Why do people hate Liberals?

[Pogo]

Communities with synagogues, mosques, and same-sex couples expressing the liberal values of diversity and inclusiveness are just as capable of achieving those goals,

Who told you those were exclusively "liberal values"? And what makes you think that "Communities with synagogues, mosques, and same-sex couples" can't be as conservative as any other?

Of course they're "Liberal" values in the political sense. It goes back to the Liberal tenet of "all men are created equal", which, again, proffered the idea of classless society as opposed to a caste system of aristocracy versus commoners. And again, in that sense, being what this country is founded on, we are all Liberals.

There may be a danger in tossing the word "liberal" around as a social value, as opposed to so-called "conservative" social values, in the endless quest to polarize the populace into a dichotomy of two camps permanently at war. That is IMHO another fallout of these misleading attempts to redefine the word "Liberal" into something it isn't.

 

[Uncensored2008]

: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.

Pogo, we've been through this.

There is nothing even remotely "liberal" about you. You espouse positions in this forum that consistently seek to curtail individual liberty, particularly in regard to 1st and 2nd amendment liberty. You constantly promote the authoritarian left, defending petty despots like Obama and Holder in virtually every case.

You are a leftist Pogo, not a liberal.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Why do people hate Liberals?

Because we're so awesome.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Why do people hate Liberals?

People don't hate liberals. Those that hate liberals are not people. They are zombies. They are the walking dead. They are those that hate America. Our founding fathers were liberals by thier own definition. The haters in our country are no different than the "good Germans" that rose thier arms and saluted Hitler. No different at all. We suffer these zombie fools at a great cost.

Of course. Rev. Jim - oh how you dream of forced labor camps to put these miscreants in, until they are reeducated in the truth and light of Obamunism...

 

[Uncensored2008]

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

They are a Conservative think tank.

A<>B

Heritage is an excellent source of information - particularly in regard to leftists/progressives.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.

The problem is that what is passed off as "liberal" opinion is in fact, leftist/progressive opinion.

The fact that the left will not honestly present themselves as what they are, is indicative that the message is not nearly as valid as you claim.

 

[Unkotare]

Communities with synagogues, mosques, and same-sex couples expressing the liberal values of diversity and inclusiveness are just as capable of achieving those goals,

Who told you those were exclusively "liberal values"? And what makes you think that "Communities with synagogues, mosques, and same-sex couples" can't be as conservative as any other?

Of course they're "Liberal" values in the political sense.

Only in the "political sense" that certain people misuse the terms for political purposes.

 

[Unkotare]

It goes back to the Liberal tenet of "all men are created equal", which, again, proffered the idea of classless society as opposed to a caste system of aristocracy versus commoners.

And yet "liberals" constantly attempt to fabricate false "class warfare" for cynical political purposes.

 

[RKMBrown]

We're going to have to agree to disagree on that, Foxfyre. With the exception of Clinton signing it for compromise, and a couple of conservative blue-dogs on the left voting for it, DOMA belongs to the Republicans and the Republicans are the party of the conservatives.

Extremist Conservatives are just as interested in pushing their agenda from the top down as extremist Progressives.

The problem is extremism, exclusion and intolerance. I so look forward to the day when reasonable Conservatives are as incensed by the extremism and intolerance in their own party as they are by the intolerant whackos on the left.

You are FOS. Anti-Gay is the hate and fear felt by the anti-gay crowd. Just because the democrats switch their view on gays every year does not give them the credit for being pro-gay. That the is dumbest opinion I've ever read on this board. Most conservatives did not like Romney. Romney was anti-gay rights... Hated him for that and many other reasons. Romney was a progressive liberal posing as a republican. I'm a constitutional conservative christian heterosexual and did not vote for Romney. Pull my finger jerk.

And right on schedule... Cue the intolerant conservative red-neck.

​

Let me get this straight. Me being tolerant of gays makes me an intolerant conservative red-neck. This because I'm intolerant of your intolerance for gays... I see. ROFL you must be a liberal your logic is flawless.

 

[RKMBrown]

And in the end, what I see to is [that] there doesn’t seem to be acceptance, hell, even recognition of or there exists genuine, intellectual or heartfelt, moral or ethical objection(s) , that doesn’t get labeled as ‘hateful’. Simple examples, if you are for Obamacare you’re a statist Obamabot, if your opposed to gay marriage, you’re a homophobe.

Even simpler example, if you are opposed to letting blacks marry whites, sit anywhere they want on the bus, drink out of the white water fountains, etc. you're a racist.

I don't think I would consider Obamabot a hateful label. I think one of the issues is that some people were brought up and/or live in an area where certain language is the norm, and others not so much. For example, I've known some New Yorkers that curse like a sailor, and don't mean anything bad by it.

FYI I used to be in your camp, of opposing gay marriage, I used to think and argue that they should be happy with civil unions. As with the racist views that I learned as a kid, and then overcame, I have also overcome my homophobic views.

 

[HUGGY]

Why do people hate Liberals?

People don't hate liberals. Those that hate liberals are not people. They are zombies. They are the walking dead. They are those that hate America. Our founding fathers were liberals by thier own definition. The haters in our country are no different than the "good Germans" that rose thier arms and saluted Hitler. No different at all. We suffer these zombie fools at a great cost.

Of course. Rev. Jim - oh how you dream of forced labor camps to put these miscreants in, until they are reeducated in the truth and light of Obamunism...

You think about Obama a hell of a lot more than I do. You and those like you are still so butt hurt that a negro occupies the white house that you are still willing and eager to destroy America stuck in your snit fit if it has any chance of anyone believing everything and anything negative that occurs is the direct result and fault of the sitting African American non citizen muslim president.

The people in government that you adore and assign no responsibility to do thier jobs have a lot more to do with what happens in this country.

It must be nice being you that you have a ready made whipping boy to blame for all of your concerns with our so called leaders.

Piss on you and your heros. I could name a dozen elected representatives that need die of a virulent and speedy form of aides before I would be concerned with the president's performance.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You think about Obama a hell of a lot more than I do. You and those like you are still so butt hurt that a negro occupies the white house that you are still willing and eager to destroy America stuck in your snit fit if it has any chance of anyone believing everything and anything negative that occurs is the direct result and fault of the sitting African American non citizen muslim president.

Oh yes, we would be all into creation of a fascist medical system, the spying on the American people, open corruption in the DOJ, selling guns to Mexican drug lords, lying about Benghazi - if only Obama were white....

ROFL

Rev. Jim, how much dope HAVE you smoked this morning?

The people in government that you adore and assign no responsibility to do thier jobs have a lot more to do with what happens in this country.

Are you hallucinating?

It must be nice being you that you have a ready made whipping boy to blame for all of your concerns with our so called leaders.

Piss on you and your heros. I could name a dozen elected representatives that need die of a virulent and speedy form of aides before I would be concerned with the president's performance.

Who are my heroes, Rev. Jim? And no doubt you would happily kill every man, woman, and child in the nation to please your little tin god... The difference between Obamabots and the Khmer Rouge is non-existent.

 

[Foxfyre]

what I see in this thread , appears to me at least to be the ole my shit don't stank syndrome and the lost art of separation&#8230;..

Now, someone&#8217;s opinion is not wrong in that an OPINION. It seems that when you are argue a viewpoint you are arguing for your opinion, as in ideology and using what facts you may want to employ buttressing why you think your view is, not so much superior but, more valid in that debate(?).

Facts that are made or refuted don&#8217;t seem to really mean much on the net, if someone bases an argument on what appears to be a false fact, ideology seems to take over&#8230;..if that persons ideology is stronger then their ability to parse a fact and/or honesty, to say yea, &#8220; you&#8217;re right there&#8221; , separation is lost, the debate becomes; &#8220; you&#8217;re a lib or con DB and since libs/cons are ___________anyway, you&#8217;re wrong&#8221;.

That dovetails into the; &#8216;my crap don&#8217;t stank &#8216; side of the debate where in folks post examples of libs or cons making remarks that are hurtful, pejorative etc. a sign held at a rally becomes the mouthpiece of the entire group&#8230;..where really, examples of dopes with signage from the &#8216;other side&#8217; exist but when posted too, are now, all of a sudden not representative of that group, its only YOUR group that gets characterized by same. It cannot be both.

And in the end, what I see to is [that] there doesn&#8217;t seem to be acceptance, hell, even recognition of or there exists genuine, intellectual or heartfelt, moral or ethical objection(s) , that doesn&#8217;t get labeled as &#8216;hateful&#8217;. Simple examples, if you are for Obamacare you&#8217;re a statist Obamabot, if your opposed to gay marriage, you&#8217;re a homophobe.

It's worse than that Traj.

Just on the issue of gay rights alone:

In a recent prior argument on this thread, I expressed my conviction that people who want a Mayberry USA should be able to have that. But that was immediately translated as somehow favoring DOMA and therefore was homophobic or extremist.

If I say that a modern conservative/classical liberal sees value in traditional marriage, that will immediately be translated as anti-gay marriage and/or homophobic and/or hateful.

If I point out that the presence of mostly traditional families, churches, and conservative concepts will more often than not produce a more stable, more safe, neighborhood, increased prosperity, and higher achievements in education, that will also be labeled as anti-gay, homophobic, hateful, extremist.

From the more entrenched, more radical modern Left, there is no tolerance for any view other than the politically correct one of the current week, month, or year. Which is one reason that modern American liberalism is often seen in such a negative light.

And how exactly are conservatives going to achieve their &#8216;Mayberry USA&#8217;?

The only logical extrapolation is that there will be laws and policies in place designed to disadvantage those who don&#8217;t &#8216;conform,&#8217; in clear violation of 14th Amendment jurisprudence.

It&#8217;s also a fallacy that only a &#8216;conservative community&#8217; of traditional families, churches, and conservative concepts will more often than not produce a more stable, more safe, neighborhood, increased prosperity, and higher achievements in education.

Communities with synagogues, mosques, and same-sex couples expressing the liberal values of diversity and inclusiveness are just as capable of achieving those goals, if not more so &#8211; indeed, America is always at its greatest and most successful when all are allowed to participate and contribute, not just those who adhere to &#8216;conservative concepts.&#8217;

This is not an argument for what community/society is worst, worse, better, or best. (Another concept that liberalism seems to infuse into the water so that liberals so often miss the point being made.) It is the argument for having the kind of lifestyle you want.

Just as some towns want to retain a certain aesthetic and restrict the architecture of the buildings that can be constructed, the height and type of signs that can be used, strict noise ordinances, etc. -

Just as the people of Carmel, California, passed an ordinace banning ice cream cones outside of commercial or public buildings--I kid you not--because people got tired of seeing the mess on the sidewalks -

Just as some towns pass rigid leash laws for ALL pets, even cats -

If a community wants a town of quiet streets with lots of speed bumps, lots of churches, no strip clubs, no saloons, no adult bookstores, no abortion mills, or otherwise a society structured to increase their pursuit of happiness and enjoyment of life, a community should be able to have that -

Just as a community that wants the abortion clinic, the bars and nightclubs, the strip clubs, the adult bookstores, and rowdy gay pride parades should be able to have that.

And any of us should be able to live in the place that would be most satisfying for our chosen lifestyle and contributes to our pursuit of happiness.

To the conservative/classical liberal/libertarian, this is such a simple concept of what liberty is and what the unalienable right to the pursuit of happiness is.

The liberal would say that the 'anything goes' town should be protected, but the Mayberry USA must be denied its right to exist? Or that if it does it is somehow evil? That would be a very twisted concept of what liberty is indeed.

 

[AVG-JOE]

You are FOS. Anti-Gay is the hate and fear felt by the anti-gay crowd. Just because the democrats switch their view on gays every year does not give them the credit for being pro-gay. That the is dumbest opinion I've ever read on this board. Most conservatives did not like Romney. Romney was anti-gay rights... Hated him for that and many other reasons. Romney was a progressive liberal posing as a republican. I'm a constitutional conservative christian heterosexual and did not vote for Romney. Pull my finger jerk.

And right on schedule... Cue the intolerant conservative red-neck.

​

Let me get this straight. Me being tolerant of gays makes me an intolerant conservative red-neck. This because I'm intolerant of your intolerance for gays... I see. ROFL you must be a liberal your logic is flawless.

Perhaps I had difficulty understanding the meaning in your post because it was so peppered with pointless personal insults.

If I have misread you, I apologize.

 

[AVG-JOE]

It's worse than that Traj.

Just on the issue of gay rights alone:

In a recent prior argument on this thread, I expressed my conviction that people who want a Mayberry USA should be able to have that. But that was immediately translated as somehow favoring DOMA and therefore was homophobic or extremist.

If I say that a modern conservative/classical liberal sees value in traditional marriage, that will immediately be translated as anti-gay marriage and/or homophobic and/or hateful.

If I point out that the presence of mostly traditional families, churches, and conservative concepts will more often than not produce a more stable, more safe, neighborhood, increased prosperity, and higher achievements in education, that will also be labeled as anti-gay, homophobic, hateful, extremist.

From the more entrenched, more radical modern Left, there is no tolerance for any view other than the politically correct one of the current week, month, or year. Which is one reason that modern American liberalism is often seen in such a negative light.

And how exactly are conservatives going to achieve their ‘Mayberry USA’?

The only logical extrapolation is that there will be laws and policies in place designed to disadvantage those who don’t ‘conform,’ in clear violation of 14th Amendment jurisprudence.

It’s also a fallacy that only a ‘conservative community’ of traditional families, churches, and conservative concepts will more often than not produce a more stable, more safe, neighborhood, increased prosperity, and higher achievements in education.

Communities with synagogues, mosques, and same-sex couples expressing the liberal values of diversity and inclusiveness are just as capable of achieving those goals, if not more so – indeed, America is always at its greatest and most successful when all are allowed to participate and contribute, not just those who adhere to ‘conservative concepts.’

This is not an argument for what community/society is worst, worse, better, or best. (Another concept that liberalism seems to infuse into the water so that liberals so often miss the point being made.) It is the argument for having the kind of lifestyle you want.

Just as some towns want to retain a certain aesthetic and restrict the architecture of the buildings that can be constructed, the height and type of signs that can be used, strict noise ordinances, etc. -

Just as the people of Carmel, California, passed an ordinace banning ice cream cones outside of commercial or public buildings--I kid you not--because people got tired of seeing the mess on the sidewalks -

Just as some towns pass rigid leash laws for ALL pets, even cats -

If a community wants a town of quiet streets with lots of speed bumps, lots of churches, no strip clubs, no saloons, no adult bookstores, no abortion mills, or otherwise a society structured to increase their pursuit of happiness and enjoyment of life, a community should be able to have that -

Just as a community that wants the abortion clinic, the bars and nightclubs, the strip clubs, the adult bookstores, and rowdy gay pride parades should be able to have that.

And any of us should be able to live in the place that would be most satisfying for our chosen lifestyle and contributes to our pursuit of happiness.

To the conservative/classical liberal/libertarian, this is such a simple concept of what liberty is and what the unalienable right to the pursuit of happiness is.

The liberal would say that the 'anything goes' town should be protected, but the Mayberry USA must be denied its right to exist? Or that if it does it is somehow evil? That would be a very twisted concept of what liberty is indeed.

Except that nothing you list can be used to discriminate. It becomes a problem when a group, even a majority group, tries to pass legislation that creates second-class citizens like DOMA did.

 

[RKMBrown]

And right on schedule... Cue the intolerant conservative red-neck.

​

Let me get this straight. Me being tolerant of gays makes me an intolerant conservative red-neck. This because I'm intolerant of your intolerance for gays... I see. ROFL you must be a liberal your logic is flawless.

Perhaps I had difficulty understanding the meaning in your post because it was so peppered with pointless personal insults.

If I have misread you, I apologize.

I may have been intentionally obtuse. This because I'm not convinced that every person of any party agrees with everything done by the party they tend to agree with most.

<-- Constitutional Conservative, and I don't support laws that discriminate based on race, gender, creed, religion, sexual preference, ...

 

[Trajan]

And how exactly are conservatives going to achieve their ‘Mayberry USA’?

The only logical extrapolation is that there will be laws and policies in place designed to disadvantage those who don’t ‘conform,’ in clear violation of 14th Amendment jurisprudence.

It’s also a fallacy that only a ‘conservative community’ of traditional families, churches, and conservative concepts will more often than not produce a more stable, more safe, neighborhood, increased prosperity, and higher achievements in education.

Communities with synagogues, mosques, and same-sex couples expressing the liberal values of diversity and inclusiveness are just as capable of achieving those goals, if not more so – indeed, America is always at its greatest and most successful when all are allowed to participate and contribute, not just those who adhere to ‘conservative concepts.’

This is not an argument for what community/society is worst, worse, better, or best. (Another concept that liberalism seems to infuse into the water so that liberals so often miss the point being made.) It is the argument for having the kind of lifestyle you want.

Just as some towns want to retain a certain aesthetic and restrict the architecture of the buildings that can be constructed, the height and type of signs that can be used, strict noise ordinances, etc. -

Just as the people of Carmel, California, passed an ordinace banning ice cream cones outside of commercial or public buildings--I kid you not--because people got tired of seeing the mess on the sidewalks -

Just as some towns pass rigid leash laws for ALL pets, even cats -

If a community wants a town of quiet streets with lots of speed bumps, lots of churches, no strip clubs, no saloons, no adult bookstores, no abortion mills, or otherwise a society structured to increase their pursuit of happiness and enjoyment of life, a community should be able to have that -

Just as a community that wants the abortion clinic, the bars and nightclubs, the strip clubs, the adult bookstores, and rowdy gay pride parades should be able to have that.

And any of us should be able to live in the place that would be most satisfying for our chosen lifestyle and contributes to our pursuit of happiness.

To the conservative/classical liberal/libertarian, this is such a simple concept of what liberty is and what the unalienable right to the pursuit of happiness is.

The liberal would say that the 'anything goes' town should be protected, but the Mayberry USA must be denied its right to exist? Or that if it does it is somehow evil? That would be a very twisted concept of what liberty is indeed.

Except that nothing you list can be used to discriminate. It becomes a problem when a group, even a majority group, tries to pass legislation that creates second-class citizens like DOMA did.

thats a matter of.....opinion

 

[Trajan]

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.

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.

uhmm where is BFGN? are you telling us we have to remain silent joe?

 

[koshergrl]

Communities with synagogues, mosques, and same-sex couples expressing the liberal values of diversity and inclusiveness are just as capable of achieving those goals,

Who told you those were exclusively "liberal values"? And what makes you think that "Communities with synagogues, mosques, and same-sex couples" can't be as conservative as any other?

Of course they're "Liberal" values in the political sense. It goes back to the Liberal tenet of "all men are created equal", which, again, proffered the idea of classless society as opposed to a caste system of aristocracy versus commoners. And again, in that sense, being what this country is founded on, we are all Liberals.

There may be a danger in tossing the word "liberal" around as a social value, as opposed to so-called "conservative" social values, in the endless quest to polarize the populace into a dichotomy of two camps permanently at war. That is IMHO another fallout of these misleading attempts to redefine the word "Liberal" into something it isn't.

Liberals don't believe all men are created equal. They spend a ridiculous amount of time, energy and money trying to penalize certain groups while advancing others, usually based on skin color, but sometimes based on sex, who their parents are, where they come from, or who they know. You guys are ALL about inequality. It's your defining characteristic. Nothing that today's liberals espouse has anything to do with the founding tenets of our country (which are, after all, Christian tenets).

 

[Trajan]

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

They are a Conservative think tank.

maybe, and Brookins...... Rand etc?

I always thought the best way of handle that kind of thing ( source wars) was to find 'facts' elsewhere to offer in dispute ...