Why do 'liberals' get mad when people disobey the government?

[SuperDemocrat]

This is something that I have been wrestling with for an answer. These people get really upset whenever anyone tries to challenge the authority of the government. Virtually everyone agrees that a murderer can't murder so he can't disobey the authority of the government but that is over something major but why can't we do so over extremely minor things? I'm talking about questioning the motives of cops who pull people over for seemingly bullshit reasons or if a state or person challenges the federal government's authority in an issue. Any time a state that wants to reclaim its authority over anything is likened to the confederacy which is a bullshit statement. And you can't actually saying that they are pushing for anarchy because we are just replacing one organization's authority with another so we are going to have some kind of order. No anarchy. I figured out that the left is composed of a bunch of closet authoritarians who just have to be in charge of someone. Most 'liberals' I know are too afraid to say anything bad about the party they belong to. I suppose that they have been conditioned by the people in charge to except orders no matter what which is why they won't publicly bolt from their party.

 

[bripat9643]

This is something that I have been wrestling with for an answer. These people get really upset whenever anyone tries to challenge the authority of the government. Virtually everyone agrees that a murderer can't murder so he can't disobey the authority of the government but that is over something major but why can't we do so over extremely minor things? I'm talking about questioning the motives of cops who pull people over for seemingly bullshit reasons or if a state or person challenges the federal government's authority in an issue. Any time a state that wants to reclaim its authority over anything is likened to the confederacy which is a bullshit statement. And you can't actually saying that they are pushing for anarchy because we are just replacing one organization's authority with another so we are going to have some kind of order. No anarchy. I figured out that the left is composed of a bunch of closet authoritarians who just have to be in charge of someone. Most 'liberals' I know are too afraid to say anything bad about the party they belong to. I suppose that they have been conditioned by the people in charge to except orders no matter what which is why they won't publicly bolt from their party.

They aren't "closet authoritarians." They're outright Stalinists. Yeah, they use language that on the surface sounds peaceful: words like "compromise" and "unity," but they have no intention of compromising. They demand you to compromise. They demand that you "unite" behind the goals they choose, not the ones you choose. "Unite" means allow them to share your bank account and loot it. That's the only way the Utopia they envision can operate. It's a police state.

Don't ever kid yourself about what these people have in mind.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

It's because they don't like free thinkers, they prefer everyone to be Liberal drones with them.

 

[Clementine]

This is something that I have been wrestling with for an answer. These people get really upset whenever anyone tries to challenge the authority of the government. Virtually everyone agrees that a murderer can't murder so he can't disobey the authority of the government but that is over something major but why can't we do so over extremely minor things? I'm talking about questioning the motives of cops who pull people over for seemingly bullshit reasons or if a state or person challenges the federal government's authority in an issue. Any time a state that wants to reclaim its authority over anything is likened to the confederacy which is a bullshit statement. And you can't actually saying that they are pushing for anarchy because we are just replacing one organization's authority with another so we are going to have some kind of order. No anarchy. I figured out that the left is composed of a bunch of closet authoritarians who just have to be in charge of someone. Most 'liberals' I know are too afraid to say anything bad about the party they belong to. I suppose that they have been conditioned by the people in charge to except orders no matter what which is why they won't publicly bolt from their party.

It's more about obeying liberal laws. They reject laws they hate, such as immigration laws. They want you to obey liberals. Period.

You can ignore immigration laws, but not Obamacare. You can engage in hate speech against Christians, but not Muslims. You can bash Republican presidents, but not Dem ones. You can't joke about Dem presidents, like Ted Nugent did, but you can make movies about assassinating Republican presidents. One lib media loud mouth said the guy who grabbed the policeman's gun to try and shoot Trump was a "good guy with a gun." If you had praised the fence jumper at the WH, you'd be accused of racism.

You are supposed to do what liberals tell you to do or they will accuse you of greed, racism, bigotry, hate or just claim you don't care about people. They are so delusional that they've come to believe that anyone against their policies are somehow devoid of feelings.

If you pick on Chelsea Clinton or Obama's girls, you are quickly attacked, but the left can bash Palin's kids and Trump's kids, like they just did in another thread, and expect you to hold it against the candidate.

 

[Crick]

This is something that I have been wrestling with for an answer. These people get really upset whenever anyone tries to challenge the authority of the government. Virtually everyone agrees that a murderer can't murder so he can't disobey the authority of the government but that is over something major but why can't we do so over extremely minor things? I'm talking about questioning the motives of cops who pull people over for seemingly bullshit reasons or if a state or person challenges the federal government's authority in an issue. Any time a state that wants to reclaim its authority over anything is likened to the confederacy which is a bullshit statement. And you can't actually saying that they are pushing for anarchy because we are just replacing one organization's authority with another so we are going to have some kind of order. No anarchy. I figured out that the left is composed of a bunch of closet authoritarians who just have to be in charge of someone. Most 'liberals' I know are too afraid to say anything bad about the party they belong to. I suppose that they have been conditioned by the people in charge to except orders no matter what which is why they won't publicly bolt from their party.

You think "liberals" oppose people questioning the motives of cops pulling people over for bullshit reasons?

What universe are you living in?

 

[Moonglow]

I've been disobeying laws for 40 years and will for at least 35 more...

 

[BULLDOG]

This is something that I have been wrestling with for an answer. These people get really upset whenever anyone tries to challenge the authority of the government. Virtually everyone agrees that a murderer can't murder so he can't disobey the authority of the government but that is over something major but why can't we do so over extremely minor things? I'm talking about questioning the motives of cops who pull people over for seemingly bullshit reasons or if a state or person challenges the federal government's authority in an issue. Any time a state that wants to reclaim its authority over anything is likened to the confederacy which is a bullshit statement. And you can't actually saying that they are pushing for anarchy because we are just replacing one organization's authority with another so we are going to have some kind of order. No anarchy. I figured out that the left is composed of a bunch of closet authoritarians who just have to be in charge of someone. Most 'liberals' I know are too afraid to say anything bad about the party they belong to. I suppose that they have been conditioned by the people in charge to except orders no matter what which is why they won't publicly bolt from their party.

It's more about obeying liberal laws. They reject laws they hate, such as immigration laws. They want you to obey liberals. Period.

You can ignore immigration laws, but not Obamacare. You can engage in hate speech against Christians, but not Muslims. You can bash Republican presidents, but not Dem ones. You can't joke about Dem presidents, like Ted Nugent did, but you can make movies about assassinating Republican presidents. One lib media loud mouth said the guy who grabbed the policeman's gun to try and shoot Trump was a "good guy with a gun." If you had praised the fence jumper at the WH, you'd be accused of racism.

You are supposed to do what liberals tell you to do or they will accuse you of greed, racism, bigotry, hate or just claim you don't care about people. They are so delusional that they've come to believe that anyone against their policies are somehow devoid of feelings.

If you pick on Chelsea Clinton or Obama's girls, you are quickly attacked, but the left can bash Palin's kids and Trump's kids, like they just did in another thread, and expect you to hold it against the candidate.

You might have a point if Chelsey or Obama's kids were spitting out bastard children every time they had a chance.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

This is something that I have been wrestling with for an answer. These people get really upset whenever anyone tries to challenge the authority of the government. Virtually everyone agrees that a murderer can't murder so he can't disobey the authority of the government but that is over something major but why can't we do so over extremely minor things? I'm talking about questioning the motives of cops who pull people over for seemingly bullshit reasons or if a state or person challenges the federal government's authority in an issue. Any time a state that wants to reclaim its authority over anything is likened to the confederacy which is a bullshit statement. And you can't actually saying that they are pushing for anarchy because we are just replacing one organization's authority with another so we are going to have some kind of order. No anarchy. I figured out that the left is composed of a bunch of closet authoritarians who just have to be in charge of someone. Most 'liberals' I know are too afraid to say anything bad about the party they belong to. I suppose that they have been conditioned by the people in charge to except orders no matter what which is why they won't publicly bolt from their party.

You think "liberals" oppose people questioning the motives of cops pulling people over for bullshit reasons?

What universe are you living in?

I'm not talking about when black people get pulled over by white cops.

 

[Agit8r]

"where there is no law, there is no freedom: for liberty is, to be free from restraint and violence from others; which cannot be, where there is no law: but freedom is not, as we are told, a liberty for every man to do what he lists... for who could be free, when every other man's humour might domineer over him?"
-- John Locke; from Second Treatise of Civil Government, CHAP. VI.

"There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to ensure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves"
-- Ronald Reagan; from interview in Reason Magazine (July 1, 1975)

 

[SuperDemocrat]

"where there is no law, there is no freedom: for liberty is, to be free from restraint and violence from others; which cannot be, where there is no law: but freedom is not, as we are told, a liberty for every man to do what he lists... for who could be free, when every other man's humour might domineer over him?"
-- John Locke; from Second Treatise of Civil Government, CHAP. VI.

"There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to ensure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves"
-- Ronald Reagan; from interview in Reason Magazine (July 1, 1975)

What is point? Do you have one? Can actually make one without cutting and pasting what other people say?

 

[Agit8r]

"where there is no law, there is no freedom: for liberty is, to be free from restraint and violence from others; which cannot be, where there is no law: but freedom is not, as we are told, a liberty for every man to do what he lists... for who could be free, when every other man's humour might domineer over him?"
-- John Locke; from Second Treatise of Civil Government, CHAP. VI.

"There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to ensure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves"
-- Ronald Reagan; from interview in Reason Magazine (July 1, 1975)

What is point? Do you have one? Can actually make one without cutting and pasting what other people say?

To be honest, I couldn't follow the OP. Something about traffic stops and the confederacy... Anyway. The problem comes about when SOME people think they don't have to obey the same rules that fall upon the rest of us. A true liberal believes in equality before the law above all else. Anything else smack of that divine right that liberals have been at war with for 240 years.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

"where there is no law, there is no freedom: for liberty is, to be free from restraint and violence from others; which cannot be, where there is no law: but freedom is not, as we are told, a liberty for every man to do what he lists... for who could be free, when every other man's humour might domineer over him?"
-- John Locke; from Second Treatise of Civil Government, CHAP. VI.

"There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to ensure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves"
-- Ronald Reagan; from interview in Reason Magazine (July 1, 1975)

What is point? Do you have one? Can actually make one without cutting and pasting what other people say?

To be honest, I couldn't follow the OP. Something about traffic stops and the confederacy... Anyway. The problem comes about when SOME people think they don't have to obey the same rules that fall upon the rest of us. A true liberal believes in equality before the law above all else. Anything else smack of that divine right that liberals have been at war with for 240 years.

I can't follow what you said either. Something about communism...communism...and more communism.

 

[Agit8r]

"where there is no law, there is no freedom: for liberty is, to be free from restraint and violence from others; which cannot be, where there is no law: but freedom is not, as we are told, a liberty for every man to do what he lists... for who could be free, when every other man's humour might domineer over him?"
-- John Locke; from Second Treatise of Civil Government, CHAP. VI.

"There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to ensure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves"
-- Ronald Reagan; from interview in Reason Magazine (July 1, 1975)

What is point? Do you have one? Can actually make one without cutting and pasting what other people say?

To be honest, I couldn't follow the OP. Something about traffic stops and the confederacy... Anyway. The problem comes about when SOME people think they don't have to obey the same rules that fall upon the rest of us. A true liberal believes in equality before the law above all else. Anything else smack of that divine right that liberals have been at war with for 240 years.

I can't follow what you said either. Something about communism...communism...and more communism.

There wasn't equality before the law under communism. Therefore anyone who is not for equality before the law is more of a commie than I

 

[Moonglow]

This is something that I have been wrestling with for an answer. These people get really upset whenever anyone tries to challenge the authority of the government. Virtually everyone agrees that a murderer can't murder so he can't disobey the authority of the government but that is over something major but why can't we do so over extremely minor things? I'm talking about questioning the motives of cops who pull people over for seemingly bullshit reasons or if a state or person challenges the federal government's authority in an issue. Any time a state that wants to reclaim its authority over anything is likened to the confederacy which is a bullshit statement. And you can't actually saying that they are pushing for anarchy because we are just replacing one organization's authority with another so we are going to have some kind of order. No anarchy. I figured out that the left is composed of a bunch of closet authoritarians who just have to be in charge of someone. Most 'liberals' I know are too afraid to say anything bad about the party they belong to. I suppose that they have been conditioned by the people in charge to except orders no matter what which is why they won't publicly bolt from their party.

It's more about obeying liberal laws. They reject laws they hate, such as immigration laws. They want you to obey liberals. Period.

You can ignore immigration laws, but not Obamacare. You can engage in hate speech against Christians, but not Muslims. You can bash Republican presidents, but not Dem ones. You can't joke about Dem presidents, like Ted Nugent did, but you can make movies about assassinating Republican presidents. One lib media loud mouth said the guy who grabbed the policeman's gun to try and shoot Trump was a "good guy with a gun." If you had praised the fence jumper at the WH, you'd be accused of racism.

You are supposed to do what liberals tell you to do or they will accuse you of greed, racism, bigotry, hate or just claim you don't care about people. They are so delusional that they've come to believe that anyone against their policies are somehow devoid of feelings.

If you pick on Chelsea Clinton or Obama's girls, you are quickly attacked, but the left can bash Palin's kids and Trump's kids, like they just did in another thread, and expect you to hold it against the candidate.

I sent you a debate aid...

 

[Moonglow]

Oh Clementine is one of the most harsh, berating poster, yet cries when they mention Trump's kids(even opened a thread to ask the Mos in Announcements).....She must have run out of rotten tomatoes...