Why do people hate Liberals?

[Bfgrn]

Sorry but the Heritage Foundation is not a good source for information about Liberals and Progressives.

They are a Conservative think tank.

At least conservatives HAVE think tanks. And Heritage uses damn good researchers, economists, and historians with impressive credentials. I have challenged my liberal friends many times to show HOW the Heritage Foundation got something wrong. So far crickets.

I won't lie about the excellent sources I use to support my opinions whether they be conservative (Heritage Foundation), libertarian (CATO), or liberal (Brookings Institute) and et al. In order to pass my test as a credible source, the information provided has to hold up under scrutiny and has to be untainted by partisanship.

I do avoid using sources that exist for the purpose of exposing or challenging the opposing ideology whether those be left or right leaning. The Heritage Foundation is not in that business.

Both Heritage and CATO are as equally tough on bad Republican initiatives as they are bad Democratic initiatives, and flawed concepts promoted as 'conservative' as they are on failed liberal initiatives. And both are brutally honest in their conclusions. I use Brookings (and other sources) for the credfible liberal argument because Brookings and some others (Raspbery, Camille Paglia, Michael Kinsley, et al) have stood up under scrutiny as being among the most objective and honest left leaning groups or commentators out there.

I won't apologize for being a modern American conservative (aka classical liberal) with a point of view that I can defend or for using good sources only because they share my point of view. I think it foolish to dismiss an honest source because of the label somebody puts on it.

And again my opinion has been that liberals cannot and will not defend their point of view but rather their entire argument most often is pointing fingers at others that they declare to be evil, greedy, selfish, wrong, bad, worse, partisan (meaning not liberal), or they did it too, yadda yadda. And by dismissing any evidence to the contrary, they never have to challenge their own point of view.

It is one of the primary reasons that liberalism is in such disfavor among a plurality if not a majority of Americans.

From a 2009 Gallup poll--I'll watch for something more current:

PRINCETON, NJ -- Thus far in 2009, 40% of Americans interviewed in national Gallup Poll surveys describe their political views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal. This represents a slight increase for conservatism in the U.S. since 2008, returning it to a level last seen in 2004. The 21% calling themselves liberal is in line with findings throughout this decade, but is up from the 1990s.

"Conservatives" Are Single-Largest Ideological Group

The Heritage Foundation is funded by the biggest polluters on our planet who have caused the death and destruction of millions of human beings. And when right wing parrots like you chirp, there is always a puff of smoke.

 

[Bfgrn]

At least conservatives HAVE think tanks. And Heritage uses damn good researchers, economists, and historians with impressive credentials. I have challenged my liberal friends many times to show HOW the Heritage Foundation got something wrong. So far crickets.

How can someone possibly show how someone else or an organization got an opinion wrong?

Step one is to admit that liberal opinion is JUST as valid as conservative opinion.
Step two is to accept the election results and move on.

An opinion can be subjective and relatively inconsequential such as it is my opinion that I look better wearing royal blue than I do wearing orange. The only way to evaluate my opinion is in how many people who observe me wearing those colors agree or disagree with my opinion.

But an opinion about the virtues or lack thereof in social or economic policy can almost always be evaluated objectively by hard data and more subjectively as to the satisfaction people have in their own lives. We KNOW roughly, for instance, how much money has been spent on the war on poverty beginning with the Great Society initiatives of the LBJ Administration. Heritage, CATO, and Brookings - conservative, libertarian, and liberal - have all done some pretty exhaustive research on that and they all arrive at pretty close to the same numbers give or take a few billion.

And it helps us make informed opinions about it rather than just defending something because it sounds noble and not gives a rat's ass about whether it is actually accomplishing what the title suggests.

And we can look at the results today and evaluate whether there are bigger or smaller deficits, acceleration of the national debt, how many people are on food stamps now compared to then? How many children live in poverty now compared to then? How many people receive government subsidies now compared to then? How many people live in traditional two-parent families now compared to then? Because records have been kept, every economic and social indicator is measurable, and honest people can make an informed opinion on whether all that money has accomplished what it was intended to accomplish. And whether positives, and there have been some, outweigh the negatives, and there have been some.

I very much appreciate groups like Heritage, CATO, Brookings, et al, who do the heavy lifting to pull the data together to allow us to evaluate it and form informed opinions about the policy and/or initiatives that we choose to support or choose to resist.

Hey Einstein, 'now and then' doesn't take into account what external factors happened BETWEEN 'now and then' (like Republicans defunding programs THEN calling them a failure, corporations selling out America for slave labor, right wing union busting and failed Republican policies), and it doesn't take into account how much WORSE it would be without those programs.

 

[Foxfyre]

And again that is one of the reasons liberalism as it is defined in America in modern times is held in such low regard by so many. The liberal simply cannot defend their point of view with anything other than negative opinion and accusations of those who hold liberalism in low regard. Ad hominem argument is a no-no in formal debate for a reason. It focuses attention on and accuses the one holding the opinion rather than focusing on the concept itself. As long as the tactic is allowed with impunity, no comprehensive discussion of any objective topic can ever take place. Which of course is why the tactic is used by most.

 

[Pogo]

And again that is one of the reasons liberalism as it is defined in America in modern times is held in such low regard by so many. The liberal simply cannot defend their point of view with anything other than negative opinion and accusations of those who hold liberalism in low regard. Ad hominem argument is a no-no in formal debate for a reason. It focuses attention on and accuses the one holding the opinion rather than focusing on the concept itself. As long as the tactic is allowed with impunity, no comprehensive discussion of any objective topic can ever take place. Which of course is why the tactic is used by most.

Foxy sees her own strawman and raises herself a hasty generalization.

 

[Intense]

Heritage Foundation= Obamneycare

Big words for you, D.C., keep trying, baby strps. You'll get there.

 

[PixieStix]

I don't "hate" liberals. But I do think they are to blame for the color going out of our world.

They want everyone to be their version of equal.

What they lack to realize is that they are forcing the world to become bland and tasteless

 

[Intense]

Sorry but the Heritage Foundation is not a good source for information about Liberals and Progressives.

They are a Conservative think tank.

At least conservatives HAVE think tanks. And Heritage uses damn good researchers, economists, and historians with impressive credentials. I have challenged my liberal friends many times to show HOW the Heritage Foundation got something wrong. So far crickets.

I won't lie about the excellent sources I use to support my opinions whether they be conservative (Heritage Foundation), libertarian (CATO), or liberal (Brookings Institute) and et al. In order to pass my test as a credible source, the information provided has to hold up under scrutiny and has to be untainted by partisanship.

I do avoid using sources that exist for the purpose of exposing or challenging the opposing ideology whether those be left or right leaning. The Heritage Foundation is not in that business.

Both Heritage and CATO are as equally tough on bad Republican initiatives as they are bad Democratic initiatives, and flawed concepts promoted as 'conservative' as they are on failed liberal initiatives. And both are brutally honest in their conclusions. I use Brookings (and other sources) for the credfible liberal argument because Brookings and some others (Raspbery, Camille Paglia, Michael Kinsley, et al) have stood up under scrutiny as being among the most objective and honest left leaning groups or commentators out there.

I won't apologize for being a modern American conservative (aka classical liberal) with a point of view that I can defend or for using good sources only because they share my point of view. I think it foolish to dismiss an honest source because of the label somebody puts on it.

And again my opinion has been that liberals cannot and will not defend their point of view but rather their entire argument most often is pointing fingers at others that they declare to be evil, greedy, selfish, wrong, bad, worse, partisan (meaning not liberal), or they did it too, yadda yadda. And by dismissing any evidence to the contrary, they never have to challenge their own point of view.

It is one of the primary reasons that liberalism is in such disfavor among a plurality if not a majority of Americans.

From a 2009 Gallup poll--I'll watch for something more current:

PRINCETON, NJ -- Thus far in 2009, 40% of Americans interviewed in national Gallup Poll surveys describe their political views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal. This represents a slight increase for conservatism in the U.S. since 2008, returning it to a level last seen in 2004. The 21% calling themselves liberal is in line with findings throughout this decade, but is up from the 1990s.

"Conservatives" Are Single-Largest Ideological Group

The Heritage Foundation is funded by the biggest polluters on our planet who have caused the death and destruction of millions of human beings. And when right wing parrots like you chirp, there is always a puff of smoke.

I'll take one large Kool-Aid, and 3 small Kool-Aids to go, ..... no wait, make that 2-16 oz Kool-Aids, my left leaning friends can't be seen in public with anything larger than 16 oz. Ever get tired of slandering and obstructing the truth, and attacking the messengers, let us know. What would you do if that same standard was applied to you and your sources? Melt? Why is it that you see yourself so without fault or flaw, while your opposition cann get nothing right? It is amazing to watch.

 

[Intense]

I don't "hate" liberals. But I do think they are to blame for the color going out of our world.

They want everyone to be their version of equal.

What they lack to realize is that they are forcing the world to become bland and tasteless

They want 2 things. Control over us, and credit when something actually works out, and to blame us for everyone of their failed policies, .... okay, you got me, 3 things.

 

[freedombecki]

And again that is one of the reasons liberalism as it is defined in America in modern times is held in such low regard by so many. The liberal simply cannot defend their point of view with anything other than negative opinion and accusations of those who hold liberalism in low regard. Ad hominem argument is a no-no in formal debate for a reason. It focuses attention on and accuses the one holding the opinion rather than focusing on the concept itself. As long as the tactic is allowed with impunity, no comprehensive discussion of any objective topic can ever take place. Which of course is why the tactic is used by most.

Foxy sees her own strawman and raises herself a hasty generalization.

Well, Pogo, I just endured a 4-corner attack from liberals for stating my opinion, and one of them even mooned me.

The other was loaded for bear.

 

[numan]

Progressive and Liberals have think tanks too. I don't trust a Conservative group to give a real good representation of Liberal and Progressive thinking as was made clear in Intense's post. I doubt too many Conservatives would want Think Progress to tell folks how they think and what they stand for.

In these polls where people are asked to define themselves, many don't want to pigenhole themselves into a category and will say they are moderate. Also, many Liberals don't use the word Liberal to define themselves. And many Conservatives don't use the term Conservative to define themselves. Did they ask how many consider themselves Libertarian or Progressive?

Liberals, as denounced by the haters on this thread, simply don't exist -- not in any significant numbers, anyway.

They are phantoms of the propaganda machine of mass media brainwashing and social conditioning -- just as home-grown "communists" were in the 1950's.

Probably most of the members of the American Communist Party were FBI infiltrators !!

Just as the case of "communists" in the 50's, modern day "liberals" are created by the Brainwashing Machine as a distraction from Real Problems.

People who are incapable of thinking believe in these ghosts that go "bump" in the night.

.

 

[Foxfyre]

Progressive and Liberals have think tanks too. I don't trust a Conservative group to give a real good representation of Liberal and Progressive thinking as was made clear in Intense's post. I doubt too many Conservatives would want Think Progress to tell folks how they think and what they stand for.

In these polls where people are asked to define themselves, many don't want to pigenhole themselves into a category and will say they are moderate. Also, many Liberals don't use the word Liberal to define themselves. And many Conservatives don't use the term Conservative to define themselves. Did they ask how many consider themselves Libertarian or Progressive?

Liberals, as denounced by the haters on this thread, simply don't exist -- not in any significant numbers, anyway.

They are phantoms of the propaganda machine of mass media brainwashing and social conditioning -- just as home-grown "communists" were in the 1950's.

Probably most of the members of the American Communist Party were FBI infiltrators !!

Just as the case of "communists" in the 50's, modern day "liberals" are created by the Brainwashing Machine as a distraction from Real Problems.

People who are incapable of thinking believe in these ghosts that go "bump" in the night.

.

If they don't exist, then how did so much 'color go out of our world' as Pixie accurately described it? Who is responsible for that? Why is there a rodeo cloud banned for life for doing something utterly tasteless and offensive when rodeo clowns and others have been doing that kind of thing for a generation without losing their jobs?

Why was Paula Deen ruined professionally for simply admitting that she used a word long ago that one demographic in our society now uses routinely to describe themselves?

Why was there an organized effort to ruin Chick fil purely because the CEO spoke publicly in favor of traditional marriage?

Why are people in NYC restricted in the size of soft drink they are allowed to buy?

Why is it okay to have to show postive ID to buy a gun, fly on an airplane, or cash a check but not okay to have to show positive ID to vote?

Why does a wind energy firm or solar panel manufacturer or ethanol plant get almost instant environmental clearance from the EPA, while anything less politically correct waits interminable months or years for the same clearance?

If you say there are no liberals, as liberals are described in modern day America, who is pushing the liberal agenda?

 

[numan]

If they don't exist, then how did so much 'color go out of our world' as Pixie accurately described it? Who is responsible for that? Why is there a rodeo cloud banned for life for doing something utterly tasteless and offensive when rodeo clowns and others have been doing that kind of thing for a generation without losing their jobs?

You should be blaming the people who own the Media, the Military-Industrial Conspiracy and the Federal Reserve.

.

 

[Foxfyre]

If they don't exist, then how did so much 'color go out of our world' as Pixie accurately described it? Who is responsible for that? Why is there a rodeo cloud banned for life for doing something utterly tasteless and offensive when rodeo clowns and others have been doing that kind of thing for a generation without losing their jobs?

You should be blaming the people who own the Media, the Military-Industrial Conspiracy and the Federal Reserve.

.

I blame the liberals in the media, the liberals in the military-industrial complex, and the liberals in the Federal Reseve. You give conservatives/classical liberals as they are defined in our modern ttimes, power to influence those things and a few other things, most especially a self-serving government, and the color would begin to return to our world.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Do you know what President Kennedy meant when he said "ask not..." or are you going to twist his words to serve YOUR agenda, and not his?

He meant "You didn't build that!"

Have you guys figured out that Obama was referring to public infrastructure and NOT the man's business when he made that comment, or are you still having fun sittin' and spinnin'?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50Okd7CsytE]sit n spin - YouTube[/ame]

I didn't think you were that simpleminded, but ya drank the KoolAid!

 

[Foxfyre]

Have you guys figured out that Obama was referring to public infrastructure and NOT the man's business when he made that comment, or are you still having fun sittin' and spinnin'?

sit n spin - YouTube

Have you figured out that his implication was that nobody can take credit for the business they built because somebody else built the infrastructure is just as offensive? Or his suggestion that we all haven't contributed to the building of the infrastructure? Or if there was no commerce and industry, built by the hard work, imagination, creativity, inspiration, and dedication of citizens willing to risk sometimes everything they have to do that, there would be no need for infrastructure?

That his intent was to diminish individual initative and accomplishment in favor of the collective?

And THAT is why liberalism, as it is defined in America today, is in such disfavor with those who still value the ideals and concepts the Founders wrote into the Constitution.

Can you please provide a link to a credible source where Obama defined that as 'his intent'?

Why is it conservatives think that support for the community at large MUST come at the expense of support for the individual?

Can you provide a link to a credible source in which he has EVER suggested that it was anything else? Has he EVER given private enterprise credit for anything that would have happened without government making it happen? His attitude, along with that of most modern day American liberals, is that government mostly preceded all human initiative and prosperity and that government gets credit for most of it and prosperity can't happen unless government makes it happen.

Conservatives think that support from the community must come via social contract--i.e. what the people who will pay for it decide--for the general welfare and not for the support of a privileged few whether those few be rich or poor. Whenever the federal government is given power to confiscate property of one citizen for the benefit of another, it has power to do anything it wants to anybody and there is no freedom.

 

[Pogo]

Progressive and Liberals have think tanks too. I don't trust a Conservative group to give a real good representation of Liberal and Progressive thinking as was made clear in Intense's post. I doubt too many Conservatives would want Think Progress to tell folks how they think and what they stand for.

In these polls where people are asked to define themselves, many don't want to pigenhole themselves into a category and will say they are moderate. Also, many Liberals don't use the word Liberal to define themselves. And many Conservatives don't use the term Conservative to define themselves. Did they ask how many consider themselves Libertarian or Progressive?

Liberals, as denounced by the haters on this thread, simply don't exist -- not in any significant numbers, anyway.

They are phantoms of the propaganda machine of mass media brainwashing and social conditioning -- just as home-grown "communists" were in the 1950's.

Probably most of the members of the American Communist Party were FBI infiltrators !!

Just as the case of "communists" in the 50's, modern day "liberals" are created by the Brainwashing Machine as a distraction from Real Problems.

People who are incapable of thinking believe in these ghosts that go "bump" in the night.

.

If they don't exist, then how did so much 'color go out of our world' as Pixie accurately described it? Who is responsible for that? Why is there a rodeo cloud banned for life for doing something utterly tasteless and offensive when rodeo clowns and others have been doing that kind of thing for a generation without losing their jobs?

Why was Paula Deen ruined professionally for simply admitting that she used a word long ago that one demographic in our society now uses routinely to describe themselves?

Why was there an organized effort to ruin Chick fil purely because the CEO spoke publicly in favor of traditional marriage?

Why are people in NYC restricted in the size of soft drink they are allowed to buy?

Why is it okay to have to show postive ID to buy a gun, fly on an airplane, or cash a check but not okay to have to show positive ID to vote?

Why does a wind energy firm or solar panel manufacturer or ethanol plant get almost instant environmental clearance from the EPA, while anything less politically correct waits interminable months or years for the same clearance?

If you say there are no liberals, as liberals are described in modern day America, who is pushing the liberal agenda?

What Pixie described (and Intense too) has nothing to do with Liberalism, which doesn't seek to "control" anything. What you have listed above here doesn't either-- it's a mishmash of mostly social mores and a couple of leftist ideas on the side, but none of it is Liberalism.

The "liberal agenda" as far as I can see is an illusory Emmanuel Goldstein device. I'm not part of it so I can't speak for it but I see it as a strawman set up to, again, cloud the whole issue and lump basically liberals and leftists together as if they're the same thing, for the purpose of demonizing and then eliminating them so that the side creating that illusion can walk away with a political monopoly.

Somebody -- not you Foxy, but some demagogue in the past (and I'm looking at you Joe McCarthy), created this illusory device as a political wedge for their own political self-interest, and it's been a rhetorical sinkhole ever since. It's still used today as a crutch by internet wags, media talking heads, politicians and other demagogues to pave over and hopelessly oversimplify their chosen enemy into "liberals", "the left", "Democrats" and "all that is evil", as if they're all the same thing. And when you buy into that bullshit device, whether knowingly or not, you close all discourse, the wedge goes up, and nobody sees a thing on the other side of the wedge. You have two sides, permanently at war. We erroneously call them "liberal" and "conservative" rather than "Oceania" and "Eastasia".

Unfortunately for that facile device, it's not what "Liberalism" means, and we dig ourselves into a hole misusing the terms. True Liberalism, which is what founded this country, comes under attack from both the left and the right. Liberalism is not leftism.

Consider a truly wholly Liberal concept from the Preamble to our Constitution:

"...All men are created equal".​

That's as Liberal a concept as there is. It overturned and stood against (and still stands against) the stratified society that preceded it, a caste system of aristocrats, clergy and commoners. If you were born a commoner, that's where you stayed and you weren't moving up. If you were born into the aristocracy, you were already there.

"All men are created equal" destroys that system and declares that any child can grow up to be President or start his/her own business, regardless of birth. It's the philosophy that directly opposes discrimination based on race or gender or religion. It's a revolutionary thought in its time, because it overturned those lines of social demarcation that were, before this, very real.

By this definition of the Liberals who founded us, we're all Liberals, you and me included. Unless we believe in that caste system, or believe in racism, we're all "Liberals".

But Liberalism also means the government stays out of the way and lets people do their thing as much as possible. That's why our Constitution uses language like "Congress shall make no law restricting..." and spells out rights that "shall not be infringed"--- setting out limitations on government rather than limitations on the People. The People will have free exercise of the rights spelled out, and the Constitution ensures that new laws cannot restrict those. At least it's supposed to.

So "all men are created equal" is a Liberal concept... then we get something like Affirmative Action. AA is not a Liberal concept; it's a leftist concept. To the extent that it uses government to create a Liberal goal, it's actually an anti-liberal concept. It's taking a Liberal end and using government as the means to make it happen. Laws from the right against sodomy or gay marriage or use of inebriants are not Liberal either. Again, an attempt to control and shape society through legislation. Again, anti-liberal.

Thus both left and right are at odds with the Liberal approach, which is to let the citizenry take care of itself -- within the boundaries of what government needs to restrict, such as public safety, fraud and such.

If we continue to pretend these concepts are something other than what they are, just to accommodate Joe McCarthy, we go where Joe McCarthy took us: nowhere. Gadflies like the radio/TV talking heads and pandering politicians will take us down this dank rhetorical road to nowhere just for cheap votes and audience ratings. But what we end up with has to do with solutions; instead we get an artificial wall with two sides shouting at each other and the wall just reinforces itself, because conflict makes it stronger. What's really needed is a balance of left and right.

The first step is listening. Declaring "you _____s are all about X, Y and Z" isn't listening. Nor is hanging labels. All that does is dehumanize and strengthen the wall, and the morass perpetuates itself.

OK I'm done, got things to do.

 

[thanatos144]

the true face of democrat liberals

Racism .... It is what created the democrat liberal party it is what sustains it.

 

[Bfgrn]

At least conservatives HAVE think tanks. And Heritage uses damn good researchers, economists, and historians with impressive credentials. I have challenged my liberal friends many times to show HOW the Heritage Foundation got something wrong. So far crickets.

I won't lie about the excellent sources I use to support my opinions whether they be conservative (Heritage Foundation), libertarian (CATO), or liberal (Brookings Institute) and et al. In order to pass my test as a credible source, the information provided has to hold up under scrutiny and has to be untainted by partisanship.

I do avoid using sources that exist for the purpose of exposing or challenging the opposing ideology whether those be left or right leaning. The Heritage Foundation is not in that business.

Both Heritage and CATO are as equally tough on bad Republican initiatives as they are bad Democratic initiatives, and flawed concepts promoted as 'conservative' as they are on failed liberal initiatives. And both are brutally honest in their conclusions. I use Brookings (and other sources) for the credfible liberal argument because Brookings and some others (Raspbery, Camille Paglia, Michael Kinsley, et al) have stood up under scrutiny as being among the most objective and honest left leaning groups or commentators out there.

I won't apologize for being a modern American conservative (aka classical liberal) with a point of view that I can defend or for using good sources only because they share my point of view. I think it foolish to dismiss an honest source because of the label somebody puts on it.

And again my opinion has been that liberals cannot and will not defend their point of view but rather their entire argument most often is pointing fingers at others that they declare to be evil, greedy, selfish, wrong, bad, worse, partisan (meaning not liberal), or they did it too, yadda yadda. And by dismissing any evidence to the contrary, they never have to challenge their own point of view.

It is one of the primary reasons that liberalism is in such disfavor among a plurality if not a majority of Americans.

From a 2009 Gallup poll--I'll watch for something more current:


"Conservatives" Are Single-Largest Ideological Group

The Heritage Foundation is funded by the biggest polluters on our planet who have caused the death and destruction of millions of human beings. And when right wing parrots like you chirp, there is always a puff of smoke.

I'll take one large Kool-Aid, and 3 small Kool-Aids to go, ..... no wait, make that 2-16 oz Kool-Aids, my left leaning friends can't be seen in public with anything larger than 16 oz. Ever get tired of slandering and obstructing the truth, and attacking the messengers, let us know. What would you do if that same standard was applied to you and your sources? Melt? Why is it that you see yourself so without fault or flaw, while your opposition cann get nothing right? It is amazing to watch.

“Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. Reagan was an ideological inflection point, ending a 50-year liberal ascendancy and beginning a 30-year conservative ascendancy."
Charles Krauthammer


That's because I have witnessed the dire changes in this nation sonny boy. I KNOW exactly what Charles Krauthammer is talking about. I KNOW who is at fault, and I know why. You are among the totally clueless right wing parrots who believe the monied interests behind the Heritage Foundation are just a bunch of benign people who never use their power for their benefit, and to the detriment of We, the People. We have become an oligarchy and I totally understand why millionaires would support the Heritage Foundation. What I will never understand is why parrots like you support it.

It can only be because you are just a subservient sucker.

Our founding fathers were not libertarians, they were liberals who would have shut down corporate propaganda tools like Heritage.

The selfish spirit of commerce knows no country, and feels no passion or principle but that of gain.
Thomas Jefferson - Letter to Larkin Smith (1809)

 

[Pogo]

the true face of democrat liberals

Racism .... It is what created the democrat liberal party it is what sustains it.

Sure didn't take long for some wag to demonstrate exactly what I was talking about.
... seventeen minutes, the very next post.

Ignorance is bliss.

 

[AVG-JOE]

I don't "hate" liberals. But I do think they are to blame for the color going out of our world.

They want everyone to be their version of equal.

What they lack to realize is that they are forcing the world to become bland and tasteless

They want 2 things. Control over us, and credit when something actually works out, and to blame us for everyone of their failed policies, .... okay, you got me, 3 things.

With all due respect, how the fuck do you know what I want?