Legit Questions for ATS Liberals…Shed Some Light Please

Originally posted by drakus
I'm not trying to offend anyone, really
but American's concept of "The Left" is so cute...

Said Left would score themselves a lot more points on this forum, if they weren't nearly so condescending.

I personally try and stand in the middle of that argument, in the sense that the majority of conservatives that I encounter on this forum genuinely are intellectually lazy, and tend to use polarised generalisations and ad hominem in lieu of rational argument.

The Left here do, however, need to shed themselves of the tendency to believe that the only reason why the Right disagree with them, is due purely to the Right's supposed ignorance or lack of intelligence. There is not always an iron clad correlation between political or economic conservatism, and vegetative idiocy.

Originally posted by petrus4

Originally posted by drakus
I'm not trying to offend anyone, really
but American's concept of "The Left" is so cute...

Said Left would score themselves a lot more points on this forum, if they weren't nearly so condescending.

I personally try and stand in the middle of that argument, in the sense that the majority of conservatives that I encounter on this forum genuinely are intellectually lazy, and tend to use polarised generalisations and ad hominem in lieu of rational argument.

The Left here do, however, need to shed themselves of the tendency to believe that the only reason why the Right disagree with them, is due purely to the Right's supposed ignorance or lack of intelligence. There is not always an iron clad correlation between political or economic conservatism, and vegetative idiocy.

i just want to make sure you aren't referring to me, because i think i have demonstrated myself as someone highly tolerant of all political ideologies until they direct ignorance my direction, at which point i become rather vicious lol.

Originally posted by eboyd
i just want to make sure you aren't referring to me, because i think i have demonstrated myself as someone highly tolerant of all political ideologies until they direct ignorance my direction, at which point i become rather vicious lol.

True.

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by 3dman7

 

"4) Tell me the name of anybody that's "pro abortion". There are pleny of people that are "pro-choice"....there's a big difference. Having a choice is, to me, freedom.....you got something against freedom?....do ya?

Ok, how about Obama? He supported partial birth abortion.

There's no difference between pro choice and pro abortion. If you're for 'choice' then you support legislation 'FOR' abortion. 

As far as me having something against freedom I will argue that nobody should have the "freedom" to take the life of a child IMO. 

What about the life of the mother though.....let her die?

this is where Obama stands on Partial birth Abortion.....

"On an issue like partial birth abortion, I strongly believe that the state can properly restrict late-term abortions. I have said so repeatedly. All I’ve said is we should have a provision to protect the health of the mother, and many of the bills that came before me didn’t have that."

Originally posted by drakus
I'm not trying to offend anyone, really
but American's concept of "The Left" is so cute...

HEY, NOT SO CUTE When you have to negotiate with it.

The forces that have that opinion brought to you the perpetual terrorism agenda and the global
economic climate.

reply to post by 3dman7

What about the life of the mother though.....let her die?

this is where Obama stands on Partial birth Abortion.....


"On an issue like partial birth abortion, I strongly believe that the state can properly restrict late-term abortions. I have said so repeatedly. All I’ve said is we should have a provision to protect the health of the mother, and many of the bills that came before me didn’t have that."

Look at his record! Does this sound like it has to do with the life of the mother? He's in favor of taking the life of the child that survived a late term abortion! That's twisted!!

Obama has consistently refused to support legislation that would define an infant who survives a late-term induced-labor abortion as a human being with the right to live. He insists that no restriction must ever be placed on the right of a mother to decide to abort her child.

On March 30, 2001, Obama was the only Illinois senator who rose to speak against a bill that would have protected babies who survived late term labor-induced abortion. Obama rose to object that if the bill passed, and a nine-month-old fetus survived a late-term labor-induced abortion was deemed to be a person who had a right to live, then the law would "forbid abortions to take place." Obama further explained the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not allow somebody to kill a child, so if the law deemed a child who survived a late-term labor-induced abortion had a right to live, "then this would be an anti-abortion statute."

link

I was merely pointing that what is commonly called "The left" (ie democrats)do not challenge the economic system that causes the problems they supposedly want to fix.
Here (argentina) Republicans are considered crazy far-right f*cks, and Democrats whinny center-right pseudo-progresists (sp?)...

I do not know any major political party in the US that defends the interest of the vast working class...
Maybe I'm wrong, in that case, I apologize.

And, "left" and "right" are NOT just different opinions... That's quite a dumbed-down conceptualization. The difference lies in what interest they defend. And both republicans and democrats work in a pretty straight-forward way AGAINST the interest of most of your people.

reply to post by seabag


and in 2006, romney signed into law the framework that obamacare is based on....a law, by my understanding Romney helped to create..


so, what,
republicans can change their mind over the years, but not democrats??

how about addressing the issue obama raise in the quote that was given,,,,

"All I’ve said is we should have a provision to protect the health of the mother, and many of the bills that came before me didn’t have that."

reply to post by seabag


PART ONE

Originally posted by seabag

I will first give you a rider, I am not American, cut as a Canadian I do see much, if not most of what happens across the borer. I will also say that though I identify with more left leaning centerist political position, I do have some more conservative beliefs too, mostly when it comes to fiscal matters)

1) Homosexuality and Muslims - Devote Muslims kill homosexuals for being homosexual (fact). Yet, liberals support both the Homosexual agenda in America as well as Muslim Sharia Law. What gives?

These are two separate issues, it is a compound question, brings religion into the political realm, and reveals misconceptions about the Muslim faith. I will try to answer your question anyways.

You have confuse devout and radical. Devout Muslims frown on homosexuals for the same reason devout Christians do. Radical Muslims kill homosexuals for the same reasons radical Christians would like to be able to kill, or imprison homosexuals.

Two wrongs do not make a right. there is no "Homosexual Agenda", they just want equal rights, much like the black community wanted to be able to go to the same schools and drink from the same fountains as whites. If a country that is predominantly Muslim has a majority of the population wanting Sharia Law, then that is their right, you are aware that Shara law is based on Talmudic law right?

The same books of Moses that make up the Pentateuch , the first 5 books of the Bible? Some Muslims want to be able to use Sharia law to govern in the same way that some Christians want to be able to use Biblical law (Rick Santorum comes to mind), Leviticus, to govern. I believe in religious freedom as long as it does not deny other people their rights. The laws in the US protect the right to freedom of religion, but it also separates church from state, and though it is debated hotly, declares the US as a nation not founded on any one religion.

Simply, we support EQUALITY for homosexuals, and we support religious freedoms as long as they do not contravene the laws of the land, Christian and Muslim alike.

2) Racism – (Hot topic these days…I know…I will tread lightly) It seems liberals keep the term “racists” alive. Why are vocal black democrats given praise by the left (Sharpton, Jackson, Rangel, Shiela Jackson Lee, etc) while vocal black conservatives (Clarence Thomas, Alan West, Herman Cain, etc) called names by the left?

Acknowledging that there is still racism, on all sides, does not equate to supporting the vocal fools out there, on any side, I personally wish some in NAACP would shut up, the same way I wish the KKK would shut up. I do not support radicals on either side. Sometimes stupid people come in all shades, some examples are Herman Cain, Al Sharpton, and Rick Santorum. you are generalizing way too much, it would be like me saying all conservatives support Ron Paul because he is conservative. There are also fools that are conservative,and fools that are liberal, remember the saying, "a bad apple in every bunch"?


It will take a couple posts to get it all.

reply to post by RyanFromCan


PART TWO

Also, why do liberals continue to promote social programs that enslave blacks at poverty level? Left policies have NEVER led to black prosperity (Chicago, Detroit, ALL of California, etc are good examples) yet they get the majority of the black vote. What does the left offer that should inspire black Americans and keep their vote? I think the tide is turning, by the way. This video is a good illustration of what I’ve said.

There are many whites that live at poverty level, and no one is enslaving them any more that the blacks are being enslaved, it is more a cultural issue I think, now what brand, flavour, or political stripe they wear. Liberals tend to have a social conscience, I know I do, I believe in social programs for people who need help, I also believe in a hand up not a hand out, but you need to take care of the most basic needs, before you can do anything greater, a starving man will not be able to do much for himself if he is still starving. A starving child will not do as well in school, reducing the chances that he will be able to lift himself or family out of poverty. A starving woman is less likely to have a health baby. Some people just don't want to do anything to help themselves, regardless of skin pigment. There are also people that will never be able to support themselves, due to mental or physical problems, unfortunately that is a sad reality. I can't tell you why some people vote the way they do, you would have to ask them.

3) Pro Women yet Anti Conservative Women – Liberals say they’re for women’s rights yet they destroyed Sarah Palin and her family in 2008. Liberals love Hillary but what did they have to say about Condoleezza?? Have liberals ever denounced all of the chauvinist remarks about Bachman?

Not pro-women (are conservatives anti-woman?) but for equal rights, for women and men. Not anti-women or anti-man, more like liberals tend to call BS and hypocrisy when we see it. I am no more of a fan of Palin than I am of Clinton, And I happen to admire Rice. As far as chauvanism, Liberals and Conservatives are equal offneders on that, it has nothing to do with political stripe, more like everything to do with upbringing and culture.

LAST BUT NOT LEAST…

4) Pro Abortion yet Anti-Death Penalty – Need I say more on this issue?

I think you are mixing up Pro-Abortion, with pro choice, could it be some religious overtomes leaking in? I do not agree with the use of abortion as a form of birth control or to fix "oops, I did it again" moments, there are many couples who are unable to have children who would lve to have families, I would rather see the kids adopted, not aborted.

I had an Aunt like that, she had several kids, all by different fathers, no idea if or how many abortions she had, but there is a woman that should not have been bringing more children into the world than she could care fore, but it did mean larger mother's allownace checks for her, so liked it, I didn't, and guess what, Liberal. There are certain situations where abortions are a necesity for medical reasons, My parents talked about doing that to me, my mother was very sick, and they were not sure she would have survived bringing me to term, my parents decided against it, and I was born and she survived, but she had the choice.

I am against the death penalty because it has been used to kill people that sometimes have been innocent, and only found out later. I don't think police should kill wither, unless it is an absolute necesity to save life, and that does happen, A prisoner in a maximum security prison for life is not a threat to society, or an immediate threat to anyones life, so why the need to kill them in a cold blooded manner?

I’m really not looking for a fight and I truly want to understand what my fellow Americans of the liberal persuasion are thinking, particularly on these issues. I have other questions but this is good enough to get the ball rolling. I will keep my responses civil and on topic and I ask that you do the same.

What say you?

Originally posted by Propulsion

Originally posted by Achey
I don't believe that the examples you have given should really reflect most peoples views, im sure plenty of people are pro life, anti death penalty, anti special treatment for homosexuals, pro islam law where applicable, anti wealth distribution, pro social programs.

I would like to hear the logic as why there is such a difference. If you’re pro-choice and think it ok to abort a child, why would you be pro-life and not execute a serial killer? I can’t comprehend that logic. So if there is a liberal who could kindly explain this, I would certainly like to hear it...

They're apples and oranges in this case. Most liberals are against the death penalty because even ONE person who is executed that might be guilty is too many. Someone in prison can continue their fight to prove their innocence. Death is permanent.

In regards to abortions, until that fetus can live on it's own without the mother, abortions should be controlled by the mother, which is around 23 weeks. I'd go 22 weeks to be fair. If science says that age needs to be adjusted, then it's not set in stone. It's not a decision that is made lightly in most cases, I'm sure. I've known people to agonize over it and deal with the repercussions their entire lives, so it's not a guilt-free option by any means.

reply to post by newcovenant


The two party platform? Both are the same in the way they run things, fundamentally. Both represent the same side of the coin, when you delve into the root goals and means. BOTH are for corporate / government ownership of everything. We have had a succession of dem / rep presidents and national policy has not changed fundamentally since Ford. Rhetoric is annoying. Substance, the stuff below the surface that gets labeled differently every 4-8 years, that's what matters. Individual, superficial, petty issues are argued to exhaustion to create the illusion of democratic process. The choices are predetermined and the agenda moves forward behind the rhetoric regardless of the face in perceived power. That is the nature of tyranny. The illusion of choice, the incremental subjugation of individual will in the name of public health, safety and wellbeing. We are in a plutocracy, which is exactly the same model as Italian fascism. Different tags, same creature. When the state owns everything we call it fascism. When private corporations create policy and own everything, that’s called plutocracy. In reality, corporations ARE the government….purely a semantic variation on a single theme. The false right / left paradigm differs only in semantic application, not fundamental practice.

reply to post by seabag

How can you do wrong when everything is legal?

As long as you do no wrong, everything should be legal. Only when you do something wrong, should it be illegal.

Like all conservatives, you talk about wanting smaller government, but in reality, you are a control freak who wants to dictate how other people live their lives.

You want everybody controlled by the government, except businesses, which believe should be able to do what ever they want. You love institutions and bureaucracy.

You want to eliminate individual rights, tell everyone what they can consume, and who they can have sex with, and how. The links to the replies clearly demonstrate this.

reply to post by poet1b


Republicans want a swashbuckling born again cowboy leading the expansion of empire. Democrats want an intellectual smooth-talker diplomat to do the same. Both want empire.

reply to post by LErickson


So you are saying that following sharia laws means that Muslims will want to kill you?

From your earlier posts, sounds like you are flip flopping.

When I say Muslims want to implement sharia law, I mean they want to eliminate our rights, and force us to live by their barbaric rules.

reply to post by PapaKrok


Actually Clinton did quiet a bit for the working class, started enforcing laws that protect workers rights, started shutting down illegal immigration.

Democrats have their problems, but when it comes to economics, they do a FAR better job of running our country,

reply to post by poet1b


Oh please the Clinton boom years were just an after-effect of Reaganomics.

reply to post by DavidWillts


and the current recession/depression is just the afteraffects of the bush years of unfunded wars and lax regulations on the banking industry!!!

what's good for the goose, is also good for the gander!!!!

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
reply to post by poet1b

 

Might as well be in "how to make a police state 101" -- did we mention they hired the jerk who helped bring the police state to Eastern Germany? I wonder what talents he brings to the table, eh?

Holy sh%t.... can you provide more info on this .... truly alarming, especially when viewed in conjunction with all the abuses against civil liberties and turning the clock back from human rights to human privileges .....

My view on all of this thread is; it's really tough to change anyone's mind, from having done a lot of debating in school it's obvious that once a person has their model of reality set nothing much will alter that view; sometimes people will have an epiphany if their circumstances change or a miraculous moment occurs, most will cling desperately to their belief of reality due to the "ego".
Even when one goes searching to understand other models, it can be a tough chasm to overcome the constructs of our own ego; cognitive dissonance is a tough cookie. I think the quote normally attributed to the Jesuits sums this up quite neatly

"Give me the child until he is seven and I will show you the man"

In the end if we all work on compassion, perhaps we could have a society where true respect for all existance can flourish.

Originally posted by PapaKrok
reply to post by newcovenant

 

The two party platform? Both are the same in the way they run things, fundamentally. Both represent the same side of the coin, when you delve into the root goals and means. BOTH are for corporate / government ownership of everything. We have had a succession of dem / rep presidents and national policy has not changed fundamentally since Ford. Rhetoric is annoying. Substance, the stuff below the surface that gets labeled differently every 4-8 years, that's what matters. Individual, superficial, petty issues are argued to exhaustion to create the illusion of democratic process. The choices are predetermined and the agenda moves forward behind the rhetoric regardless of the face in perceived power. That is the nature of tyranny. The illusion of choice, the incremental subjugation of individual will in the name of public health, safety and wellbeing. We are in a plutocracy, which is exactly the same model as Italian fascism. Different tags, same creature. When the state owns everything we call it fascism. When private corporations create policy and own everything, that’s called plutocracy. In reality, corporations ARE the government….purely a semantic variation on a single theme. The false right / left paradigm differs only in semantic application, not fundamental practice.

You might think so because that is the sales pitch - "oh one party is just as bad as the other"
But you would be wrong. And maybe horribly wrong depending on whose side you are on.
Horribly wrong if you are on the side of "the people" versus the corporations that own them.
www.abovetopsecret.com...