It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by BrianFlanders
Originally posted by votan
reply to post by BrianFlanders
why does "conservatism" and "liberalism" need to exist in the first place? that is a better question
eff those things that are used to divide people
Well, people who disagree are supposed to be divided. I personally don't want to be one with people who are wrong. I am just as distrustful of people who want us to all just get along as I am of people who try too hard to work on wedges.
People who are wrong need to be opposed.
Originally posted by Darkrunner
I think that at the end of the day, a person will never find a political philosophy that they are 100% in agreement with. There will probably always be an issue or two in any political party that you take issue with. The key is to find the one that most fits your personal beliefs.
Originally posted by justwokeup
But few people are right about everything. Just as few are wrong about everything.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
There is a concerted effort in the religious right to gain CONTROL of the country and they're moving with a religious conviction the rest of us have no clue about. They will not stop or be stopped except by a concerted effort to do so. And I don't see that happening.
It's interesting to see how politics has changed over my lifetime. Scary and (I think) hopeless, but interesting.
Originally posted by BrianFlanders
The problem with libertarianism is that it just scares people. Even I have to admit full fledged libertarianism isn't realistic at all.
Originally posted by BrianFlanders
I'm not saying conservatives should give up on the idea of religious freedom. On the contrary. If you want to be a Christian or a Jew or whatever, go for it. Just don't force it.
*snip*
If conservatives started being more accepting of sexual freedom and atheism, it would send the liberals into a panic because other than the perception of racism and the class thing, that's all they've got.
Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
Originally posted by BrianFlanders
I'm not saying conservatives should give up on the idea of religious freedom. On the contrary. If you want to be a Christian or a Jew or whatever, go for it. Just don't force it.
*snip*
If conservatives started being more accepting of sexual freedom and atheism, it would send the liberals into a panic because other than the perception of racism and the class thing, that's all they've got.
So, you claim to respect religious freedom, while at the same time asking those with a certain belief to ignore their beliefs, and fit themselves to some other mold?
Contradictory.
Originally posted by Frith
reply to post by BrianFlanders
Social policy isn't what has kept Democrats in power in recent years. It never even got Obama in there since he was against gay marriage for most of his first first term.
In 2006 Democrats controlled Congress due to Republican foreign policy failures in the War on Terror and especially Iraq. The sting from the election even caused Bush to get rid of Donald Rumsfeld and implement the "surge" strategy for Iraq.
In 2008 and 2012 Democrats, and in particular Obama, won due to economic policy. When times are tough people don't want to hear conservatives say "You're on your own." They want to have some type of assurance that they won't be living on the street next month.
The fact is that conservatives are wrong on everything.
They're facing demographic winter and there is nothing that will stop their eventual extinction. The only thing that would at this point would be a literal miracle.
Originally posted by BrianFlanders
Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
Originally posted by BrianFlanders
I'm not saying conservatives should give up on the idea of religious freedom. On the contrary. If you want to be a Christian or a Jew or whatever, go for it. Just don't force it.
*snip*
If conservatives started being more accepting of sexual freedom and atheism, it would send the liberals into a panic because other than the perception of racism and the class thing, that's all they've got.
So, you claim to respect religious freedom, while at the same time asking those with a certain belief to ignore their beliefs, and fit themselves to some other mold?
Contradictory.
Not at all. I have never stormed into someone's church and demanded they stop believing. I just don't want their beliefs forced on me politically. It's fine with me if they believe this or that is amoral but they need to realize they live in a society with other people who don't believe the same things. Many of us out here are all for limited government and fiscal conservatism but they scare us off by not accepting our religious freedom (the right NOT to believe).
Personally, I thought I was a liberal until Obama. Ever since, I get along better with conservatives (even religious conservatives) than I do with hardcore liberals.
Conservatives need to learn to play the game the way liberals do. And that is a game in which it doesn't really matter how you win as long as you win. This is the game the liberals are playing. Conservatives need atheists and gays and women and blacks and all the other minorities that liberals manage to keep under their tent by convincing them all conservatives hate them.
Is it really a contradiction in your mind to enjoy and practice your own religion and let others do the same?
If you really believe in freedom, you should believe (for example) other people have the right to watch pornography (as long as it's consenting adults) even if pornography is considered to be bad by your religious beliefs. You can't tell other people what they can and can't watch in their own homes or what they can and can't do in their own bedrooms and claim you believe in freedom.edit on 19-7-2013 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by ThreeBears
That's not Freedom that's Hedonism, huge difference. I am Not conservative, but I am not Moral relativist either...want to watch porn fine,
BUT...
There should be Strict Punishment for when there is Forced rape, torture and trafficking for your porn then YOU should be charged for felony accessory TO that.
In yes my radical FEMINist opinion, these are Not Victimless industries.
why does "conservatism" and "liberalism" need to exist in the first place? that is a better question
Originally posted by BrianFlanders
Originally posted by Darkrunner
I think that at the end of the day, a person will never find a political philosophy that they are 100% in agreement with. There will probably always be an issue or two in any political party that you take issue with. The key is to find the one that most fits your personal beliefs.
Naturally. But then a certain amount of this is unavoidable and a certain amount of it is intentional. Again, I believe there are certain things that the people who run things don't want and so they make sure that the people who want whatever that is cannot choose the party or candidate that is most favorable to whatever it is because said party/candidate is diametrically opposed to everything else they believe in.
In other words, just because one party/candidate/whatever fits 90% of your personal beliefs doesn't mean the other 10% isn't a matter of critical importance. They know this. People who cannot really find a suitable candidate for all of their beliefs are more likely to refrain from voting at all or throw their vote away on a Ron Paul type of candidate (I'm not saying there's anything wrong with him. Just that he could never win and those who vote for him are basically giving their vote to the left).
What it all boils down to is that 90% is usually a bunch of relatively minor issues that only seem more substantial because there are a lot more of them. Most people have a couple of seemingly insignificant issues that really matter to them. But what are you supposed to do if, for example, you (for example) believe strongly in abortion rights but you also believe in extremely limited government (fiscal conservatism)? That is a psychological roadblock that you cannot circumvent in this country. The people who are most in line with the limited government idea are really actually not at all in favor of limited government (they're lying, basically). But the alternative is the people who openly advocate massive government. They also believe in the right to choose as long as you don't choose to live without health insurance or as long as you don't choose to eat things that are bad for you, etc.
Essentially, the two parties work together to prevent choice. Whatever you choose, they win. The same agenda keeps going no matter who is in office. The part of it we know as the liberal agenda gets put on hold when there's a "conservative" in office but the policies generally remain in place just waiting for the next "liberal". And vice versa.