Legit Questions for ATS Liberals…Shed Some Light Please

Originally posted by speculativeoptimist
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

So respond to insult with insult, yea that's the mature thing to do and will surely bring us closer to making a difference for the better, and as countrymen(women)
Debate? nah, every single talking point can be argue exhaustively, beyond right or wrong and into a downward spiral of who can debate better. It's all good TEH, agree to disagree and I think I will take a break from these forums for a while. That's right, can't stand the heat so I'm out of the kitchen, and I won't let the door hit me behind on the way out.

peace

edit on 8-4-2012 by speculativeoptimist because: (no reason given)

So you don't want to debate, you just want to lambaste me and then back out saying I'm not mature. What does it take to get a real discussion?
Peace back anyway it's easter and already the lefties have got their revenge.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by speculativeoptimist
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

So respond to insult with insult, yea that's the mature thing to do and will surely bring us closer to making a difference for the better, and as countrymen(women)
Debate? nah, every single talking point can be argue exhaustively, beyond right or wrong and into a downward spiral of who can debate better. It's all good TEH, agree to disagree and I think I will take a break from these forums for a while. That's right, can't stand the heat so I'm out of the kitchen, and I won't let the door hit me behind on the way out.

peace

edit on 8-4-2012 by speculativeoptimist because: (no reason given)

So you don't want to debate, you just want to lambaste me and then back out saying I'm not mature. What does it take to get a real discussion?
Peace back anyway it's easter and already the lefties have got their revenge.

You don't want a real discussion

You want us to argue positions that you assign to us

What is that???

As soon as I saw this last night I knew it would turn into this crap. The questions were loaded from the beginning. Those who answer logically are called liars and the mods allow all the usual suspects to come in with one liner insults claiming all liberals are incapable of logic...Meanwhile they remove posts where people try to defend themselves like I'm sure this one will be. Yeah, I'm sure that's just coincidence and not the mods showing their bias.

Pathetic

reply to post by braindeadconservatives


Pretty spot on.

The righties will make up ANYTHING (as they usually do) to make the liberals of America seem looney. But really, we're the ones who want a Democracy instead of a Theocracy, we're the ones who want American troops to come home and protect our borders, we're the ones who want to cut NECESSARY spending, we're the ones who believe in FREEDOM and LIBERTY for all citizens and not just white, Christian, straight males. We're also the ones who believe it's the government's role to provide service for the citizens but at the same time, not play big brother in civil liberties or social issues.

I understand the Republicans and their motivations behind their insane agendas, but they don't and shouldn't fit American ideals. Instead, they should form a new country and call it Saudi America because judging by Saudi Arabia's policies, right wing America isn't much different.

Originally posted by Propulsion
I wish I could find the stats, but it has been proven that liberals change their views after a certain age. Usually thirty years of age on up. Can anyone explain why that is…?

Can you please explain what you think a 'liberal' is? I am gay but I consider myself politically conservative. I am past 30 year of age.

I am not sure what the point of this thread is.

reply to post by seabag


Here we go again. Some Right Winger asking, "have you stopped beating your wife" questions. You people SERIOUSLY need to look up, and study, "straw man argument". You actually believe Faux News, Fats Limbaugh, etc about what ppl believe. It's like asking my neighbor what you believe and then running with it. And save your anecdotal evidence as "proof".

UTTER stupidity.

1. Liberals do not support Sharia law. There is no liberal backed Muslim conspiracy to bring Sharia Law to your little red-boy town. We support the right to believe in it. But when you force it (or your Christian BS on us) that's where we draw the line.

2. Pointing out racism is not race baiting any moire than pointing out a fire is committing arson. Racism is kept alive by racists and yet you think calling attention to it is keeping it alive. Pretty sad.

And any "names" we call Thomas, etc have ZERO to do with race. You wanna call Sharpton an extremist liberal, go for it. It's not racism. But you are TOLD by your masters it is so you ignorantly believe it. Saying that Thomas is bought and paid for by the Koch brothers has NOTHING to do with race.

3. Your ultimate "have you stopped beating your wife" question. The "why do you promote social programs that enslave blacks". We promote social programs because we believe it is a human right to eat, stay out of the rain and health care. They do NOT keep anyone enslaved. Now, of course, you have been told that they do and so you believe it because the "right people" told you. You know what enslaves people? Lack of social and economic balance. Capitalism. THAT enslaves people.

Your questions are silly. The assume facts not in evidence and they are just not particularly bright.

You asked no serious questions. Like Newt Gingrich, you tried to sound intelligent and were proud of yourself. Sadly, only to the ignorant did you sound like you have a brain.

reply to post by speculativeoptimist

Religious, yet pro war,

Ever read about the Shaolin warrior monks? I have a book called "The Bodhisattva Warriors", all about the Shaolin monks and their fighting techniques, how they evolved. Although in Buddhism, we are taught that we can make karma even with our thoughts, the Shaolin monks will fight to the death just like any other person in time of war.

Here is a similar discussion of Bodhisattva warriors

An archetype, Jung tells us, is a universal internal human pattern that exists inthe realm of the unconscious and reveals itself in dreams, art and imagination.
We can either resist or access these patterns, but we are constantly drawn
towards them and shape our relationship with the world in accordance with their
basic design. Once we step into the energy of an archetype, it acts as a creative
force and inclines us to externalize its patterns in our daily lives. Thus, there are
archetypes for the monk, the king, the warrior, the healer, the explorer, the victim
and thousands of others

The essential energy of the warrior is courage. The warrior represents and
embodies the capacity to face what we most fear, especially in service to those
who are weaker. When the warrior serves an authentic ideal or calling, he or she
operates on the basis of honor and loyalty. When the warrior is not guided by
such an ideal, the archetype is corrupted and one becomes a mercenary, in
service only to his baser instincts.

There are times when we benefit enormously from the struggle against opposition. We become stronger and more distinctive as a result of the
resistance provided by the adversary. Confrontation brings out the best in us. In
the course of the contest, we discover and reveal our nascent character. Conflict
is the crucible in which the soul is tried, tempered and transformed.
To travel the high road means that we acknowledge the strengths of our
adversary and hold her accountable at that level. We both rise to the challenge.
“Defeat me, if you can,” we seem to say, “but in this place, by these rules, with
these weapons.”

www.workwithheart.com...

Even the Bhagavad Gita explains that Arjuna does not want to fight his kinsmen but Krishna informs him it is his duty.

So in response to your religious but pro war, I say hmmmm non-religious but pro abortion...

Originally posted by seabag
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?

Liberals forgot that which their republic was founded on... they are too busy having fun.

Most liberals I talk with are not very big into politics, which are philosophies which in turn are belief systems.

they are more interested in idolatry imo...

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

Yes, I am familiar with the Shaolin, but the difference is they only fight to defend themselves from oppression, not to spread democracy or their systems on others. You will never see a preemptive strike by the Shaolin, unless they are going to be invaded by an entire army.
The religion I am referring to is the one here in the US that so many political figures proudly represent. To me that is a great source of hypocrisy, because the bible teaches tolerance, forgiveness, love thy neighbor and enemy, shall not kill, and I see the total opposite coming from so many candidates. So imo, yes, the hypocrisy from religion is prevalent in today's political arena.

So in response to your religious but pro war, I say hmmmm non-religious but pro abortion...

Well, for me the difference is the non-religious person does not stand on a platform of moral authority, or operate from a handbook of questionable history and accuracy. FTR I am spiritual and against abortion late term(gray area) abortions.

spec

reply to post by FeatherofMaat


Are you confusing Sharia Law with Socialism? Or just mixing it all up in one post with a sprinkling of ridicule? You say that Christians try to force their religious ideals on you libs. Yet you say that people who want Sharia Law would never do that? Try again. Any honest person assessing this can see otherwise. Then the socialist thing....has nothing to do with Sharia really, but you nevertheless insist that eating is a human right and therefore it is govt's responsibility to provide food, shelter, and health care for all people and obviously this would be on the taxpayer dime, as govt has little other way to raise revenue.
Insisting that the practice of Sharia Law in the States would not affect you and everyone else is not just naive, but a dangerious idea.

Originally posted by speculativeoptimist
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

Yes, I am familiar with the Shaolin, but the difference is they only fight to defend themselves from oppression, not to spread democracy or their systems on others. You will never see a preemptive strike by the Shaolin, unless they are going to be invaded by an entire army.
The religion I am referring to is the one here in the US that so many political figures proudly represent. To me that is a great source of hypocrisy, because the bible teaches tolerance, forgiveness, love thy neighbor and enemy, shall not kill, and I see the total opposite coming from so many candidates. So imo, yes, the hypocrisy from religion is prevalent in today's political arena.

spec

edit on 8-4-2012 by speculativeoptimist because: (no reason given)

You insist that religious people are pro war and when I suggest that even Buddhist monks can wage wars, now it is ok only the evil Christians are the bad pro war people. Hypocrisy of the worst kind.

Buddhism also teaches kindness, Hinduism teaches ahimsa(harmlessness). What is the difference? You just hate Christians but Buddhists are ok. Typical.


How about this Hindu/Buddhist/Christian who believes there is truth in all the major religions, even Islam but I do not accept the violent aspects of Sharia.

Originally posted by elitegamer23

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
Here is MY brand of conservatism (and I suspect many others'):

Religious, yet ANTI war;
AGAINST the death penalty;
TOLERANT of muslims and homosexuals;
For:
SMALLER government;
LOWER taxes;
FEWER social programs that perpetuate poverty.

I'll leave out tolerance for liberals because frankly, y'all have been getting intolerable lately.

edit on 8-4-2012 by AwakeinNM because: (no reason given)

so you are a social liberal,
hate on yourself now.

Not even close. Social moderate, maybe. Fiscal conservative.

Seems like you liberals can't be fiscal conservatives no matter what the cost, just because you HATE Republicans and you identify fiscal conservatism with them. Liberals have the lion's share of the market on hate, too. Just look at your Al Sharptons and the vitriol that comes out of their faces.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by FeatherofMaat

 

Are you confusing Sharia Law with Socialism? Or just mixing it all up in one post with a sprinkling of ridicule? You say that Christians try to force their religious ideals on you libs. Yet you say that people who want Sharia Law would never do that? Try again. Any honest person assessing this can see otherwise. Then the socialist thing....has nothing to do with Sharia really, but you nevertheless insist that eating is a human right and therefore it is govt's responsibility to provide food, shelter, and health care for all people and obviously this would be on the taxpayer dime, as govt has little other way to raise revenue.
Insisting that the practice of Sharia Law in the States would not affect you and everyone else is not just naive, but a dangerious idea.

This is the only portion that deals with Sharia Law.

1. Liberals do not support Sharia law. There is no liberal backed Muslim conspiracy to bring Sharia Law to your little red-boy town. We support the right to believe in it. But when you force it (or your Christian BS on us) that's where we draw the line.

PLEASE, PLEASE, point out where the poster claims that those that want Sharia Law would never do that.

I will save you the time.

The poster doesn't make that claim.

Please stop with the baiting.

Figured I would take a stab even though the questions were preposterous. They sound like they came directly from talking point memos distributed from Fox...

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?

Liberals support individual rights and freedoms. I have never heard of any liberals supporting Sharia. In fact most detest it and all authoritarian governments. IMO any government that supports genocide on any scale should be destroyed.

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?

No idea what this one is all about. Any group that is oppressed tend to get very vocal and in any cause you will have those who want to be seen as leaders and in general-rabble-rousers. Personally I could not care less what Sharpton, Jackson, Rangel, Shiela Jackson Lee (no idea who the last 3 are) say about anything. They are basically lobbyists anyway. I also don't know any names being called on the conservatives. Never heard of Alan West, C. Thomas is just a bad judge in general. No real opinion either way on Cain.

But this section ties into question 3 for response:

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?

Based on the questions it seems you are conflating things. Firstly; Most on the left differentiate personal from group belonging. We don't care if someone is a woman or black or gay-we try and support based on individual merit. Being pro-women (rights I presume? The question has a weird matriarchy undertone that doesn't make sense) means supporting equal rights for all groups and not just christian white males. It means ensuring that people are not evicted, or restricted in ways that are unfair and un-american.

I am against Sarah Palin because she is terrible. She has no knowledge of how the world works and quit her job to get more spotlight. It is that simple. She is also hypocritical and a panderer. Bachman is just insane. Rice was very good at her job, the only one of Bushs cabinet that I have no real complaints on.

To reiterate: Liberals look at individual merit and not pins on the lapel. We try to support ideas and not parties. It is why the Republican side is so much better at dirty politics. They act as a single machine-when one pundit starts talking about something they all switch course and it becomes dogma.

By a similar token-when someone denounces "Them evil liberals" I personally do not see it as something directed at me. I have never made a "chauvinistic" comment on Palin and/or Bachman as an example. I simply believe based on reading their histories and listening to their comments that they are very bad people on a personal level and thus should be voted out at any chance given.

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

There is no such thing as pro-abortion. Nobody is pro-abortion. In this stance Liberals (speaking from personal perspective anyway) see it as a painful choice that is squarely upon the would be mother/father. There are situations where it is better to do an abortion such as life endangerment of the mother etc. Anti-death penalty because our criminal system does not seek justice. It seeks to convict. As such it is not uncommon for people to be falsely convicted. Also-I personally feel that a government that executes its citizenry is frightening. Especially in a country that has so many mandatory sentencing laws. It is possible now to spend more time in prison for downloading music than if you had raped and murdered a child.

Perhaps you should consider re-writing this thread to remove all the blatant bias?

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

We just do not see it the same, and I suspect the majority would not see these as comparable. When have Buddhists done any proactive warfare? They have not attempted to conquer nations or set out to recruit

You insist that religious people are pro war and when I suggest that even Buddhist monks can wage wars, now it is ok only the evil Christians are the bad pro war people. Hypocrisy of the worst kind.

Buddhism also teaches kindness, Hinduism teaches ahimsa(harmlessness). What is the difference? You just hate Christians but Buddhists are ok. Typical.

Insist all religious people are pro war? What? In reference to this thread, I am speaking of Christianity and politicians yo.
I hate Christians? I do not hate first of all, and the only Christians I would condemn are the hypocritical ones, as in political figures that are hawkish, intolerant and pro death penalty.
"Typical" eh? I am done with you, have a nice day.

reply to post by speculativeoptimist


equality is to be served and injustice to be rooted out... political figures are tied to the philosophies you heard them speak because that is where we come out of.

the battle is not over yet fellas and the liberals in America seem to keep falling for the bad ones and do not want to accept the truth of this society was based on (equality)

in America with the percentage of Obama's voter statistics it looks like only the woman is trying to dominate man, not find truth in him. They already have equal rights and are totally unaware of men trying to dominate eachother on the world stage since long before equal rights.

someone has to support this big orgy feast liberals are enjoying or it wouldn't even be here in the first place... they would be speaking Urdu or Farsi by now.

Originally posted by Garfee

Originally posted by Propulsion
I wish I could find the stats, but it has been proven that liberals change their views after a certain age. Usually thirty years of age on up. Can anyone explain why that is…?

Can you please explain what you think a 'liberal' is? I am gay but I consider myself politically conservative. I am past 30 year of age.

I am not sure what the point of this thread is.

edit on 8-4-2012 by Garfee because: (no reason given)

a weak attempt for flags and stars. hate is a powerful thing.

There are many who think they are conservatives, because they have been sold the idea that conservative actually support the positions they claim to support, like smaller government, low taxes, but conservatives always grow the government, primarily on debt, support big tax cuts for the super rich .001%ers, while fighting against tax cuts for the middle class, and regularly creating back door tax increases for the middle class.

If you are a true Conservative, you would have been a loyalist during the time of the Revolutionary War. Look at the current heart of the Republican party, and that is where most of the Loyalist were found during the Revolutionary War.

If you were Yankee, fighting for independence, you were a Liberal. Look at where most of the current liberals live, that is were most of the Revolutionary War was fought.

The reason you are so regularly and continuously beaten in political debates here on ATS, is because all of your reasons are based on lies, spread mainly by right wing talk show radio hosts, paid big money to spread those lies, and appeal to the lowest denominator.

The large swath of Libertarians who are now moderates are slowly starting to get it. They are having a hard time embracing the ideal that they are Liberal, because for so long they have been programmed to hate Liberals.

Unless you are wealthy, or in a position of considerable power, you are a fool to buy into the lies of the Conservatives, whose only purpose is to serve the super rich. The only way they can succeed in any form of Republic is through deception, and over the last 30 years, they have been pulling one heck of a good con game, called the free market.

The other side of this monstrous strait is the liberal elites, who aren't liberals at all, but Conservatives with a soft spot for minorities, but no respect for the U.S. working class, mainly blue collar white males, who they oppress at every opportunity.

Sadly we have no one to represent true liberal values. And no, Ron Paul is not the answer. RP believes in free market ideology, which is rapacious capitalism in disguise, that undermines true market economics, opposing the laws of supply and demand, leading to boom bust economic periods until the big one hits. Clinton is the closest thing we have had to a true liberal in a long time.

reply to post by speculativeoptimist


I cannot say what their pre-emptive strike capabilites were but there are accounts of Shaolin Temple being attacked and destroyed

The monastery has been destroyed and rebuilt many times. In 1641 the troops of anti-Ming rebel Li Zicheng sacked the monastery due to the monks' support of the Ming and the possible threat they posed to the rebels. This effectively destroyed the temple's fighting force.
Perhaps the best-known story of the Temple's destruction is that it was destroyed by the Qing government for supposed anti-Qing activities. Variously said to have taken place in 1647 under the Shunzhi Emperor, in 1674 under the Kangxi Emperor, or in 1732 under the Yongzheng Emperor, this destruction is also supposed to have helped spread Shaolin martial arts through China by means of the five fugitive monks.
[6]

en.wikipedia.org...

So, now your definition of evil war aggression is that pre-emptive strikes are bad. But who says all pre-emptive strikes have any thing at all to do with Christianity or religion in general? Are you telling me that the entire DOD is made up of evil attack dog Christians?
If you just told me the CFR believe in pre-emptive strikes, I can appreciate that. It certainly would be a far more accurate statement.

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

Originally posted by elitegamer23

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
Here is MY brand of conservatism (and I suspect many others'):

Religious, yet ANTI war;
AGAINST the death penalty;
TOLERANT of muslims and homosexuals;
For:
SMALLER government;
LOWER taxes;
FEWER social programs that perpetuate poverty.

I'll leave out tolerance for liberals because frankly, y'all have been getting intolerable lately.

edit on 8-4-2012 by AwakeinNM because: (no reason given)

so you are a social liberal,
hate on yourself now.

Not even close. Social moderate, maybe. Fiscal conservative.

Seems like you liberals can't be fiscal conservatives no matter what the cost, just because you HATE Republicans and you identify fiscal conservatism with them. Liberals have the lion's share of the market on hate, too. Just look at your Al Sharptons and the vitriol that comes out of their faces.

only you would believe that the GOP are fiscally conservative.
i dont need some obama stat, im talking about the republicans.