Why do people hate Liberals?

[Uncensored2008]

The consequences of liberalism has been to extend freedom, opportunity and rights to all Americans and all people.

Which are things you leftists are working diligently to eradicate.

You of the left are authoritarian in philosophy and in practice.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Yeah. 'Has been'. What the hell happened?

The media applied the term "liberal" to the authoritarian leftists. There is nothing even remotely "liberal" about Bfgrn, he has zero in common with Thomas Jefferson or Tom Payne. He has a GREAT deal in common, philosophically, with Ho Chi Mihn and Fidel Castro, though.

 

[Foxfyre]

You can talk about whatever you want. Clearly, you don't want to talk about the problems people have with liberalism (the topic), preferring to point out the problems you have with conservatism instead. I guess you're just assuming that anyone criticizing liberalism is implicitly supporting conservatism, and perhaps thinking of your comments as a 'counter-attack'. But that's not a valid assumption and, as I mentioned, the faults of conservatives are really no excuse for the faults of liberals.

Your problem is you are blaming liberals for what conservatives support, and liberals oppose. Corporatism is a glaring example. We now have a conservative majority on the Supreme Court. Citizens United vs. FEC, which basically says America should be run by corporations was vehemently opposed by liberals on the court and liberals in general. The health care bill; liberals and progressives pushed for single payer, or at least a public option, NOT the individual mandate. That was the construct of conservatives, not liberals.

I'm blaming liberals for what they've done, and PPACA is all theirs. Blaming it on conservatives is, again, a diversion. The responsibility lies with the leaders who voted for it.

Yes, it should always be the consequences of a particular policy or regulation that determines whether we praise it or condemn it. Some point to Massachusetts under a GOP governer (the legislature there is solidly Democrat of course) and their mostly successful state healthcare plan as proof that PPACA was a Republican idea.

It was good enough for a GOP governor, the liberals say, but now that it is a Democrat President--a BLACK Democrat President--the racist Republicans have their shorts in a wad over the exact same healthcare plan for everybody. All of which of course is utter nonsense.

Well it worked pretty well in the relatively small state of Massachusetts for a year or two. There are more people in NYC than there are in all of Massachusetts, and Massachusetts is a very homogenous and affluent state with a very low minority population and, at the time their healthcare plan went into effect fewer than 10% of the people below the poverty line--all those those already covered by Medicare or other insurance.

Roughly 2/3rds of Massachusetts folks still like the plan but the costs to the state--Massachutts spends more per capita now for healthcare than ANY other state--is up more than 25% and insurance premiums have increased by about the same amount.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57459563/massachusetts-health-care-plan-6-years-later/

But liberalism wants to extrapolate that mixed bag into a mandate for 330 million people, much more diverse, much less homogenous, bring tens of millions of uninsured--most uninsured by choice--into a mandated plan when the variables over the USA as a whole are huge. And we are already seeing the train wreck that has occurred and that is going to only get much much worse. So already insurance premiums are increasing more rapidly than ever before, the cost to the tax payer will be enormous the backlash is increasing unemployment, is decreasing personal incomes, and is a huge drag on an already struggling economy, and our healthcare system is deteriorating before our eyes.

If we as a people could just step out of our partisan suits and look at something objectively, clear eyed, honestly, and with no motives of blame, one-upmanship, and fuzzy feel good emotions, we would choose much more wisely.

 

[Immanuel]

This thread is about liberalism (Why do people hate Liberals?). If you want to start a thread bashing conservatives, go for it. I'll likely join in!

Though none of what you accuse conservatives of lets liberals off the hook for their own bullshit. It's just diversion.

SO, I am bound to only talk about hate of liberals. Sure sounds like how conservatives think...close minds that are very, very tiny.

You can talk about whatever you want. Clearly, you don't want to talk about the problems people have with liberalism (the topic), preferring to point out the problems you have with conservatism instead. I guess you're just assuming that anyone criticizing liberalism is implicitly supporting conservatism, and perhaps thinking of your comments as a 'counter-attack'. But that's not a valid assumption and, as I mentioned, the faults of conservatives are really no excuse for the faults of liberals.

All bfgrn cares to talk about is his hatred. It really is disgusting how some one can hate so many people he doesn't even know especially a progressive who expects everyone else to tolerate him.

Immie

 

[Wolfsister77]

So is hating Liberals the only topic that can be discussed just because that was the OP 150 pages ago and the thread title or can it evolve?

Regarding the ACA, they should of put in a public option or Medicare for all with a private insurance supplement you can buy into.

 

[Immanuel]

So is hating Liberals the only topic that can be discussed just because that was the OP 150 pages ago and the thread title or can it evolve?

Regarding the ACA, they should of put in a public option or Medicare for all with a private insurance supplement you can buy into.

No, it is not the only topic. What is sad is that bfgrn used to be a relatively decent poster, but must have encountered some kind of brain eating amoeba or something that has destroyed all ability to respond like a human being as opposed to the partisan idiot he has become.

Immie

 

[Foxfyre]

So is hating Liberals the only topic that can be discussed just because that was the OP 150 pages ago and the thread title or can it evolve?

Regarding the ACA, they should of put in a public option or Medicare for all with a private insurance supplement you can buy into.

Well I don't hate liberals so I don't discuss that at all. I do hate the worst consequences of liberalism ala 'liberalism' in 21st Century America however, because there is nothing 'liberal' or 'freedom loving' about it. I want to spend the money I earn or have earned myself as much as is practical or possible rather than hand over to a government that will swallow up two thirds of it into its own bureaucracy and then spend anything left over for me.

Short of trampling on the rights of others, I want to govern myself, choose what options, opportunities, and goals I will strive for, and be responsible and accountable for my own choices, and not for everybody else's.

I want the right to have the kind of society that I want together with other like minded people without being harrassed or forced by those who would demand that I live in the kind of society THEY think I should live in.

And I want the right to speak as I choose, short of malicious libel or slandering of others, without the PC police descending to destroy me because I don't use the right words or express the right opinions.

Is that asking too much?

 

[Pogo]

So is hating Liberals the only topic that can be discussed just because that was the OP 150 pages ago and the thread title or can it evolve?

Regarding the ACA, they should of put in a public option or Medicare for all with a private insurance supplement you can buy into.

Well I don't hate liberals so I don't discuss that at all. I do hate the worst consequences of liberalism ala 'liberalism' in 21st Century America however, because there is nothing 'liberal' or 'freedom loving' about it. I want to spend the money I earn or have earned myself as much as is practical or possible rather than hand over to a government that will swallow up two thirds of it into its own bureaucracy and then spend anything left over for me.

Short of trampling on the rights of others, I want to govern myself, choose what options, opportunities, and goals I will strive for, and be responsible and accountable for my own choices, and not for everybody else's.

I want the right to have the kind of society that I want together with other like minded people without being harrassed or forced by those who would demand that I live in the kind of society THEY think I should live in.

And I want the right to speak as I choose, short of malicious libel or slandering of others, without the PC police descending to destroy me because I don't use the right words or express the right opinions.

Is that asking too much?

Not at all; you've just described the goal of Liberalism -- which is ironic considering your lead sentence.

That this thread will not acknowledge that is why it never goes anywhere.

 

[dblack]

Is that asking too much?

What you and others of your ilk are incapable of understanding is that you cannot have freedom without also having responsibility -- and that includes PUBLIC RESPONSIBILITY.

The lack of same has been the bane of American society all through its history.

"I'll get mine, and the devil take the hindmost," has been its dominant note right from the beginning.

"I insist on teaching people that they must first reform society before they can reform themselves."
---Bernard Shaw

.

Most libertarians I've met are quite enthusiastic about community and public responsibility. But we don't believe it's something that should be coerced.

 

[RKMBrown]

Is that asking too much?

What you and others of your ilk are incapable of understanding is that you cannot have freedom without also having responsibility -- and that includes PUBLIC RESPONSIBILITY.

The lack of same has been the bane of American society all through its history.

"I'll get mine, and the devil take the hindmost," has been its dominant note right from the beginning.

"I insist on teaching people that they must first reform society before they can reform themselves."
---Bernard Shaw

.

Most libertarians I've met are quite enthusiastic about community and public responsibility. But we don't believe it's something that should be coerced.

Ding.

 

[Foxfyre]

So is hating Liberals the only topic that can be discussed just because that was the OP 150 pages ago and the thread title or can it evolve?

Regarding the ACA, they should of put in a public option or Medicare for all with a private insurance supplement you can buy into.

Well I don't hate liberals so I don't discuss that at all. I do hate the worst consequences of liberalism ala 'liberalism' in 21st Century America however, because there is nothing 'liberal' or 'freedom loving' about it. I want to spend the money I earn or have earned myself as much as is practical or possible rather than hand over to a government that will swallow up two thirds of it into its own bureaucracy and then spend anything left over for me.

Short of trampling on the rights of others, I want to govern myself, choose what options, opportunities, and goals I will strive for, and be responsible and accountable for my own choices, and not for everybody else's.

I want the right to have the kind of society that I want together with other like minded people without being harrassed or forced by those who would demand that I live in the kind of society THEY think I should live in.

And I want the right to speak as I choose, short of malicious libel or slandering of others, without the PC police descending to destroy me because I don't use the right words or express the right opinions.

Is that asking too much?

Not at all; you've just described the goal of Liberalism -- which is ironic considering your lead sentence.

That this thread will not acknowledge that is why it never goes anywhere.

Unfortunately what has come to be understood as 21st Century liberalism in America does not seek such goals and in fact condemn, slander, ridicule, marginalize, diminish, accuse, and too often attempt to destroy those who seek them.

I know you have argued that definitions do not change. But you are wrong. They do change in the vernacular of changing cultures. Most of those who are self described liberals at USMB for instance, would deny me my freedoms in favor of forcing me to accept a society they would design as ideal.

 

[Foxfyre]

Is that asking too much?

What you and others of your ilk are incapable of understanding is that you cannot have freedom without also having responsibility -- and that includes PUBLIC RESPONSIBILITY.

The lack of same has been the bane of American society all through its history.

"I'll get mine, and the devil take the hindmost," has been its dominant note right from the beginning.

"I insist on teaching people that they must first reform society before they can reform themselves."
---Bernard Shaw

.

Most libertarians I've met are quite enthusiastic about community and public responsibility. But we don't believe it's something that should be coerced.

The primary difference between the modern American liberal and the modern American conservative/classical liberal/libertarian (little "L") is that the liberal would REQUIRE us to accept public responsible that THEY design as 'responsible'. And they cannot understand that requiring people to adopt their version of responsible society is to deny freedom to all. There is no private property but only that which the authority will allow you to use for your own purposes. There is no free speech but only that with the authority deems acceptable. There is no choice of how we will use much of what we earn or otherwise honorbly acquire because that will be decided for us.

Those of us who reject that concept can be just as concerned for the poor or less fortunate or the needs of society. But we know that liberty requires contribution to the good of society must be voluntary, and never mandated.

 

[Pogo]

What you and others of your ilk are incapable of understanding is that you cannot have freedom without also having responsibility -- and that includes PUBLIC RESPONSIBILITY.

The lack of same has been the bane of American society all through its history.

"I'll get mine, and the devil take the hindmost," has been its dominant note right from the beginning.

"I insist on teaching people that they must first reform society before they can reform themselves."
---Bernard Shaw

.

Most libertarians I've met are quite enthusiastic about community and public responsibility. But we don't believe it's something that should be coerced.

The primary difference between the modern American liberal and the modern American conservative/classical liberal/libertarian (little "L") is that the liberal would REQUIRE us to accept public responsible that THEY design as 'responsible'. And they cannot understand that requiring people to adopt their version of responsible society is to deny freedom to all. There is no private property but only that which the authority will allow you to use for your own purposes. There is no free speech but only that with the authority deems acceptable. There is no choice of how we will use much of what we earn or otherwise honorbly acquire because that will be decided for us.

Those of us who reject that concept can be just as concerned for the poor or less fortunate or the needs of society. But we know that liberty requires contribution to the good of society must be voluntary, and never mandated.

:sigh: Foxy when are you gonna learn some political science... you insist on conflating leftism with liberalism and then turn around and call them "self-described liberals". Define "self".


You know what, I think I'm going to start calling hamburgers "ocelots"... self-described of course.

 

[Foxfyre]

Most libertarians I've met are quite enthusiastic about community and public responsibility. But we don't believe it's something that should be coerced.

The primary difference between the modern American liberal and the modern American conservative/classical liberal/libertarian (little "L") is that the liberal would REQUIRE us to accept public responsible that THEY design as 'responsible'. And they cannot understand that requiring people to adopt their version of responsible society is to deny freedom to all. There is no private property but only that which the authority will allow you to use for your own purposes. There is no free speech but only that with the authority deems acceptable. There is no choice of how we will use much of what we earn or otherwise honorbly acquire because that will be decided for us.

Those of us who reject that concept can be just as concerned for the poor or less fortunate or the needs of society. But we know that liberty requires contribution to the good of society must be voluntary, and never mandated.

:sigh: Foxy when are you gonna learn some political science... you insist on conflating leftism with liberalism and then turn around and call them "self-described liberals". Define "self".


You know what, I think I'm going to start calling hamburgers "ocelots"... self-described of course.

If you describe yourself as a liberal, that is a self-described liberal.

If Numan describes himself as a liberal, that is a self-described liberal.

If Bfgn describes himself as a liberal, that is a self-described liberal.

And not one of you meet the test of what a liberal in the 18th Century would be. Which is why, even in the present day political science class in America, 18th century liberalism is now called classical liberalism or libertarianism, and not liberalism. I have taught a political science class in the last 20 years so I am very certain that I am on very solid ground there. Maybe YOU need some more political science classes as well as some comprehensive American history courses.

 

[Bfgrn]

What you and others of your ilk are incapable of understanding is that you cannot have freedom without also having responsibility -- and that includes PUBLIC RESPONSIBILITY.

The lack of same has been the bane of American society all through its history.

"I'll get mine, and the devil take the hindmost," has been its dominant note right from the beginning.

"I insist on teaching people that they must first reform society before they can reform themselves."
---Bernard Shaw

.

Most libertarians I've met are quite enthusiastic about community and public responsibility. But we don't believe it's something that should be coerced.

The primary difference between the modern American liberal and the modern American conservative/classical liberal/libertarian (little "L") is that the liberal would REQUIRE us to accept public responsible that THEY design as 'responsible'. And they cannot understand that requiring people to adopt their version of responsible society is to deny freedom to all. There is no private property but only that which the authority will allow you to use for your own purposes. There is no free speech but only that with the authority deems acceptable. There is no choice of how we will use much of what we earn or otherwise honorbly acquire because that will be decided for us.

Those of us who reject that concept can be just as concerned for the poor or less fortunate or the needs of society. But we know that liberty requires contribution to the good of society must be voluntary, and never mandated.

This is typical Ayn Rand social Darwinism. A civil society cannot survive under the rules of the jungle. But it certainly will create is a hierarchy, which is always the goal of conservatism. Going all the way back to the War on Poverty, what Sargent Shriver was faced with were the TRUE facts about poverty, not the right wing 'lazy folk' version.

But you continue to ignore posts that explain liberal principles and beliefs. WHY is that FF? Does it ruin your constant dogmatic drone that only conservatives can articulate?

Why don't you try a novel approach...educate yourself. Let's start with what was called the War on Poverty. It was totally based on opportunity, responsibility, community and empowerment.

The War on Poverty was a program that any conservative should support. But right wing turds just TALK about opportunity, when all they really believe in is punishment and hatred.

The War on Poverty, what it is and isn't...

There's always the 'able bodied but lazy poor person', the 'bleeding heart liberal' who just wants to hand out other people's money and of course, the clear headed 'conservative' whose 'tough love' always saves the day. Well, I refuse to play along. If you had the intelligence and curiosity to find out what the 'War on Poverty' was about and what it wasn't about, it would save you from all the bloviation that comes out of your ass.

When JFK's brother-in law Sargent Shriver accepted LBJ's challenge and took on the 'War on Poverty' the first thing he discovered was rather startling and disturbing. Half of the Americans living in poverty were children. Another large segment were elderly and another segment were mentally and/or physically disabled. So a HUGE segment of the poor fit the TRUE definition of a dependent. So there is an obligation as a civil society to make sure those real dependents are not trampled on or extinguished.

To address some of the players in your fairy tale, voila! We have an unabashed flaming liberal...Sargent Shriver. But I hate to disappoint you. Sargent Shriver hated welfare and had no intention of creating a handout program. He didn't believe in handouts, he believed in community action. The 'War on Poverty' was called the Office of Economic Opportunity. The core principles were opportunity, responsibility, community and empowerment. The program's aims were maximum feasible participation. One of the concepts of empowerment was poor people had a right to one-third of the seats on every local poverty program board. It was a community based program that focused on education as the keys to the city. Programs such as VISTA, Job Corps, Community Action Program, and Head Start were created to increase opportunity for the poor so they could pull themselves out of poverty with a hand UP, not a hand out. Even when Johnson effectively pulled the plug on the War on Poverty to fund the war in Vietnam, Shriver fought on and won. During the Shriver years more Americans got out of poverty than during any similar time in our history. (The Clinton years - employing the same philosophy - were the second best.)Ref

 

[Pogo]

The primary difference between the modern American liberal and the modern American conservative/classical liberal/libertarian (little "L") is that the liberal would REQUIRE us to accept public responsible that THEY design as 'responsible'. And they cannot understand that requiring people to adopt their version of responsible society is to deny freedom to all. There is no private property but only that which the authority will allow you to use for your own purposes. There is no free speech but only that with the authority deems acceptable. There is no choice of how we will use much of what we earn or otherwise honorbly acquire because that will be decided for us.

Those of us who reject that concept can be just as concerned for the poor or less fortunate or the needs of society. But we know that liberty requires contribution to the good of society must be voluntary, and never mandated.

:sigh: Foxy when are you gonna learn some political science... you insist on conflating leftism with liberalism and then turn around and call them "self-described liberals". Define "self".


You know what, I think I'm going to start calling hamburgers "ocelots"... self-described of course.

If you describe yourself as a liberal, that is a self-described liberal.

If Numan describes himself as a liberal, that is a self-described liberal.

If Bfgn describes himself as a liberal, that is a self-described liberal.

And not one of you meet the test of what a liberal in the 18th Century would be. Which is why, even in the present day political science class in America, 18th century liberalism is now called classical liberalism or libertarianism, and not liberalism. I have taught a political science class in the last 20 years so I am very certain that I am on very solid ground there. Maybe YOU need some more political science classes as well as some comprehensive American history courses.

I shudder to think, but I hope you're a good enough teacher to know that the goal of teaching is to get one's students to think (for themselves), rather than to simply parrot their prof's POV. Because you seem to have an obsession with labels wherein any description of a philosophy somehow immediately morphs into blanket labels to hang on specific people.

And we all know the function of this cheap rhetorical trick --the people then become the proxy for the philosophy and demonized; the label then becomes tainted, even at the expense of morphing the entire meaning of the word; and then with the opposition thus polarized into a demon, they can be summarily eliminated by all that is good and holy, and "our side" walks off with the entire cake. Thus you have the loyal soldiers all over this (and other) message board(s) screaming "libtards" and "commies" and blah blah you know the drill. Even personal traits get guilt-by-association-ed into a trait of that political philosophy, as if Anthony Weiner engages in sexting as a direct causal result of some political philosophy.

Then you can even then claim the original term for yourself under a new name and call it "classical Liberalism". Pffft.

Orwell called these the Two Minutes Hate and Doublethink, respectively. They're not new, but they are transparent.

 

[Dragonlady]

Every time there is a post about liberals on this board, the right-wingers come out of the woodwork to tell us what liberals are, what we think, and how we react to everything. Then other right-wingers come on this board and agree with them, and then the slag-fest begins.

Conservatives are clueless when it comes to what liberals and what we stand for but that doesn't stop them from deciding what we do and do not believe, or what type of government we like.

Foxy says that forcing people to buy health insurance is infringing on your freedom. In my opinion, the fact that I have government funded health care, INCREASES my freedom. I don't have to worry about how to pay for medical care when (not if, when) I get sick. If I am faced with catastrophic illness, it won't bankrupt me or my family. That is freedom that Americans cannot know.

I am free to choose my doctor, my hospital, where I go for treatment, and many other things, but I am forced to buy into my government health care. I am old enough to remember when there was no Canada Health Act, and what that meant when my aunt got cancer. My "lack of freedom" on health insurance is a boon, not a loss of freedom.

 

[Trajan]

thread reactivated....

 

[Foxfyre]

Oh good. Thanks Traj. I thought it being closed must have been an accident.

Okay.....moving along here. . . .

 

[Foxfyre]

:sigh: Foxy when are you gonna learn some political science... you insist on conflating leftism with liberalism and then turn around and call them "self-described liberals". Define "self".


You know what, I think I'm going to start calling hamburgers "ocelots"... self-described of course.

If you describe yourself as a liberal, that is a self-described liberal.

If Numan describes himself as a liberal, that is a self-described liberal.

If Bfgn describes himself as a liberal, that is a self-described liberal.

And not one of you meet the test of what a liberal in the 18th Century would be. Which is why, even in the present day political science class in America, 18th century liberalism is now called classical liberalism or libertarianism, and not liberalism. I have taught a political science class in the last 20 years so I am very certain that I am on very solid ground there. Maybe YOU need some more political science classes as well as some comprehensive American history courses.

I shudder to think, but I hope you're a good enough teacher to know that the goal of teaching is to get one's students to think (for themselves), rather than to simply parrot their prof's POV. Because you seem to have an obsession with labels wherein any description of a philosophy somehow immediately morphs into blanket labels to hang on specific people.

And we all know the function of this cheap rhetorical trick --the people then become the proxy for the philosophy and demonized; the label then becomes tainted, even at the expense of morphing the entire meaning of the word; and then with the opposition thus polarized into a demon, they can be summarily eliminated by all that is good and holy, and "our side" walks off with the entire cake. Thus you have the loyal soldiers all over this (and other) message board(s) screaming "libtards" and "commies" and blah blah you know the drill. Even personal traits get guilt-by-association-ed into a trait of that political philosophy, as if Anthony Weiner engages in sexting as a direct causal result of some political philosophy.

Then you can even then claim the original term for yourself under a new name and call it "classical Liberalism". Pffft.

Orwell called these the Two Minutes Hate and Doublethink, respectively. They're not new, but they are transparent.

As you by implication are demonizing me with the implication that I personally am changing the definition for the purpose of demonizing others? Yeah, that is definitely a Orwellian and/or Alinsky tactic all right. But I don't do that.

I do not and have NEVER used or condoned such terms as libtard or demorat or any of the other uncomplimentary adjectives utilized by some members. I think using such terms by either side may be used to save time when they are intended to show contempt, or maybe it is just fun for them, but they invariably weaken the members' argument and rather than being clever, more often appear juvenile to the casual observor. (Once you get to know the people, you can get around the language better, but I still think it unproductive.)

But I am certainly a good enough teacher to know that words and language and definitions change over time.

We don't even need to look at all the words that used to be perfectly acceptable to use: Policeman, fireman, chairman, mankind, etc. that are no longer politically correct. (I still use them all however.)

But once, 'artificial' meant full of artistic or technical skill. Doesn't mean that now does it?

"Nice" once meant someone who was ignorant or unaware.

"Awful" once meant full of awe.

"Brave" once meant bravado or pretense at bravery.

"Manufactured" used to mean made by hand by craftsmen. Now that is referred to as 'hand made' while 'manufactured' means made by machine.

Counterfeit once meant a perfect copy. It has a much different connotation these days.

Affluent once meant freely flowing or a great quantity. We think of something much different now.

I don't even need to discuss such words as 'gay' or 'queer' that even in our lifetime once had no homosexual connotations whatsoever. Or the images that come to mind when we use words like floppy, disc, windows, reboot, virus, hard drive, software, programs, applications that never would have come to mind even 30 years ago.

There are thousands of other examples we could use to illustrate how words and language changes over time.

That I recognize that the definitions of liberal and conservative have also changed over time, most especially here in America, and because I know and teach that the term 'classical liberal' was coined specifically because of that, does not make me either evil nor disingenuous. And I would certainly hope that our education system is at least as aware of that as I am.