on 30-3-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
I think the biggest problem with liberals is that they just don't respect the ideas and feelings of others. It can't just be their way here or there...it must be their way everywhere and every way.
Funny, I used to consider you one of the Intelligent Posters on ATS.
If you cant identify how wrong the Statement of yours I quoted is, my assumption is correct.

You see us Horrible Liberals believe that choice should be left up to Individual people.

Abortion... between a woman and her God

Gays.. between themselves and their partners.

Ya, Us Liberals are just Horrible.



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Tw0Sides
 





You see us Horrible Liberals believe that choice should be left up to Individual people.


Really?

Reallllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllly?

Then why are there gun laws,financial laws,regulation, etc.



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Could you quote where I said I was better than him? Please do, otherwise you're just pandering to your own predispositions with smoke and mirrors.

And, FTR... why don't YOU explain to me how it would be in line with the Constitution to restrict liberals to specific states.



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Tw0Sides
 





You see us Horrible Liberals believe that choice should be left up to Individual people.


Really?

Reallllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllly?

Then why are there gun laws,financial laws,regulation, etc.
Because if the Cons had their way entirely.
This country would be 50 Kingdoms will us all being Serfs to them.
No need to thank us, we are Humble.



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 





I think you have a severely distorted idea of what America means.


What's that say?

He has a "distorted idea" of what American means.




And, FTR... why don't YOU explain to me how it would be in line with the Constitution to restrict liberals to specific states.


I seen the op ask a question put up for "debate" exactly what they do in congress.

" Should Liberals Be Allowed To Emigrate To Conservative States?"



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


I am curious - has Congress ever proposed segregation based upon political affiliation? Or might they consider the very idea to be, I don't know, contrary to the Constitution?



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide

Originally posted by DarthMuerte

Second, the "draconian laws" are the problem. Liberalism/Progressivism is like a cancer spreading and killing this nation. Let's look at some examples:
You can get arrested for hunting or fishing without a license, but not for being in the country illegally


Wrong. People are arrested and deported every single day.
Obama has halted deportations of hundreds of thousands of illegals, and sued states for trying to deport illegals.
Link


Originally posted by Hefficide

Originally posted by DarthMuerte
You have to get your parents’ permission to go on a field trip or take an aspirin in school, but not to get an abortion.


Which reflects the law of the land as upheld by the SCOTUS and voters. America is a Democratic Republic - perhaps you might be more comfortable in a Theocracy. I hear there are no abortions in Saudi Arabia.
Tell me how it makes sense that a teenager can get an abortion without parental consent when aspirin in school requires parental consent? Liberalism gone mad, that's how.


Originally posted by Hefficide

Originally posted by DarthMuerte
You have to show identification to board an airplane, cash a check, buy liquor, or check out a library book, but not to vote on who runs the government


Depends upon the state. But I am confused... wanting voter ID laws is moving towards fascism I thought. Are you arguing for voter ID laws or against needing a license to drink?
I am arguing against the dichotomy and the obvious mental disorder that must exist in order to think both of those stances are simultaneously acceptable.


Originally posted by Hefficide

Originally posted by DarthMuerte
You can buy two 16-ounce sodas, but not a 24-ounce soda because 24-ounces of a sugary drink might make you fat


I am sitting here drinking a 32 ounce soda right now???
Are you in NYC? IIRC, that one has been overturned, but the fact that liberals think they have the right to control what others consume like that still makes my point.


Originally posted by Hefficide

Originally posted by DarthMuerte
An 80-year-old woman can be stripped searched by the TSA but a woman in a hijab is only subject to having her neck and head searched


Misrepresentation of facts. A suspected person will be subject to full search regardless of what she is wearing or where she is from.
Except that the one wearing the hijab will never be "suspected" because that would be "profiling".


Originally posted by HefficideAgain... I'm confused are you saying that you think neither party should be subject to the TSA? Or do you just want tyrannical searches for all?
The SS/TSA should be completely disbanded.


Originally posted by Hefficide

Originally posted by DarthMuerte
You can't get more draconian, more intrusive. All of the above examples stem directly from liberalism and political correctness another idea directly spawned by liberalism.


Draconian? Like restricting a group of Americans from travelling freely based upon their political beliefs? Do you see the irony in this statement?
Yes, exactly like that. Sometimes hyperbole must be used to show the insanity inherent in a system.



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Tw0Sides
 


So clearly this:




You see us Horrible Liberals believe that choice should be left up to Individual people.


Was a lie.

"because if the cons" get their way serfs, and kingdom etc" altho anyone paying attention to the current state of the union is whole lot of lords and ladies in Washington while the serfs get left blowing in the wind.



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by neo96
 


I am curious - has Congress ever proposed segregation based upon political affiliation? Or might they consider the very idea to be, I don't know, contrary to the Constitution?
Our current congress defecates on the Constitution on a daily basis. They would not support such a segregation because they would immediately lose their power over the actual "producers" in this country. The looters have to have someone to loot, they sure can't loot the 47%



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by neo96
 


I am curious - has Congress ever proposed segregation based upon political affiliation? Or might they consider the very idea to be, I don't know, contrary to the Constitution?


I would say the Fairness doctrine would cover that, and the champions of "separation" of church and state the nonstop attacks on Easter,Christmas etc.

So Yes.



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96

To be an American ?

Someone who supports others rights to say what they want even if we disagree with them,
edit on 30-3-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)


Exactly - a Libertarian

Liberty is foremost, the liberty to do what you want as long as no one else is harmed (ie gay, who cares; fat, who cares; high and not on the streets or bothering anyone, who cares; want a mono-racial club, that's your business and those who agree with you, those who disagree can but out; want to own a gun, as long as you are responsible it is none of my business; want to marry your partner, whatever not my business; want to marry your dog, again not my business)
the caveat is liberty means extremely limited government interference - in everything - charity is encouraged - if you want to do away with something only because it offends someone is considered intrusive into a person's liberty.

Libertarian - the function of the government are only those listed in the Constitution and not to be expanded beyond what is in the Constitution. ie The Department of Education should not exist because it does not meet any criteria of the role of the federal government. In everything else the state decides for itself, so New York can still control how much cola it's citizens drink, California can legalize post birth abortion, but the rest of the states have the option not to.

Read the Constitution, that will give you the basis of the Libertarian Party, extremely limited government, no intrusion in private lives



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


People who celebrate Christmas are forbidden from crossing state lines or from visiting certain states???

You're leaving me confused Neo.





new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join