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.

 

Why do Liberals think Libertarians are conservatives?

page: 4
15
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 11 2013 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Stormdancer777


I don't want a title, for one thing I don't fit into any category, my views are different and leanings are different depending on the subject, I believe most are this way, we let them pigeonhole us into groups to divide against one-another.

The reality is we are all going to go down together.


Actually I think we do a pretty good job of dividing ourselves into groups without outside help.
Just look at the political division on ATS.

I was just categorized again today as a "people like you" by one of our more conservatives members.

I guess if the "people like you" designation refers to me as a brutally handsome, talented and financially well off individual...I'll cop to that category.



edit on 11-10-2013 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2013 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


They need to die off first, until then others don't matter.

So right ow 3rd party 4th party, whatever you choose is bound to fail.

The majority is either left tor right. That is just the truth, so you will end up belonging to one of them.

and Libertarian belong to republicans.



posted on Oct, 11 2013 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


Libertarians belong to republican no matter how you want to twist it.

In the end, if you are falling off a cliff, 2 hands reach to you, your party will go for the republican hands.


You post are libertarian ideals or anti-democrat slings? it seems like the latter. big difference.

Unless libertarian ideal is to be anti-democrat and praise republican, then i guess i agree.



posted on Oct, 11 2013 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by luciddream
 


Thread I posted this morning:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Last I checked letting the economy default isn't something that Republicans want to happen.

Here is an old thread I authored back during the 2012 elections bashing the Republican rhetoric (lie) that voting Libertarian was the same as voting Democrat:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Try again buddy.



posted on Oct, 11 2013 @ 03:20 PM
link   

luciddream
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


They need to die off first, until then others don't matter.

So right ow 3rd party 4th party, whatever you choose is bound to fail.

The majority is either left tor right. That is just the truth, so you will end up belonging to one of them.

and Libertarian belong to republicans.


They only "belong" to the Republicans because that party co-opted the movement/ideology, just like the Dems co-opted the occupy movement.

It has been happening for just over a hundred years, so it's no surprise that the American public and their severe lack of historical knowledge doesn't see it for what it is. Continuation of the false left/right paradigm and control structure in Washington.

Both parties do this to maintain their stranglehold on the political game, as they both have the same agenda . . . unless, of course you buy into their portrayals in the media.

Think of it like the Mafia. Different families that fight, with each other, over "turf". However, introduce an outside agitator (like say the FBI) that wishes to threaten their way of life and they team up . . . circle the wagons, if you will. The political apparatus in Washington is no different, they want to maintain the status quo and positions of power.

Unfortunately, the American people are too stupid to realize they are being fed a line of BS from both parties and the media. Even in this thread, posters like you (going by what you post), think Libertarians want 90% of what Repubs want, or that Dems are the party of the people . . . You've (as we all have) been played by simple rhetoric to touch on the points that drive Americans to the polls; however, their actions and policies are inline and are expanded by each other.

But no . . . they are different . . . I mean just listen to their words (while ignoring their actions) they "hate" each other (just like those Mafia families). But, what about all the speeches, shutdowns, and in-fighting that can't be contrived political theater . . . right? What purpose does that serve? Well, judging by this thread alone . . . it serves to keep the nation divided, fighting amongst ourselves at the behest of whatever color/team we cheer for, over petty social differences, all while equally getting raped, coerced, extorted, bullied . . . (again, just like those Mafia families).

But, as a Libertarian . . . an educated, rational, atheist, pro-BOR (all of them), pro-Constitution, pro-choice, pro-freedom, pro-equality, pro-self-determination, anti-drug war, anti-ANY war, Libertarian . . . I guess I'm just espousing the virtues of the Republican party, who I have so much in common with . . . Yes, I should be glad that the Republican party has, thanks to a psy-op and media manipulation, "adopted" the Libertarians under their wing.



posted on Oct, 11 2013 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by solomons path
 


I've come to the conclusion it is just cognitive dissonance that people like Lucciddream are using. They feel like the Democratic party can do no wrong and when the obvious flaws of the party are pointed out then it must be an attack from the Republicans who are trying to make them look bad. Therefore if it is someone who says they are from an independent party like the Libertarians, then they are obviously just Republicans in disguise. It gets even weirder when you see Democrats disagreeing with the party line, then they are DINO's or are really Republicans pretending to be Democrats.

All these rationalizations so that they do not have to deal with the very real FACT that the Democratic party isn't everything that it says it is. It is very terrifying to see as it allows the Democratic party to avoid blame for their failings. One could also equate it to religious belief, that it is true regardless of all facts to the contrary.



posted on Oct, 11 2013 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by DarkKnight76
 





I vote for democrats because they are not bible-thumping bigots. I don't vote for Libertarians because I believe in the part of the preamble that says "to provide for the general welfare..." The only welfare the libertarians seem to care about is their own, and that just doesn't jive with the idea that our nation is a collective.


The majority of your post is basically based on the media portrayal of Libertarianism, which I and others have refuted many times before in this thread . . . But, I did want to address a common misconception that seems to be used by the media and politicians quite often . . .


The United States Constitution contains two references to "the General Welfare", one occurring in the Preamble and the other in the Taxing and Spending Clause. The U.S. Supreme Court has held the mention of the clause in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution "has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments."

Moreover, the Supreme Court held the understanding of the General Welfare Clause contained in the Taxing and Spending Clause adheres to the construction given it by Associate Justice Joseph Story in his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not a grant of general legislative power, but a qualification on the taxing power which includes within it a federal power to spend federal revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government. The Court described Justice Story's view as the "Hamiltonian position", as Alexander Hamilton had elaborated his view of the taxing and spending powers in his 1791 Report on Manufactures. Story, however, attributes the position's initial appearance to Thomas Jefferson, in his Opinion on the Bank of the United States.

As such, these clauses in the U.S. Constitution are an atypical use of a general welfare clause, and are not considered grants of a general legislative power to the federal government.


"to provide for the Common Defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of Liberty"

That is the exact wording in the preamble . . . however, if you go further (into the actual text) . . . to promote the general welfare means that the government has the power to tax and spend for the general welfare, not legislate. Which, means pay for infrastructure . . . not create social welfare programs.

You've been robbed and duped willingly, by those that want to play on your emotions and compassion. This started with the New Deal (FDR) and was originally ruled unconstitutional, but FDR threatened to remove and replace any judges that did not change their stance . . . well, guess what . . . they did.

History is your friend, when parsing through the lies politicians and media pundits feed to you daily.



posted on Oct, 11 2013 @ 03:34 PM
link   

MsAphrodite
Liberals aren't liberal. It's complete double speak. The ultimate misnomer.



signalfire
Errr; could you please define what *you* think a liberal is, then? I'm truly curious since the word is bandied about so much, I'm beginning to think all these labels mean something different to everyone who is using them.




Yes, bravo for that, signalfire. You hit the nail on the head, I'm afraid. In recent years I've become increasingly certain that most people do, in fact, use these terms quite differently. In some cases to the point of abuse, it seems. Here. Let's try something novel for a moment. Let's consult a dictionary, shall we? Even if this doesn't exactly tell us how a majority view the terms, it will clear up for us the proper use of these words, regardless of how a given political party, or certain members of them, may delight in abusing our language.




lib·er·al (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.
1.
a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
d. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
2.
a. Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
b. Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
3. Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation.




Oddly enough, this is more or less how I've always viewed political liberals.

"Dictionary definition, 'will?" (I can almost hear some saying now.) "You can't use a dictionary definition, cause it's not the same thing!"


Oh, I forgot.... we use "double speak" now. But as far as I can tell, honestly, that does clearly define political liberalism. At least as I understand it. More lax. Less strict. More generous. Less bigoted. More open minded. And I think that is one of the important defining traits. And I think it's also a mistake that many self-professed "conservatives" make about liberals. Liberals are not necessarily absent of tradition and traditional values. Some liberals are, in fact, very "traditional" in some ways. However, I see them as caring more about progress. Aka "results." In other words, breaking from tradition is okay if it gets results, or is for the greater good.





con·ser·va·tive (kn-sûrv-tv)
adj.
1. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
2. Traditional or restrained in style: a conservative dark suit.
3. Moderate; cautious: a conservative estimate.
4.
a. Of or relating to the political philosophy of conservatism.
b. Belonging to a conservative party, group, or movement.
5. Conservative Of or belonging to the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom or the Progressive Conservative Party in Canada.
6. Conservative Of or adhering to Conservative Judaism.
7. Tending to conserve; preservative: the conservative use of natural resources.




And that's generally how I see conservatives, as well. Admittedly, I have a hard time reconciling the last part. From what I can see, most conservatives want to conserve their paychecks (aka tax money)... but from what I've seen, many conservatives seem to be in favor of corporate capitalism and big business, which in my mind run completely counter to the idea of preserving natural resources.... but maybe that's just me.



posted on Oct, 11 2013 @ 03:35 PM
link   

tothetenthpower
It's a liberal idea to invade people's lives, create PC laws and inflict large government on people.

Originally conservatives followed the mantra of small government, no taxation without representation and fairness, and the right to be left the hell alone as long as you weren't infringing on the rights of others.

Don't get confused. The Globalists want you to think that those two groups, liberal and conservative are different, but really they've been the same for a very long time. It's part of double think in the 21st century.




1- Your first line quoted above i a complete lie, as I see it. First, it does not fit the actual definition of "liberal" in the slightest. Yet this is a highly common claim, as made by conservatives. (Funny, how you speak as though the liberal / conservative dichotomy is false, and yet you speak almost exactly like a conservative, using the very same false accusations. Rather odd, I have to say....)


There is nothing truly "liberal" about wanting more government interference, or interference in the lives of others. That very concept embodies the idea of "strictness" which is the very opposite of "liberal." Second, the control structure where government gets to dictate everything in the lives of the little people, is a very traditional construct. It is a very "progressive" idea that the government should be minimal, and it's the people who should have the real power. That is very anti-traditional, when you look at the history of the world. Feel free to deny that and continue employing the double-speak of the controllers, if you'd like, but that is a fact.

This reminds me of the super-commonly spread conservative lie that all "liberals" are pro-gun-control and anti-second-amendment. This is not even remotely true. By many standards, I think most people would probably consider me far more "liberal" than "conservative" and I very much believe in and support the second amendment. And I've talked to a number of self-proclaimed liberals who feel this way as well. Perhaps there have been a few high-profile democrats who have opposed guns, but these are not people I woud ever support, even if we have some liberal ideas in common. (And this is the kind of misconception you get, by the way, when you try to pidgeonhole people.)






2- "Republican / Conservative" "Democrat / Liberal"

These are not fully interchangeable terms. And the temptation to use them as such is somewhat understandable. There is a fair amount of overlap between republicans and conservatives, etc. However, it could be argued that "Democrats" represent the "liberal" position about as well as "Republicans" represent the "conservative" position. That is, "close, but no cigar..."

Again, I find it kind of funny that you point out the falsehood of the two-party system and yet seem to almost be using these terms interchangeably. However....






3- "Liberalism" and "Conservatism" are, in fact, opposing viewpoints. At the very least in terms of whether one finds "tradition" or "societal progress" to be a more important value.

Also, as far as the two-party system goes.... sure, there may be more over-lap between democrats and republicans than most would like. However, some might argue that we are seeing this because netiher side can have things 100% the way they want them. There has to be some level of compromise in order for government to function. A lesson which certain segments of our government need to learn pretty quick, if they want to keep their careers, and perhaps keep from getting lynched by a bunch of ticked off americans. But I digress....






4- I want to go back to your portrait of "liberals" for a moment. And how they want to "inflict large government on people."

As I mentioned, this is automatically counter to the actual definition of the word "liberal." However, I'm curious as to what you see as "inflicting large government on people?"

What, via affirmative action, for example?
While there may be some issues with such laws, they are being used to... how is it you said that...? Prevent "infringing on the rights of others."

Likewise, laws keeping big corporations in check, minimum wage laws, progressive taxation, etc prevent massive corporations from doing what they would do if left unchecked-- that is, taking advantage of their money and power to abuse people. Lowering the standard of living, and increasing the gap between the poor and the wealthy. Something which most "conservatives" seem to have no problem with. (I mean, I guess that is the traditional way things have been for years-- the wealthy and powerful taking a big forceful crap on the peons of society.... it's just now "corporations" that do this, rather than "the crown.") So, it could be argued that wage slavery is an infringement of peoples' rights.

On the flip side, I do not think somewhat limiting the income of the very few on the top of the heap, so they're making tens of millions a year, instead of hundreds of millions, is not an infringement. Everyone has to give back a little. That's the only way this thing works. And if our society (which for a big business includes many employees and many legions more customers) were nice enough to make you mega-wealthy, the very least you can do is give back a little. To do otherwise is overly strict, and heartless, and surely "traditional"... but do we really want to go back to the dark ages?

Anyway, forgive the speculation and the minor rant. If I'm way off base with my assumptions of the sort of things you might mean by "infringement" then perhaps you can correct me.



posted on Oct, 11 2013 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Krazysh0t
reply to post by solomons path
 


I've come to the conclusion it is just cognitive dissonance that people like Lucciddream are using. They feel like the Democratic party can do no wrong and when the obvious flaws of the party are pointed out then it must be an attack from the Republicans who are trying to make them look bad. Therefore if it is someone who says they are from an independent party like the Libertarians, then they are obviously just Republicans in disguise. It gets even weirder when you see Democrats disagreeing with the party line, then they are DINO's or are really Republicans pretending to be Democrats.

All these rationalizations so that they do not have to deal with the very real FACT that the Democratic party isn't everything that it says it is. It is very terrifying to see as it allows the Democratic party to avoid blame for their failings. One could also equate it to religious belief, that it is true regardless of all facts to the contrary.


You are spot on by pointing out cognitive dissonance, here.

It is the same thing that Lucid deals with in the Origins/Creo forum when debating with the science deniers, yet he/she turns around and engages in the same, in a different subject.

However, it's tough for me to blame the average citizen when this false left/right paradigm has been all the country has known since the turn of the 20th Century. Most people just don't have a sense of history and the media barrage is relentless.



posted on Oct, 11 2013 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman
 


I have another question, why do liberals think they are Democrats? Democrats used to be happy people interested in improving quality of life, now they are hostile materialists.



posted on Oct, 11 2013 @ 07:59 PM
link   

luciddream
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


It simple logic.

If you are 90% against Democrats. 90% similar to republicans?


What are you leaning toward?

Just a quick profile view is enough to say what side you lean.

Whatever we may say, the two parties are the dominant forces, until that is dissected, everyone lean to one side more.

Denial is all i see.


Democrats support inefficient gigantic government.
Republicans support efficient not gigantic centralized government.
Libertarians support extremely minimized government with massive checks on powers and force.The smallest government possible in modern society.

Democrats are anti-drugs but pro-pharma drugs.
Republicans are anti-drugs.
Libertarians are pro-legalized drugs.

Democrats want to legislate morality.
Republicans want to legislate morality.
Libertarians are against laws enforcing morality.

Republicans/Democrats are war addicts.
Libertarians are pacifists unless attacked by a foreign power.

Democrats are for ultra-gigantic government with billions of marxist socialist programs.
Republicans are for less-gigantic government compared to the democrats.
Libertarians are for no central government or nearly non-existent central government.

Republicans are for state sponsored monopoly capitalism.
Democrats are for state sponsored monopoly socialism.
Libertarians are against the government interfering with economies and against government bribing private business with bailouts.

Republicans are pro-security.
Democrats are pro-marxist level security.
Libertarians are pro-individual freedom.


edit on 11-10-2013 by John_Rodger_Cornman because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2013 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman
 


And then there are the Rep. Neo Cons .............Don't get me Started , I Agree..........



posted on Oct, 11 2013 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman
 


To the liberal you are conservative. To the conservative, you are liberal. They are idiots who think in a regimented manner politically.

Team Edward, or Team Jacob?

And which Darren Stevens did you like better?

The false dichotomy is a favorite of humans.



posted on Oct, 11 2013 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Its like a psychosis or something.

Why do people support big government?



posted on Oct, 11 2013 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman
 


" Why do people support big government? "


Because it's There........




posted on Oct, 11 2013 @ 08:46 PM
link   

John_Rodger_Cornman
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Its like a psychosis or something.

Why do people support big government?


Entropy just aint what it used to be. (bad pun)

Humans, like all animals and any other system, are entropic by nature. Sure, you may find recreation in playing sports. But without that pleasure, you wouldn't play.

You certainly won't run the equivalent of a mile just to get to the neighbors house. You take the shortest path between two points.

That is what is at play here. Not everyone thinks about stuff. Or, the stuff they think about isn't actual political concepts. So they get what the TV tells them, they talk about it with their mates for a little while, then they go on about their lives as if they are informed. Some will go online to parrot what they heard, believing that they have absolute knowledge on the subject (and will refuse to admit they were misinformed or wrong). It is just the way humans are.



posted on Oct, 11 2013 @ 08:56 PM
link   

MsAphrodite
reply to post by signalfire
 


Spend a little time researching. Look up: Classical Liberalism, Neo Liberalism, Social Liberalism etc.


Yes, been there, done that. Trouble is, I'm not sure all the people using the names all agree on the definitions.

And I don't think I've actually run across a be-all and end-all definition of 'libtard' yet, try as I might.



posted on Oct, 12 2013 @ 07:39 PM
link   

tothetenthpower
reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman
 


What?

Libertarianism is the most conservative you can get.

The problem is that you think that today's GOP Conservative is an actual conservative. They aren't, they are just dressed up liberals.

It's a liberal idea to invade people's lives, create PC laws and inflict large government on people.

Originally conservatives followed the mantra of small government, no taxation without representation and fairness, and the right to be left the hell alone as long as you weren't infringing on the rights of others.

Don't get confused. The Globalists want you to think that those two groups, liberal and conservative are different, but really they've been the same for a very long time. It's part of double think in the 21st century.

It's pretty damn effective.

~Tenth


Very well said



posted on Oct, 12 2013 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by muse7
 


Anyone who claims to be a libertarian, and could at all be compared to anything you woukd think of as republican, is not a libertarian...

Simple check: do you believe drugs and prostitution should be legal? If your answer is no, you're not a libertarian.

I choose those because it's a good way to differentiate false 'conservaties' from libertarians.
edit on 12-10-2013 by TheJourney because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
15
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join