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 you think it's so terrible to be a bleeding heart liberal?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 20 2004 @ 02:56 PM
link   
What's so terrible about it? What's wrong with fairness for all people regardless of race, sexual origination, or religion? What's wrong with being for peace? What's wrong with wanting to protect our environment, and water, our wildlife? Why is haveing a concern for things called a "Bleeding Heart" We have only one planet to live one. If I'm not mistaken wasn't it "Liberals" that gave you the 5 days work week and ended child labor and inacted laws against it?

To all of you that seem so rigid on being a conservative and spouting off about Christianity along with conservatism.....what about what Jesus said about wealth, often associated with the conservative party.

Jesus spoke remarkably often about wealth and poverty. To the poor he said, "Blessed are you poor, for yours is the kingdom of God," (Luke's version). To the rich he said, "Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth," and "go, sell what you have, and give to the poor." When the rich turned away from him because they couldn't follow his command he observed, "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."



posted on Oct, 20 2004 @ 02:58 PM
link   
I think it's because compassion is oft mistaken for weakness, and understanding is taken as apathy. Of course that's alot of crap. But, that's what I've seen.



posted on Oct, 20 2004 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Der Kapitan
I think it's because compassion is oft mistaken for weakness, and understanding is taken as apathy. .

True........but they forget that it takes strength to be compassionate and understanding



posted on Oct, 20 2004 @ 03:04 PM
link   
How often does strength come into play when the "establishment" wants the easy way out? Land of the free...Home of the brave...Freedom of thought....Just don't do it here. Unless of course, you agree with us then it's fine. I love the world....You are free to have your own opinion as long as we give it to you.
- (but wants to cry.)



posted on Oct, 20 2004 @ 03:07 PM
link   
LadyV...that's so funny I was thinking about starting a thread exactly like this today


I don't understand it either, why has liberal turned into a bad word? Liberals are for humanity...how is this a bad thing? Whenever my conservative friends and I get into this same discussion they immediately bring up taxes...so I'm thinking they are really worried about their money which is not very surprising.

I don't understand how people can be so fast to judge the underprivilaged in this country, or how easy it is for someone to turn their backs on people in need. In order for our country to be strong we must look out for everyone...this is what our government is for. There are all sorts of benefits that come with a collective society, which the United States is not BTW. I will post current statistics and facts that reflect this idea a little bit later. I would go into more detail now except I really need to be studying for my exam this evening instead of lurking the ATS boards...lol



posted on Oct, 20 2004 @ 03:24 PM
link   
I have a theory, and it starts with Genesis in the bible. From Adam was created Eve. This establishes male dominance over women for many hardcore Christians. Generally women are shown as more compassionate (bleeding heart) than men, and thus they can be seen as more liberal than men. Since the conservative Christians often believe they are in a way superior to women, they also believe they are superior to liberals in general. I don't know if they do this subconciously or not, but I believe this is part of the reason. Being compassionate (or liberal) just isn't seen as a manly trait by some, and thus it is a "submissive" trait, and who wants to be seen as submissive? Anyway, it's just a theory I came up with while reading this thread (and since i've recently read the Old Testament for Western Civilization 1).

-Attero

[edit on 20-10-2004 by Attero Auctorita]



posted on Oct, 20 2004 @ 03:34 PM
link   
I actually have nothing against liberals themselves - I am adamantly opposed to liberal causes/initiatives telling me what to do through judicial fiat and social engineering couched in "do-gooder" laws though.

liberals like to wail about 1984ish scenarios brought on by conservatism, well look around you its already here.

Thought control, couched in hate speech legislation.
Property rights usurped, couched in enviromental legislation.
Constitutional right to equal treatment under the law, couched in civil rights legislation.
Right to fair and equal taxation usurped, in progressive tax code.
Right to enter into contracts abridged, by healthcare legislation.

These are just some examples off the top of my head and are presented as such, they are not presented as items to argue political ideology.

My point is that everytime a new "do-gooder" law or ruling by judicial fiat is made it seems IMHO that another little piece of the freedom and constitutional rights I grew up with go away.

I am sure other members can think of further examples, but no matter how nicely you present the agenda it is not ever worth the cost in rights lost even for a minority - I ask once started, where does it stop. Its been so incremental most unfortunately don't notice or are taught not to notice.

They will notice only when it is to late.



posted on Oct, 20 2004 @ 04:01 PM
link   


Liberals are for humanity...how is this a bad thing? Whenever my conservative friends and I get into this same discussion they immediately bring up taxes...so I'm thinking they are really worried about their money which is not very surprising.


IMHO You are confusing human compassion with politics. Any compassionate human being wants to help others. A political liberal wants the government to take money from the wealthy and dole it out as they see fit. A political conservative does not want the government taking money from anyone, wasting it and doling it out as the government sees fit. A political conservative would rather help society through charitable organizations or on an individual basis without governmental intervention.

Liberals and Conservatives both have to admit that there is a huge amount of government waste. They might disagree about where the waste is on some issues, but the fact that there IS waste cannot be disputed.

Political liberals and conservatives are like that saying "Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today, teach a man to fish and you have fed him for a lifetime". Political liberals just want to continue giving out the fish. Political Conservatives want to teach people how to fish.

My problem with some of those political liberals is that they are hypocrits. You see people talking about the enviornment while they are chain smoking and driving SUV's although they have no need for an SUV. Look at Kerry, he claims to be for the environment and yet he was opposed to the wind farm that would have detracted from his view, he has multiple SUV's, jets, yachts, etc. not to mention his investments in oil. You can't have it both ways.

Jemison



posted on Oct, 20 2004 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Attero - your thoughts are interesting, because on a symbolic level, the United States, as a nation, presents a very "male" face to the world.

As a sociologist (my field of specialty is symbols and archetypes in national identity), I find it interesting to see the language a number of American posters on ATS use - I'm actually seriously starting to think about an eventual thesis on the rise of a "war culture" in America.

I've looked at the phraseology of a number of posts on the War in Iraq, the War on terrorism, Bush vs. Kerry, etc. And basically, a number of those who are the most hostile to liberals seem to use the following adequation:

War = strength, protection, prestige, toughness, virility
Peace = weakness, defenselessness, shame, effeteness

Some posters' avatars illustrate very well the "virility" and "toughness" archetypes associated with America: edsinger's fight-ready Uncle Sam (no offense intended, edsinger), ThomasCrowne's armored man leading an attack dog on a leash (no offense intended either, TC).

I want to mention that I believe the presence of women in the army does not detract from this "virility" archetype - the Army as a whole, as a symbol, is what reinforces that archetype.

Liberals being for peace and gay rights, among others, reflect much more than a political position. I'm starting to believe that they reflect what some see as a threat to an archetype of "virility" and "toughness" commonly associated with America.

DISCLAIMER: This post does NOT constitute an attack, a judgement or a condemnation of the American nation. It is a THEORY, and it is meant to be discussed.



posted on Oct, 20 2004 @ 04:22 PM
link   


IMHO You are confusing human compassion with politics. Any compassionate human being wants to help others. A political liberal wants the government to take money from the wealthy and dole it out as they see fit. A political conservative does not want the government taking money from anyone, wasting it and doling it out as the government sees fit. A political conservative would rather help society through charitable organizations or on an individual basis without governmental intervention.


Huh? Compassion and politics cannot be intertwined? Why not? Why is a compassionate government bad?

That's great that political conservatives rather help society through charitable organizations...but let's get real here...if we left it up to charity the country would be in a much worse state...I'm talking education wise (which is most important), crime wise, poverty wise....etc.




Liberals and Conservatives both have to admit that there is a huge amount of government waste. They might disagree about where the waste is on some issues, but the fact that there IS waste cannot be disputed.


I do agree with you on this, how can we change this though? Especially with so many differing opinions on where our tax pennies should go. I for one would like to see less of my taxes going to this bunk war/national defense and more to social programs like education...God knows my state needs it.

Also no one ever mentions the environment...Republicans seem to not give 2 sh$ts about that...maybe because they won't see the reprucussion in their lifetimes...but their grandchildren will!

[edit on 10/20/2004 by Lecky]



posted on Oct, 20 2004 @ 04:47 PM
link   
Well Otts, you might also want to factor in the other half of the U.S.
You might want to try to find a pattern with U.S. liberals. The U.S. only seems this way to many people in past few years, however you will notice in the long run, it's quite random in behavior. This is a good thing both current and past as it shows that the U.S. is constantly evolving.

LadyV->There are exceptions abound. I am quite sure there are conservatives who generally oppose war, yet remain adamant about the other viewpoints. Additionally there are liberals who may support war, yet remain compassionate and progressive. It boils down to the purpose of it.
Even that is a slippery slope for many.

Being a pro-Afgan war liberal is a strange state of existance, but I understand the bigger picture with it. Iraq on the other hand, I am still scratching my head in doubt. To contrast further I support the notion of
univeral health care in the U.S., but only if stipulations are in place that keep it from being a financial nail needing to be struck down for it's own sake of continutity. (ex:Only U.S. citizens would have access)

I would love to see a day where there are only 2 classes of peeps in the U.S. Middle and Upper. The removal of the conditions that keep the poor where they are at is also a slippery slope, but if we maintain a progressive line of thinking, someone out there, someday will come up with a solution to eliminate poverty. Perhaps I am just an optimist.


[edit on 20-10-2004 by Crysstaafur]



posted on Oct, 20 2004 @ 05:26 PM
link   


Huh? Compassion and politics cannot be intertwined? Why not? Why is a compassionate government bad?


A compassionate government is not bad. But when you are spoon feeding people rather than letting them feed themselves it does not help them grow, it only causes them to be more dependant and I think that is what is happening to society as a whole. And the more that the government steps in and does things for people the less people will be willing to do on their own.

Things have gotten out of control. People don't even have common sense anymore. Playground equipment has been removed because children are thought to be too stupid to figure out how to use it correctly or parents are going on law-suit sprees. People blame the government for anything that goes wrong in their lives and then expect the government to fix it for them. Nobody takes personal responsibility anymore. It's always someone else's fault that they're broke or they lost a job or they got hit in the head with a softball. Political correctedness is over the top. Do we really need to refer to short people as horizontally challenged? Give me a break. We have become a spoiled society. People don't have the work ethics they had 30 years ago. They think that if they put in their 40 hours a week even if the job isn't done, that's good enough. They don't take pride in their work. People don't parent anymore. They think if they sit their children in front of a television and feed them 3 meals a day they have done their job.

We need to get back to a society where people have commen sense and where people are taking personal responsibility for their lives. We need to get back to a society who helps one another because it's the right thing to do, not because our Government is forcing it on us. There were probably less people that were homeless and starving in our country before modern day welfare came into the act than what we have today. Why? Because family helped family, neighbors helped neighbors and because when there wasn't a big giant government they could turn it over to people relied on themselves and their community to get through tough times.

Jemison



posted on Oct, 20 2004 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jemison

Things have gotten out of control. People don't even have common sense anymore.... It's always someone else's fault that they're broke or they lost a job or they got hit in the head with a softball. Political correctedness is over the top....They think that if they put in their 40 hours a week even if the job isn't done, that's good enough....People don't parent anymore....


Don't freak out, Jemison, but I -- a self-avowed bleeding-heart liberal -- actually agree with you on this one. A sure sign of impending apocalypse, if ever I saw one.



Because family helped family, neighbors helped neighbors and because when there wasn't a big giant government they could turn it over to people relied on themselves and their community to get through tough times.


It's not quite that simple and straightforward these days. Ours is a transient society - I've lived in 5 states in 14 years. For a lot of people, family isn't right around the corner anymore, and you may not even know your neighbors.



posted on Oct, 20 2004 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phoenix
liberals like to wail about 1984ish scenarios brought on by conservatism, well look around you its already here.

Thought control, couched in hate speech legislation.
Property rights usurped, couched in enviromental legislation.
Constitutional right to equal treatment under the law, couched in civil rights legislation.
Right to fair and equal taxation usurped, in progressive tax code.
Right to enter into contracts abridged, by healthcare legislation.


I agree with this 1000%!


I'll add the war on poverty did little to end poverty, yet cost billions upon billions of dollars.

It's not that caring is bad, it's forcing what you perceive is just on people. Most "bleeding hearts" can't stand when conservatives force their morals on someone, I view this in the same context. Having lofty ideals is fantastic, but converting those lofty ideals into something that works is often difficult and impossible.

I also think, and this is entirely my opinion (although I know many that believe this), that bleedingheartism breeds irresponsibility.



posted on Oct, 20 2004 @ 08:41 PM
link   
I think the worst thing about liberals is someone else is always to blame.

Fat? Not your fault. On welfare? Not your fault. Murder someone with a gun? Nope not your fault.


If everyone was self-sufficient, liberals would be put out of business.



posted on Oct, 20 2004 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Carseller4
I think the worst thing about liberals is someone else is always to blame.

Where do get that from? I consider myself a Liberal! I believe in cause and effect...you do the crime, you do the time! I believe in the death penalty, depending on the crime. I believe in abortion under certain circumstances I worry about our environment, our oceans, our air.....I believe things should be fair for the little guy and the rich shouldn't be handed special breaks to get richer. People should be able to be who they are, gay or straight, and practice the religion they want to practice....i think it's ridiculous that America is sue happy...no one needs to sue a place for selling "hot" coffee.....Mickey Ds for being fat



posted on Oct, 20 2004 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Otts
I've looked at the phraseology of a number of posts on the War in Iraq, the War on terrorism, Bush vs. Kerry, etc. And basically, a number of those who are the most hostile to liberals seem to use the following adequation:

War = strength, protection, prestige, toughness, virility
Peace = weakness, defenselessness, shame, effeteness

And what does your research show about those who are the most hostile to conservatives???? Let's spread the hostility equally, 'k?



posted on Oct, 20 2004 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by LadyV
I believe in cause and effect...you do the crime, you do the time! I believe in the death penalty, depending on the crime. I believe in abortion under certain circumstances I worry about our environment, our oceans, our air.....I believe things should be fair for the little guy and the rich shouldn't be handed special breaks to get richer. People should be able to be who they are, gay or straight, and practice the religion they want to practice....i think it's ridiculous that America is sue happy...no one needs to sue a place for selling "hot" coffee.....Mickey Ds for being fat


Lady V, have you ever taken that libertarian test? You seem to have some pretty good libertarian leanings? If you haven't seen it, u2u me and I'll dig it up.
You may just be a libertaian in liberal clothing



posted on Oct, 20 2004 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by LadyV

Originally posted by Carseller4
I think the worst thing about liberals is someone else is always to blame.

Where do get that from? I consider myself a Liberal! I believe in cause and effect...you do the crime, you do the time! I believe in the death penalty, depending on the crime. I believe in abortion under certain circumstances I worry about our environment, our oceans, our air.....I believe things should be fair for the little guy and the rich shouldn't be handed special breaks to get richer. People should be able to be who they are, gay or straight, and practice the religion they want to practice....i think it's ridiculous that America is sue happy...no one needs to sue a place for selling "hot" coffee.....Mickey Ds for being fat


Death Penalty- most liberals are against this.

Abortion - mostly liberal

Enviroment - the only thing liberal about that is whacko enviromentalist, who are against drilling for oil in Alaska or anywhere. We haven't even built a new oil processing plant for over 25 years. and won't update our electric grids. Everyone is for clean air and water.

I don't think the rich should be penalized for working hard and earning THEIR money. It should not be taken from them to subsidize the poor.

People should be able to pursue happiness, whether it come from the sexuality, religion or anything that doesn't hurt anyone else. But no special rights like polygamy, gay marriage, beastiality.

You and me both think it is ridiculous to be sue happy. But then why are most trial lawyers democrats? Well I won't say most, but John Edwards is one and trial lawyers donate huge amounts of money to the democrat party.


Odd

posted on Oct, 20 2004 @ 09:23 PM
link   


Lady V, have you ever taken that libertarian test? You seem to have some pretty good libertarian leanings


That's because Libertarianism goes beyond liberal or conservative politics; they're one of few parties (and this number does not include the Big Two) that doesn't want to take your money or your freedom.


Liberal doesn't necessarily mean compassionate, anyway... how many times have I heard lefties say they'd gladly beat the President up? Not that any of you said that, but it's been done... we're not all as impeccable as we might like to beleive.

[edit on 10/20/2004 by Odd]




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join