It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The view from where I'm standing

page: 1

log in

+10 more 
posted on Feb, 11 2017 @ 02:25 PM
This started as a reply to the thread,

"Liberals want you to die if you disagree with them"

But quickly became a long rant so I decided to put it here.

This rhetoric was obviously painted with a large brush, and it's not entirely true, just like the rhetoric on Republicans aren't entirely true. Other than both of the extremes, everyone is pretty much somewhere around the middle.

The problem with what's happening though IMO , the "left" have taken over what it means to be "liberal". There's no doubt that true liberals have only good intentions in their heart, and every decent human being has a bit of liberalism in them, but they have been deceived and manipulated by the left for so long they don't even realize it. We might as well replace the word "left" with just "anti" because that's all they really are, anything thats not Trump. The left prey on the big hearted, compassionate but weak minded to keep this narrative alive and all the confirmation bias amongst themselves and from the entire elite leftist conglomerates only reinforce their movement.

This image that has been painted on Trump is absolutely not true. He's far from perfect, but he's even farther from this demon they try to make him out to be and if you actually took a step back and dropped all the emotion and bias, and looked through rational lenses you would also recognize this. The left has such a grip on this narrative and only continue to push it to more extremes by the day and the brainwased continue to keep it alive.

At the end of the day, I think it's pretty safe to say most people pretty much want the same things in life. It's actually the left that are purposely creating divide to keep their agenda alive while blaming Trump for everything and the constant demonization just allows them all to accept it without even really thinking about it.

And to be frank, if the left haven't exposed thier true colors to you by now, you are who I'm talking about in this thread. Anybody with a rational bone and clear thought in their body will easily recognise what is really going on.

I'm not left, right, up or down, I'm not democratic or conservative and I'm not liberal or republican. I'm a human being that isn't burdened with bias, or clouded with emotion. I'm a human being that doesn't let the past dictate my future and the future dictate my fears. I'm a rational human being that isn't influenced by other people's opinion and I'm able to individually think for myself and because of all of this, it has pushed me to where I am. It is what it is.

I put this in rant because I'm not here to debate this. This is truly how I feel and what I see and wether you agree with me or not, and I know many will disagree.. I feel the view from where I'm standing needs to be seen.


posted on Feb, 11 2017 @ 02:34 PM
a reply to: knowledgehunter0986

Totally agree.

Fun fact... FDR actually stole the term "liberal" because he didn't want to use the term "progressive", which is what he obviously was but he thought the term sounded too third-party. Liberal was not a description OF a party before FDR.

He also needed a name to describe the Republicans, so came up with "conservative", which at the time sounded old-fashioned and out of touch... think Whigs.

Which is why I try, when posting, to make the distinction between Liberals and Progressives.

Two entirely different things.

S&F... good rant!

posted on Feb, 11 2017 @ 03:01 PM
Very good rant, way to put things in perspective

It's like we've been programmed since birth to pick a side and to demonize the other by any means. Whether it be political party, sports team, school, city, country, race, gender we are being manipulated to not being objective to the group we associate with and only to the opposition.

posted on Feb, 11 2017 @ 03:02 PM
It is time for all good Liberals to come to the aid of their party! Distance yourself, NOW, from the poison in your midst. You'll be doing your party a big favor.

I'm curious as to the percentage of Democrats who fully support the ideology of the progressive movement.

For the record: I've been screaming foul since Nixon. I'm not a Republican. I didn't think I could be as sickened by anyone as I am by the Bush crime family. That is until the Clinton's true colors started emerging...

OP: Congrats on a rant we can all believe in.

edit on 11-2-2017 by The GUT because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 11 2017 @ 03:03 PM

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986

There's no doubt that true liberals have only good intentions in their heart, and every decent human being has a bit of liberalism in them...

I absolutely agree here. Deep down there's a spark of liberalism in every reasonable American. This also goes back to my view that in a serious time of need or national emergency we Americans would rally together against true evil again.

I don't agree with everything government does or what the left or the right believe in but I would fight to protect our sovereignty with each of you when the time comes. I'll always have that spark of true liberalism in me.

Maybe it's just wishful thinking.

posted on Feb, 11 2017 @ 03:08 PM
a reply to: knowledgehunter0986

Well said. I know I did my fair share of ranting in that other thread so I won't bore anyone here.

posted on Feb, 11 2017 @ 03:20 PM

originally posted by: The GUT
It is time for all good Liberals to come to the aid of their party! Distance yourself, NOW, from the poison in your midst. You'll be doing your party a big favor.

In other words continue with the partisan politics that has infested this country and is well on it's way to destroying this country? I don't know if you're just being facetious or if you believe the tripe you posted in the above quote but partisanship, couldn't care less if it's Republican or Democrat, is not the path that's going to give us anything any better than we already have. Smh.
edit on 11-2-2017 by SpeakerofTruth because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 11 2017 @ 05:33 PM
a reply to: GreyScale

Fun fact... FDR actually stole the term "liberal" because he didn't want to use the term "progressive", which is what he obviously was but he thought the term sounded too third-party. Liberal was not a description OF a party before FDR.

Fun fact? I think you meant "alt fact" because none of that is remotely true. You might want to crack open a few books. In fact, I can easily disprove this based on something I was rereading recently from John Dewey.

Liberalism and Social Action (1935) John Dewey — full text here

Liberalism has long been accustomed to onslaughts proceeding from those who oppose social change. It has long been treated as an enemy by those who wish to maintain the status quo. But today these attacks are mild in comparison with indictments proceeding from those who want drastic social changes effected in a twinkling of an eye, and who believe that violent overthrow of existing institutions is the right method of effecting the required changes. From current assaults, I select two as typical: “A liberal is one who gives lip approval to the grievances of the proletariat, but who at the critical
moment invariably runs to cover on the side of the masters of capitalism.” Again, a liberal is defined as “one who professes radical opinions in private but who never acts upon them for fear of losing entree into the courts of the mighty and respectable.” Such statements might be cited indefinitely. They indicate that, in the minds of many persons, liberalism has fallen between two stools, so that it is conceived as the refuge of those unwilling to take a decided stand in the social conflicts going on. It is called mealy–mouthed, a milk–and–water doctrine and so on.

Popular sentiment, especially in this country, is subject to rapid changes of fashion. It was not a long time ago that liberalism was a term of praise; to be liberal was to be progressive, forward–looking, free from prejudice, characterized by all admirable qualities. I do not think, however, that this particular shift can be dismissed as a mere fluctuation of intellectual fashion. Three of the great nations of Europe have summarily suppressed the civil liberties for which liberalism valiantly strove, and in few countries of the Continent are they maintained with vigor. It is true that none of the nations in question has any long history of devotion to liberal ideals. But the new attacks proceed from those who profess they are concerned to change not to preserve old institutions. It is well known that everything for which liberalism stands is put in peril in times of war. In a world crisis, its ideals and methods are equally challenged; the belief spread that liberalism flourishes only in times of fair social weather.

He also needed a name to describe the Republicans, so came up with "conservative", which at the time sounded old-fashioned and out of touch... think Whigs.

Also horribly wrong. Same Dewey source as above:

He brushed aside, almost contemptuously, the conservative school that found the source of social wisdom in the customs and precedents of the past.

And if you read his earlier works (1920) you'll see him using the terms in the very same way. All of the terms in question predate FDR. "Conservative" goes back to what? the late 18th century? It's been in use in American politics in some fashion since at least the mid-19th century. The association is and has been: conservative - traditionalist - right-wing.

The Heritage Foundation - The Conservative Mind of Russell Kirk

On the surface, these liberal observations seemed true, especially since Progressivism and Darwinism, imported in the 19th century from Europe, had come to dominate American intellectual life, diminishing the influence of all other traditions of thought.

Thinkers on the Right lamented the condition of conservatism and the seemingly irresistible tides against it. To many, like F. A. Hayek, it seemed as if the whole world was turning Left. Seeking support for his new conservative magazine, William F. Buckley Jr. conceded that the Left easily dominated the realm of ideas in America and that “the few spasmodic victories conservatives are winning are aimless, uncoordinated, and inconclusive.”[5]

There the matter might have rested, with liberals gloating and conservatives lamenting, except for the publication of a remarkable book by a young assistant professor of history at a Michigan “cow college.” The unknown historian was Russell Kirk; the book was The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Santayana (1953); and modern American conservatism has never been the same.

All serious political movements, Kirk argued, draw their strength from an earlier body of belief: 20th century socialism from Karl Marx a century earlier, radical liberalism from Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Kirk’s “source of wisdom” for modern conservatism was the 18th century British politician and philosopher Edmund Burke.[6] The Conservative Mind described the existence of a coherent, connected tradition of conservative thinking, going back at least two hundred years.

Please defend your claims because I'm really interested to know how you came to believe what you do.

posted on Feb, 11 2017 @ 09:23 PM
a reply to: theantediluvian


I'm sure you are aware that FDR and Dewey were long-time friends before the election of 1932. In fact, Dewey helped FDR on a lot of issues, since they were both Progressives. The TERM liberal and conservative have been used since before we were a country to describe a political viewpoint, btw.

However, they were not used to describe a PARTY before 1932. Dewey was the one who brainstormed describing FDR and the Democratic party as LIBERAL because FDR felt that the term Progressive was too third-party and he also didn't want to be openly associated with Wilson and his failures as a Progressive. So they just stole the term Liberal because it sounded more acceptable. It is typical of Progressives to steal terminology and attempt to change the meaning of words to suit their purpose because it's really hard to sell a Hegelian Utopia to people who can think for themselves, so they have to instead achieve their goals through subterfuge and outright lies.

Dewey also pointed out that since they were re-branding Progressivism, they needed to re-brand their opponents as well, in this case Hoover and the Republican party. So they chose conservative and ran with it. The election results showed how well re-branding worked.

As far as your crack about me cracking open some books, I learned this from a REAL book that is not at hand since it is in the family library, 1200 odd miles from here. So I'll have to source it at Easter, my next trip there.

Odd that you just now got to Liberalism and Social Action... I would have thought you would have read that years ago.

Being the progressive that you are...

posted on Feb, 12 2017 @ 05:45 AM
Nice rant.

I too can't believe the level of idiocy the left has embraced. At this point, no matter what Trump does he will be fought tooth and nail. Not just by liberals but by the establishment in general.

Muslims: "death to America!"

Liberals: "let them all in!"

new topics

top topics


log in