Well, of course ATS has a lot of liberal members!

a reply to: Metallicus

Been a while, metallicus.

You probably know I'm a libertarian myself. I'm borderline pro anarchy but happen to believe loose webs of government, with state governments just provides better organization and less chaos. Some people really do need help, and I don't trust businesses nor just random people to do so, so I do believe in a small, organized, efficient government who is only there to help, personally.. But I'm dreaming.

Being a realist. We need to lessen the corruption in politics, the money.. Which will pave a way towards a less overbearing government overall in my opinion. But logical analysis says a libertarian will not make office this election, perhaps not even the next, though the right steps could make it more likely.

Government and corporation corruption won't just end suddenly. Steps have to be made towards that end, an end that isn't realistic, but the path way towards it definitely is. My life is being dictated by those with money.

My next vote will be based on the candidate I think will lessen the power of those with money over my life.

Less power to those with money, is less overall you being forced to live a certain way.

a reply to: Gryphon66

There's room for some interpretation.

Nothing gives insight to whether civilians should be able to wield rocket launchers... Its by majority and by analysis that we come to the conclusion that it would not be such a great idea.

Some choose to really stretch meanings to benefit themselves, though. Or omit entire amendments when they see fit.

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: Gryphon66

There's room for some interpretation.

Nothing gives insight to whether civilians should be able to wield rocket launchers... Its by majority and by analysis that we come to the conclusion that it would not be such a great idea.

Some choose to really stretch meanings to benefit themselves, though. Or omit entire amendments when they see fit.

Absolutely. And I actually love those "political theory" conversations (which are sadly rare).

(By the way, there have been folks who have argued that the 2nd allows for rocket launchers and any other category of "arms" they wish for.)

There used to be an old practice that the portion of the Constitution that gave power for an action had to be cited in the justification of that action. I don't see anything wrong with that.


I also don't see anything wrong with as you say consensus interpretations that are logical extentions of what was written in 1791. All of the Founders stated that they expected us to do so.

They would be appalled, in my opinion, that we would trying to live our lives, 200 years or so later, by a one-sided "literal" interpretation.

JDB

a reply to: Gryphon66

Political theory can be tough, due to conflicting laws and personal biases.

Can a Christian truly uphold the "separation of church and state" amendment in our Constitution, and give a non religious reason to deny rights to gays? Can someone who lost their family member to gun violence interpret the 2nd in a way that would be deemed good in the eyes of our forefathers? Maybe so... Maybe not.

Logical debates with analysis of our Constitution and the desires of the people, our forefathers, etc can be had - but too many could possibly bring their own biases, so it puts a lot of mud in the water. Most arguments seem to stem from these biases.

a reply to: deadlyhope

Well, I would say that in the first case, the First Amendment implies Separation, but only says that Government will not establish a religion or restrict the free exercise of one. Neither of which a Christian "should" have a problem with, because those speak to teh public theatre and not their individual conscience ... but also, because New Testament states several times that we should honor laws and temporal authority.

I'm sure that personal interpretations and general legal interpretations may vary, from person to person and circumstance to circumstance. I can have both a private and a public (or an individual and collective) interpretation of almost anything.

Personal bias that cannot be put aside is indeed the death of a logical argument. Well said.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Personally, I believe the first should have a clause added, that no legislation can be brought forth that is based solely on religious morality or belief. If the matter at hand cannot be discussed based upon evidence, statistics, logic, it does not have a place as law.

But, that is an opinion of mine and I'm sure it can be countered.

For instance, if statistics proved without a doubt that same gender parents causes kids to become criminals, it has place for discussion, even if the discussion began out of a religious belief, it could at least be backed by data.

This is not the case, as far as I know.

I think that there is a problem where people in general get the words liberal mixed up with left wing. They are two completely different concepts and conservatives can be liberal and usually are. In fact conservatives are more likely to be advocates of liberalism than lefties. Look up the definition of 'liberal'. It means that the rights of individuals and freedoms are maintained by law whereas most lefties I know would have those trampled. Social liberalism is different though.

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
There are lots of conservatives here on ATS, this is clear with the number of threads made in support of Trump and also those that are anti-Democrat.

I think it's a healthy mix and a fair reflection on society in general.

yeah I was going to say, from where I'm standing it seems like there are a lot more Right-Wingers than anything on this site.
But it's all about perception I guess and what kind of threads you notice and what pushes your buttons.

a reply to: deadlyhope

You know ... I've gone back and forth over the "Freedom of Religion" clause in the First.

I hesitate to change things ... but perhaps an add that says "Religion or religious beliefs are not a justification for breaking the laws of the land" or "religious beliefs do not exempt any citizen from the full weight of the laws." might be good.

The other phrasing keeps laws from being made that restrict free exercise ...

Yeah. One of the reasons we have a Supreme Court i guess.

a reply to: Cobaltic1978

I counted 5 anti-Conservative threads, and 2 anti-liberal threads on the front page. Just letting you know. And scrolling through on an average day will get you several anti-Trump threads. Not sure where you're seeing what you're seeing.

originally posted by: LSU0408
a reply to: Cobaltic1978

I counted 5 anti-Conservative threads, and 2 anti-liberal threads on the front page. Just letting you know. And scrolling through on an average day will get you several anti-Trump threads. Not sure where you're seeing what you're seeing.

What was it like yesterday?

How about last week?

A few months ago?

(My only point is, "taking a quick look" only shows what's going on today; perhaps OP has been watching a while.)

originally posted by: Sargeras

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: Sargeras

Climate change.
Evolution. ( as applicable to animals, at the least - I'm not touching human evolution here )
A world older than 6000 years...

I'm a christian and believe in the Bible, yet refute some of the things others say - When there's very, very strong evidence against their beliefs ( Which beliefs have nothing to do with God, the afterlife, morality.. Just some weird number of years the earth supposedly has existed? )

I do agree with you though, we still always need to question things, otherwise we wouldn't further learn.

Well, as far as the earth goes, we know for a fact it is older than 6,000 years.

It takes longer than that for the sediment to stone, and there are thousands of layers...

Uranium has a 10,000 year half life, it decays into lead.

We have X amount of uranium and X amount of lead on earth, simple math says way older than 6,000 years.

We have more than 6,000 years of recorded human history, that alone is proof enough.

Global warming..... Far from irrefutable proof of that.

Who stuck around for 10,000 years to prove that, and to prove that the dating method being used is accurate? I'm a Christian and I think the Earth is older than 6,000 years, but I don't believe in accurate methods of dating an object..

The Bible never once mentions when God created the Heavens and the Earth, just that He created it in the beginning.

a reply to: deadlyhope

So basically liberals aren't capable of being ignorant? Quite the claim

I'm a realist to the point of some people calling me a bigot because they don't agree with me. I respect everyone's opinion though and disagreeing with people and having a mutual respect and debating like grownups is a good thing and healthy.

I'm liberal about some things conservative about others all these labels are stupid

originally posted by: JDmOKI
a reply to: deadlyhope

So basically liberals aren't capable of being ignorant? Quite the claim

I'm a realist to the point of some people calling me a bigot because they don't agree with me. I respect everyone's opinion though and disagreeing with people and having a mutual respect and debating like grownups is a good thing and healthy.

I'm liberal about some things conservative about others all these labels are stupid

Such a fantastic point...

a reply to: Gryphon66

Well, I mentioned that on an average day, you'll see several Trump threads. Mostly being anti-Trump threads. I don't need to take screenshots, I'm on here every weekday from 8:00 am to 4:30 pm. I see it with me own eyes.

a reply to: JDmOKI

Your last sentence was basically what my post is all about.

Everyone is capable of being ignorant.

My point is, often someone is called a liberal because of what I deem the opposite.

Being tolerant of gays? You're called a liberal.

But I deem that person as less ignorant than a person spouting that they will go to hell..

In my personal life I'm quite conservative. I'm prone to ignorance, not because of that, just because I'm human.

Outwardly I'm liberal - I accept others, even though they live a life I would never choose for myself, and deem as morally incorrect, but only applicable to me.. I don't believe God is petty and cares about every small thing that people do personally..

originally posted by: LSU0408
a reply to: Gryphon66

Well, I mentioned that on an average day, you'll see several Trump threads. Mostly being anti-Trump threads. I don't need to take screenshots, I'm on here every weekday from 8:00 am to 4:30 pm. I see it with me own eyes.

Did I suggest you take screenshots? LOL.

Had you counted before today on one of those days you were here for hours?

I'm not attacking you or questioning your honor ... all I'm suggesting is, maybe, unless you've taken daily counts or something, you're going off your belief rather than actual fact.

That's fine, and it's just an observation.

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: JDmOKI

Your last sentence was basically what my post is all about.

Everyone is capable of being ignorant.

My point is, often someone is called a liberal because of what I deem the opposite.

Being tolerant of gays? You're called a liberal.

But I deem that person as less ignorant than a person spouting that they will go to hell..

In my personal life I'm quite conservative. I'm prone to ignorance, not because of that, just because I'm human.

Outwardly I'm liberal - I accept others, even though they live a life I would never choose for myself, and deem as morally incorrect, but only applicable to me.. I don't believe God is petty and cares about every small thing that people do personally..

That was an ig'nernt thing to say. Being tolerant of gays does NOT mean you're a liberal. I've never met a single Conservative that wasn't tolerant of gay people. That's one of the biggest lies of the 21st Century, right up there with "Hands up, don't shoot."

Looks like you're getting confused with supporting gay marriage and tolerating gays.

a reply to: Gryphon66

You're correct, it's just an observation.


Now stop yelling at me

a reply to: LSU0408

Low-hanging fruit ...

Sen. Ted Cruz continues to woo anti-gay extremists, this time appearing on a conference call for conservative activists organized by E.W. Jackson, the former GOP nominee for lieutenant governor of Virginia.

During his run for office, Jackson won notoriety for his remarks about gay people, whom he referred to in one interview with fringe anti-gay leader Peter LaBarbera as “perverted,” “degenerate,” “spiritually darkened” and “frankly very sick people psychologically, mentally and emotionally.”

As it happens, LaBarbera, the leader of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, was on the call that Jackson organized with Cruz last week and had a chance to ask the Texas Republican about his stance on “the gay agenda.”

Ted Cruz Vows To Fight Gay Rights In Extremist Conference Call