Should Liberals Be Allowed To Emigrate To Conservative States?

page: 7
10
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Rabbit, I had a similar talk with my sister who claimed that Bush needed those "presidential powers" to fight the war on terror. She forgot that the pendulum swings both ways and cuts like a knife both ways.

I think both libs and cons are so captured by their ideology that they would deny the rights of another if it went against their beliefs ......

The consolidation of powers in the three branches of government has destroyed the checks and balances built into the Constitution. The politicization of the government structure by both parties is wrong and it is used as a tool to destroy freedom to pacify the people.




posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by DarthMuerte
 


You want to implement a system of travel restrictions to be monitored by the government in order to remove peoples right to travel freely, in order to mitigate their political influence?

Where have I heard that # before?

Jeez. I bet you still think Amerika is the land of the free right?



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 01:28 AM
link   
Just as an addendum to my previous post about the blatant unconstitutionality of something like this (in my opinion,) I just had a sickening thought/realization to go along with it. Not sickening in that I'm sickened by OP's opinion in and of itself, but rather in that the implications give me great pause and frankly frighten me a bit.

Let me preface that sickening thought/realization by saying this first. I've always been someone who says that I never see my countrymen as my enemy. I love everyone. I respect everyone's opinions and rights, and have no interest in taking them away from anyone, whether I agree with them or not. I also passionately oppose things both the last two administrations - and their predecessors - have done, irrespective of party or outward ideology. I don't care what party or ideological field someone comes from. If they do something I don't ethically agree with or that infringes on the rights of anyone - not just mine - I have a problem with that, even if I don't agree with the people whose rights are being trodden upon. I say this to make the point that I am someone who tries his utmost to practice mutual respect and tolerance, and to acknowledge others' freedoms.

Now here's the thought that gave me the sinking feeling in my stomach. This topic represents an example - with all due respect to OP's opinion, which is your prerogative of course - of how both the "right" and the "left" have become so detestable to one another, so vehemently divided, that they do not see one another as countrymen anymore. They see one another as enemies. To such an extent in fact, that they will openly advocate the stripping of their fellow citizens' constitutional rights! The two party system has so effectively divided us, that both sides will openly call for measures that repress the other, even as they claim to be patriotic defenders of basic liberties.

Call me crazy... but if someone somewhere might benefit from this, it isn't we, the people. I'm just saying. Please consider at your leisure.

Peace.



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by DarthMuerte
Liberals and Conservatives have many different values, liberal love of big government being just one of them. Thus my question. Let's take California as just one example. California is broke. Businesses are fleeing the state in droves. This leaves fewer jobs in California inducing some liberals to move to conservative states since that is where the jobs are. However, when the libs get to the conservative states they want to start changing the laws to match the liberal hell hole they just left. IMO, liberals should be forced to live with the consequences of their actions and stay in the liberal states. What does everybody else think?
edit on 30-3-2013 by DarthMuerte because: (no reason given)


California isn't just broke, they are bankrupt, both financially and morally. Along with Illinois, and most other states run by a majority of liberals. The same thing is happening to the entire country, and unfortunately I think it's too late to turn it around. The funny thing is that the liberals don't even know what they have done, and think the handouts will just keep coming.



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 01:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by AceWombat04
Just as an addendum to my previous post about the blatant unconstitutionality of something like this (in my opinion,) I just had a sickening thought/realization to go along with it. Not sickening in that I'm sickened by OP's opinion in and of itself, but rather in that the implications give me great pause and frankly frighten me a bit.

Peace.


Funny how liberals have no respect for The Constitution until it comes to something they value.



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 01:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by seabag


What’s REALLY “chilling” is that there are still people walking among us who can’t see that liberal policies such as those peddled in GREAT cities like Chicago, LA, Detroit, etc are no different than policies in conservative cities where things are going relatively good right now despite the failed federal policies we’re experiencing.

Do you really think that the false left/right paradigm crap means there is no "conservative" or "liberal"??

That reference is regarding the political system (Dem/Repub) not REAL ideological differences.


edit on 30-3-2013 by seabag because: (no reason given)


Very good point. There isn't much difference between the average Dem or Repub anymore, because the majority of them are about bigger and bigger government, and total control of the people. In other words, there are a lot of liberal Republicans these days, and only a handful of real conservatives.



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 02:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by DarthMuerte
Liberals and Conservatives have many different values, liberal love of big government being just one of them. Thus my question. Let's take California as just one example. California is broke. Businesses are fleeing the state in droves. This leaves fewer jobs in California inducing some liberals to move to conservative states since that is where the jobs are. However, when the libs get to the conservative states they want to start changing the laws to match the liberal hell hole they just left. IMO, liberals should be forced to live with the consequences of their actions and stay in the liberal states. What does everybody else think?
edit on 30-3-2013 by DarthMuerte because: (no reason given)


So, you talk about liberals wanting big government, while endorsing an idea that calls for the government to legally ban certain people from living certain parts of the country? Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness much?



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 02:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by neo96

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by seabag
 


That's easy. Google "Reaganomics", "Trickle down economics", or "Supply side economics" and then look around at what deregulation has wrought. A small fraction of 1% becoming obscenely wealthy while the rest of us work like slaves for crumbs from the table.


Has trickle up "economics" (rob from the rich and give to the poor) worked?

Trickle down is working just fine in China where American business goes because of regulation.

Even after 70 years of robbing that "insanely" wealthy are people better off for it?

Nope keeps them in perpetual slavery all for a vote, and a lie.


We have the highest corporate taxes in the world, is it any wonder why so many businesses have left? Guess who creates the jobs? Or maybe I should say guess who used to create the jobs? Under this administration the moderately wealthy and middle class are being destroyed. As the debt rises, our standard of living will continue to recede. What will it take for the liberals to figure this out?



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 02:13 AM
link   
reply to post by vtr99
 


I hope you didn't dismiss the rest of my post you didn't quote, and that you aren't putting me in that boat. My whole point was that both sides are being whipped up into this firestorm of indignation and confrontation, wherein they both advocate the stripping of either side's rights.

I was trying to convey the realization that had just struck me. That being, that a very effective way to divide and conquer the liberties we should in my view all hold dear - left, right, up, down, or zig zag - would be to have successive periods where each "side" is in ascendance and works to strip the other "side" of its rights, and then the other "side" succeeds them and does the same to them. Eventually both "sides" - meaning all of we, the people - end up without any rights to speak of, if you extrapolate that process out into the future, and assuming it doesn't abate.

Peace.



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 02:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by AceWombat04
reply to post by vtr99
 


I hope you didn't dismiss the rest of my post you didn't quote, and that you aren't putting me in that boat. My whole point was that both sides are being whipped up into this firestorm of indignation and confrontation, wherein they both advocate the stripping of either side's rights.

I was trying to convey the realization that had just struck me. That being, that a very effective way to divide and conquer the liberties we should in my view all hold dear - left, right, up, down, or zig zag - would be to have successive periods where each "side" is in ascendance and works to strip the other "side" of its rights, and then the other "side" succeeds them and does the same to them. Eventually both "sides" - meaning all of we, the people - end up without any rights to speak of, if you extrapolate that process out into the future, and assuming it doesn't abate.

Peace.


Sorry, I didn't mean to ignore the rest of your post. I just don't believe there is much that can be done at this point. We are on a collision course because we have allowed this liberal cancer to ruin our country. For that matter the entire Western World has been financially destroyed by liberal policies, and I don't think there is any way to recover the old system. They will keep printing money and telling everyone all is well until the implosion. I think very few people understand how serious our situation is, especially the liberals. They just don't seem to have a clue about anything. If you speak the truth you are called a fear monger.



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 03:46 AM
link   
reply to post by vtr99
 


I think the first thing we need to do is establish some mutual understanding and respect. Let me explain where I'm coming from and why you should not view all people plastered with the label of "liberal" as part of the cancer you perceive to infect our nation today. This is the kind of discussion we desperately need in my opinion.

Most people would probably classify me as liberal, in the sense that I'm anti-war, support gay marriage on a 14th amendment equal protection basis, etc. But I also oppose, for example, moves to restrict gun ownership rights. I didn't vote for Obama, nor do I support his policies. I don't agree with the continual growth and spending of the government. I do believe that its growth and said spending are a recipe for eventual disaster if not brought back into focus and balance. And although I do believe strongly that certain entitlement programs are necessary for some people's survival, I believe in a balanced approach, like welfare to work. (i.e. welfare for those who absolutely need it, but substantive steps to move them from welfare back to work or to work for the first time as rapidly as possible if they are capable of working.) And I don't agree with resenting people because of their success or wealth.

Let me offer just one example of where I'm coming from. I can't stand guns. I don't want to be around them, I have never fired one (unless my grandfather's rifle at a can when I was about 6 years old counts.) My best friend died at the hands of a gang member with a gun. I feel like they are designed to kill and that's just completely not in my nature. If I could change reality with a magic wand, I'd eliminate guns from the face of the Earth.

But... and here's the point... that doesn't matter. Because I believe in a higher ideal than what I personally would like to see, and that is freedom and inalienable rights. I believe you have a constitutional right to have a gun. I believe there are people with needs - hunting, self defense, etc. - hell, even just desires (enthusiasts, collectors,) etc. who have need of these weapons. And while I never want to hold gun at any point in my life and I do think more should be done to keep them out of the hands of the mentally unstable... the mentally unstable have always existed, and will always exist, and I have a big ethical problem with the premise of telling you that you can't have a gun because of those individuals. Whether I like guns or think they serve a good purpose that I personally can see or not. And I will defend that right that I believe you should have.

That's called mutual respect. It's called equal rights. It's called compromise. I have zero interest in stripping you or anyone else of their constitutional rights, and I oppose those who are trying to do exactly that. I opposed those trying to do so in the Bush administration, and I oppose equally those trying to do so in the Obama administration.

And yet, as I've said and as I'm sure my many posts on ATS about peace, love, and all the other admittedly hippie-ish things that emerge from my consciousness in text form here have demonstrated, I'm probably what most people would label as a liberal (whether I want to be so categorized personally or not.) So my question is this: am I part of this "liberal cancer" you describe? Even though I'm willing to compromise, even though I respect your rights, even though I defend your rights, and even though I may not agree with you about absolutely everything under the sun about how our country should be run? Because if I'm not, then you have to consider the possibility that "liberal" and "conservative" are too broad in how they paint both me and you equally.

I don't hate conservatives. Conservatives are my countrymen. My brothers and sisters. As far as I'm concerned, my blood. I may disagree with them about some things, but that's what a plurality and a democratic republic is about. Plurality and disagreement synthesizing a single outcome. Not about one side destroying or disenfranchising the other until it has no choice but to see the other not as its countrymen, brothers, and sisters... but as its enemies. I REFUSE to see you as an enemy. Because once we do that, then we all lose in my opinion. I truly believe that.

So when a "liberal" talks about stripping the rights of a conservative (guns, for instance,) or a "conservative" talks about stripping the rights of a liberal (restricting relocation on political ideological grounds like this topic advocates,) I say no to both. Because if we are so divided that we openly and enthusiastically advocate cutting off our own noses to spite ourselves, then we are doomed.

Never since the Civil War have the words "divided we fall" held more meaning in my opinion. And I am only now beginning to realize the magnitude to which they are true.

That's all I'm trying to say. Peace.



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 04:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tw0Sides

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


I'm not sure that is true.


edit on 1-4-2013 by ollncasino because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 10:34 AM
link   
Last time I checked liberals and conservatives enact pretty much the same policies, except for soft topics like gay marriage, which have little to no impact on the country as a whole.

Fiscal conservatives? The only administration I can think of, which presented a balanced budget was the clinton administration. Other than that if you look at the track records there is little difference wether the label is conervative or not. Obamacare was penned under Romney.



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 10:59 AM
link   
I don't know. Should morons be allowed to post ridiculous questions? Should bigots be allowed to dictate life style decisions? Should butt hurt GOPers be in a position to control anythying? Should racists be given any respect at all?



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
If all you see are the labels "Liberal" and "Conservative" and only judge people by them, then you have a problem.

All sides of the political spectrum have caused the current problems in the US economy.

Polarisation will solve.... nothing.


I think that's a little self-contradictory.

That's like saying "Partisanship is the problem, now stop talking about it".



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by AceWombat04
reply to post by vtr99
 


I think the first thing we need to do is establish some mutual understanding and respect. Let me explain where I'm coming from and why you should not view all people plastered with the label of "liberal" as part of the cancer you perceive to infect our nation today. This is the kind of discussion we desperately need in my opinion.


Respect is something you earn, not something that is freely given. There has been an ongoing discussion, and it's always a losing proposition for those who work hard and believe in our Constitution and founding principles.


Most people would probably classify me as liberal, in the sense that I'm anti-war, support gay marriage on a 14th amendment equal protection basis, etc. But I also oppose, for example, moves to restrict gun ownership rights. I didn't vote for Obama, nor do I support his policies. I don't agree with the continual growth and spending of the government. I do believe that its growth and said spending are a recipe for eventual disaster if not brought back into focus and balance. And although I do believe strongly that certain entitlement programs are necessary for some people's survival, I believe in a balanced approach, like welfare to work. (i.e. welfare for those who absolutely need it, but substantive steps to move them from welfare back to work or to work for the first time as rapidly as possible if they are capable of working.) And I don't agree with resenting people because of their success or wealth.


I think most of us are against war unless there is a direct threat to our country or way of life. I didn't vote for him either, but remember thinking Obama would get us out of these conflicts. The exact opposite happened. I also remember him saying before his first term that he would unite the country. He has done the exact opposite! The last time we were this divided it lead to a civil war. The only thing that will cure this debt problem is bankruptcy, and the eventual destruction of the dollar and the Euro. I think the plan for one world currency is obvious, and also illegal. Call it what you like, but two men or two women cannot be married. They can come up with their own term if they like, but throughout the ages marriage has always been defined as the joining of a man and a woman, period! I certainly don't believe the intent of The 14th Amendment had anything to do with endorsing this sort of perversion. I could care less what gays or lesbians do in their own homes. I believe consenting people should be free to do whatever they wish as long as it doesn't adversely affect others who don't want to be part of it. That said, it is unnatural, and they should not be allowed to raise children. I would never allow anyone to teach my kids that something like this is normal, or acceptable. People should only be able to take from programs they paid into. Unemployment, Social Security, Medicare, and all other social programs should be individual accounts that pay guaranteed interest. This money should belong to each individual, and shouldn't be stolen for any reason. Otherwise I am completely against any such program.


Let me offer just one example of where I'm coming from. I can't stand guns. I don't want to be around them, I have never fired one (unless my grandfather's rifle at a can when I was about 6 years old counts.) My best friend died at the hands of a gang member with a gun. I feel like they are designed to kill and that's just completely not in my nature. If I could change reality with a magic wand, I'd eliminate guns from the face of the Earth.


The founding fathers had a very good understanding of history, and gave us an insurance policy called The Second Amendment. It had little to do with hunting, or self defense, and everything to do with protection against tyranny. There are no guarantees in life, and criminal acts, and accidents will always happen. The liberals blame guns which are inanimate tools. The conservatives blame criminals. At the same time liberals are okay with aborting innocent life, they want to save violent criminals.


But... and here's the point... that doesn't matter. Because I believe in a higher ideal than what I personally would like to see, and that is freedom and inalienable rights. I believe you have a constitutional right to have a gun. I believe there are people with needs - hunting, self defense, etc. - hell, even just desires (enthusiasts, collectors,) etc. who have need of these weapons. And while I never want to hold gun at any point in my life and I do think more should be done to keep them out of the hands of the mentally unstable... the mentally unstable have always existed, and will always exist, and I have a big ethical problem with the premise of telling you that you can't have a gun because of those individuals. Whether I like guns or think they serve a good purpose that I personally can see or not. And I will defend that right that I believe you should have. That's called mutual respect. It's called equal rights. It's called compromise. I have zero interest in stripping you or anyone else of their constitutional rights, and I oppose those who are trying to do exactly that. I opposed those trying to do so in the Bush administration, and I oppose equally those trying to do so in the Obama administration.


Just don't try and tell me what type of gun, ammo, or magazine capacity I can own. People that have been convicted of a Violent felony should not be allowed to own a gun. If someone commits a violent crime with a gun, execute them. As for people with so-called mental problems, if they have not committed a crime, they are innocent. Laws should not make innocent people guilty.



And yet, as I've said and as I'm sure my many posts on ATS about peace, love, and all the other admittedly hippie-ish things that emerge from my consciousness in text form here have demonstrated, I'm probably what most people would label as a liberal (whether I want to be so categorized personally or not.) So my question is this: am I part of this "liberal cancer" you describe? Even though I'm willing to compromise, even though I respect your rights, even though I defend your rights, and even though I may not agree with you about absolute.


I think most of us want more peace and love in the world. But looking at history, I think it's extremely foolish to believe that freedom doesn't need to be constantly defended. As history proves, this is not always a peaceful process. The more out of control things get, the less likely there will be a peaceful solution. ANYONE who doesn't understand we need a balanced budget immediately, we need to protect American jobs and traditions, that we need less welfare, not more, we need more personal responsibility, not less, or tries to undermine the U.S. Constitution is part of the liberal cancer. Don't try to make new gun laws, then in the same breath tell me there are too many illegals to enforce immigration laws. If you really want solutions, put guys like Sheriff Joe Arpaio in charge.

www.politico.com...

www.huffingtonpost.com...



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by Tw0Sides

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


I'm not sure that is true.


edit on 1-4-2013 by ollncasino because: (no reason given)


Could just as easily be done with conservatives and their psuedo anti-big government non sense.

For example: Can I marry who I want "No, it's against my religion so you can't do it"

we could go on and on with condoms, marijuana, stem cell research, porn, music and movies they deem inappropriate etc... Conservatives want big government moral police as much as liberals want to regulate whats good for you in that picture.



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by DarthMuerte
 





Should Liberals Be Allowed To Emigrate To Conservative States?,


Perhaps we need a way to identify Liberals? How about making them wear an armband and keep them all together so they can be watched.

edit on 1-4-2013 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Unfortunately .. all those tax and spend, entitlement society, liberals who destroyed California are now moving out of that cesspool they created .. and they are taking their destructive ways to Texas. I fear for Texas. It's a good state. It's a solid state. And yet .. those Californians who want all their free stuff and who want to bring their liberal tax and spend ways are going to sink Texas ..


This is why I had removed Texas from the list of states I was considering. Beautiful state and GREAT people that live there, but seeing all the liberals flock there for the $$$$ is seeing the writing on the wall for Texas's future.



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by vtr99
 


The "being on the losing side" dynamic is something I think absolutely has to change. I've had arguments with friends who I would describe as being more anti-conservative than "liberal." I tell them, "Wait a minute. You're talking about half of the country. You cannot simply disenfranchise millions of people and tell them it's your way or the highway and that their voices don't matter." They don't understand, because they expect me to simply fall in line with the prevailing sentiment among them, but I try to explain that these are our countrymen, and human beings, and that militantly marginalizing or trying to invalidate them doesn't just result in further anger, but also hurts us all by reducing the viability of the democratic part of our democratic republic.

I don't see rights as your rights and my rights. I see them as our rights. So you losing a right - even one I might never exercise myself - damages all of us as far as I'm concerned. There are going to be things we don't see eye to eye on. Some things we will disagree profoundly and fundamentally about. But our system allows for this. That's why it's a democratic republic, to facilitate differences of opinion while allowing everyone to have equal rights. There are, however, some things on which I suspect we would agree, at least in general if not in nuance.

For instance, no. I do not advocate ANY law that abridges your right to own any type of firearm or ammunition. When I said those with mental illnesses should not have access to firearms in my opinion, I was referring to those with clear histories of violence.

I do believe we need less welfare, not more. However, I believe welfare to work programs are essential as we reduce welfare rolls, because as you would no doubt point out, there are many who essentially live their entire lives on welfare, some of whom don't even know how to begin to look for a job. I don't believe in simply cutting people off to fend for themselves, but I do believe the welfare rolls have to be reduced now rather than later.

I'll also add this personal note. I'm disabled. By all rights, I should be on disability. But I'm not, because even though I'm well into adulthood (30s) and have never been able to work, I still harbor hopes of being self-reliant one day. I would rather those who are merciful and kind enough to voluntarily care for me like family do so, than place my burden on society personally. Even if all I ever manage to do is get a book published or something, as unlikely as that may be, I would rather do that than resort to disability. It would be a last resort, not a first one. And you can believe that, because I've been avoiding it for thirteen years. (This is not a condemnation of those on disability. Just an attempt to make the point that I do prefer self-reliance if at all possible.)

I do agree that the deficit needs to be eliminated. In short order, but preferably immediately. We might not agree on how to go about doing that entirely necessarily, but we can at least agree that it needs to happen now, and that kicking it down the road for another year or more is not acceptable.

Now, even if we agreed entirely on these few points - which seems unlikely - I think what I'm driving at is that the way I'm engaging you is not hostile or as I would engage an adversary. I'm talking to you. I'm communicating. I'm listening. I'm taking your voice into consideration rather than simply saying, "No! You're wrong!" Because the very nature of a democratic republic is one utterly reliant on dialogue, debate, and cooperation between disparate, often diametrically opposed viewpoints.

Even if we cannot share the same positions, I would like to believe that we can at least change how we characterize one another in our hearts. (Yeah, yeah, I know. There I am being a "bleeding heart liberal" lol.) Because I truly, sincerely do not view you as my adversary. You are my brother and my countryman. Just consider it. That's all I'm saying.

Peace.





new topics
top topics
 
10
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join