Why do people hate Liberals?

[Bfgrn]

Here is a conservative's opinion, and some facts about one of your beloved right wing think tanks...

David Frum and the Closing of the Conservative Mind

by Bruce Bartlett

As some readers of this blog may know, I was fired by a right wing think tank called the National Center for Policy Analysis in 2005 for writing a book critical of George W. Bush's policies, especially his support for Medicare Part D. In the years since, I have lost a great many friends and been shunned by conservative society in Washington, DC.

Now the same thing has happened to David Frum, who has been fired by the American Enterprise Institute. I don't know all the details, but I presume that his Waterloo post on Sunday condemning Republicans for failing to work with Democrats on healthcare reform was the final straw.

Since, he is no longer affiliated with AEI, I feel free to say publicly something he told me in private a few months ago. He asked if I had noticed any comments by AEI "scholars" on the subject of health care reform. I said no and he said that was because they had been ordered not to speak to the media because they agreed with too much of what Obama was trying to do.

It saddened me to hear this. I have always hoped that my experience was unique. But now I see that I was just the first to suffer from a closing of the conservative mind. Rigid conformity is being enforced, no dissent is allowed, and the conservative brain will slowly shrivel into dementia if it hasn't already.

Sadly, there is no place for David and me to go. The donor community is only interested in financing organizations that parrot the party line, such as the one recently established by McCain economic adviser Doug Holtz-Eakin.

I will have more to say on this topic later. But I wanted to say that this is a black day for what passes for a conservative movement, scholarship, and the once-respected AEI.

oh god not this again...

It's just another case of 'broad and open minded liberals' cutting and pasting an opinion by somebody rather than doing any digging to fnd out whether the opinion--most especially such a self-serving one--is true. While it is true that Bartlett was fired, it was NOT true that it was because he wrote a book critical of President Bush--that is of course the liberal line that many gleefully swallow hook, line, and sinker, without question.

The reason was that he accepted six figures to write a policy analysis - which is what the Center for Policy Analysis does - and instead he wrote a political expose'--something the Center for Policy Analysis does not do--on company time. And refused to fix it when he was called on it. Had he analyzed the effectiveness or lack thereof of the various Bush initiatives there would have been no problem. But he instead attacked Pesident Bush personally. NCPA doesn't do that. Had Bartlett done it to Obama, the response would have been the same.

David Frum and AEI parted company for much of the same reason. Instead of developing a policy analysis of HOW the different sides could work together effecively on healthcare reform, he attacked Reublicans. The AEI does not do that. Had Frum attacked the Democrats in the same way, the results would have been the same.

It is the difference between arguing, defending, or competently criticizing a concept--the purpose of research, debate, and analysis--is served by accusing, blaming, and/or condemning somebody. Frum too often does the latter and not nearly as much of the former.

And coincidentally it is why there is rarely a productive discussion on any issue when conservatives or liberals attack groups and people personally, and will not look at an issue objectively and separate from personalities or political groups involved.

Digging? Then where are your LINKS???? PROVE your claims and show us the lying source you are using.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Thank you. That's what I keep saying.

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.

.... like you just did there. QED.

 

[BDBoop]

If they truly do hate liberals, aka people they don't even know, and couldn't pick out of a line-up, I'm guessing they are mentally ill.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

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

Thank you. That's what I keep saying.

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.

.... like you just did there. QED.

The problem, of course, is what conservatives perceive as ‘class warfare,’ isn’t.

 

[Bfgrn]

You twisted jfk's speech not me, oh yeah that salunsky crap don't work on me...

Oh, I see, a typical conservative troll, infested with FEAR.

Go run home to mommy and hide under the bed...

Typical progressive/liberal response from a cocksucking plagiarizer that's got nothing...

By the way liberals will be hiding under the bed when the time comes...

Irony...your screen name is "American_Jihad"...

But WHO are the American Jihadists?

Insurgency

Friday, February 6, 2009

Texas Republican Congressman Pete Sessions compares GOP strategy to Taliban insurgency

"Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban, and that is that they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person's entire processes. And these Taliban -- I'm not trying to say the Republican Party is the Taliban. No, that's not what we're saying. I'm saying an example of how you go about [sic] is to change a person from their messaging to their operations to their frontline message. And we need to understand that insurgency may be required when the other side, the House leadership, does not follow the same commands, which we entered the game with."

Congressman Pete Sessions Compares House Republicans To Taliban | Capitol Annex

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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, ...

Yeah, that's a problem with a thread like this. Most of us are not nearly as partisan as we can start sounding 162 pages in to a stupid "defend your base ideology" thread.

This is the kind of 'Liberal' I fancy myself: http://www.usmessageboard.com/educa...th-conservatism-america-was-born-liberal.html
It's the 'liberal' thinking of the era that impresses me.

My title is a bit abrasive... my only excuse: American politics of the first two decades of the 21st Century.

I'm a simple man. Politically I'd like to vote for fair and simple taxes, public budgets that are balanced by law, and to be left alone.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrO4_nyamZs]The Who - The Seeker - YouTube[/ame]

I would prefer sound, responsible, pragmatic governance practiced in good faith and predicated on facts and evidence as opposed to subjective partisan dogma, left or right.

That Americans so aggressively disdain pragmatism is indeed our great failing.

 

[JimBowie1958]

If they truly do hate liberals, aka people they don't even know, and couldn't pick out of a line-up, I'm guessing they are mentally ill.

It is enough that a person would willingly refer to themselves as liberals in the current use of the word.

It doesn't really matter if someone is truthful and accurate when they call themselves some vile word or phrase, like a 'cannibal' for instance.

The conversation maybe lively but you are a fool to sleep over.

 

[dblack]

I would prefer sound, responsible, pragmatic governance practiced in good faith and predicated on facts and evidence as opposed to subjective partisan dogma, left or right.

That Americans so aggressively disdain pragmatism is indeed our great failing.

Americans distrust self-proclaimed 'pragmatists' because they don't like a con. 'Pragmatism' pretends to transcend ideology, but it doesn't. It merely hides it.

Until we decide where we want to go (the point of ideology) the pragmatic details of how to get there are moot.

 

[Foxfyre]

I would prefer sound, responsible, pragmatic governance practiced in good faith and predicated on facts and evidence as opposed to subjective partisan dogma, left or right.

That Americans so aggressively disdain pragmatism is indeed our great failing.

Americans distrust self-proclaimed 'pragmatists' because they don't like a con. 'Pragmatism' pretends to transcend ideology, but it doesn't. It merely hides it.

Until we decide where we want to go (the point of ideology) the pragmatic details of how to get there are moot.

Interesting comment. You really made me think. And of course you are right.

Again, I reject the wording of the OP that expresses a fallacious concept. I don't think any of us hate liberals. Most of us are quite fond of many liberals, though admittedly some do make it really difficult to like or respect them. I wish the question posed was "Why do people hate liberalism?"

Those of us who call ourselves modern conservatives/classical liberals/libertarians do hate is the consequences of liberalism that we see as destructive to individuals, groups, our liberties, and our culture. Liberals and authoritarians by any name are not content to fight for the right to live as they choose. They wish to force us to live, think, speak, etc. as they deem righteous. Look at how many chirped criticism of even WANTING to live in a Mayberry USA. How many thought that shouldn't even be allowed anymore.

That is exactly the kind of thing the Founder intended to free us from. And THAT is why we hate liberalism because it would again give government the power to dictate to us what liberties we shall have and can take them away as easily as it grants them.

The goal should always be to restore the principle, the idea, the brilliant concept that the Founders wrote into the Constitution. With that as our guide, then everything else would fall into its rightful place.

So you are right dblack. If we don't know what our goal is, all we do to improve things will just be rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Yeah, that's a problem with a thread like this. Most of us are not nearly as partisan as we can start sounding 162 pages in to a stupid "defend your base ideology" thread.

This is the kind of 'Liberal' I fancy myself: http://www.usmessageboard.com/educa...th-conservatism-america-was-born-liberal.html
It's the 'liberal' thinking of the era that impresses me.

My title is a bit abrasive... my only excuse: American politics of the first two decades of the 21st Century.

I'm a simple man. Politically I'd like to vote for fair and simple taxes, public budgets that are balanced by law, and to be left alone.

I think the problem you have is that too often, ideology gets tied to party.

While I don't believe it is possible to be a liberal and support the shameful democratic party, that does not mean I support the Republican party.

A political philosophy is important to a well balanced person. But values and convictions have no place in the DNC, with the GOP only slightly better. The authoritarian leftists in charge of the democrats are openly hostile to the very concept of integrity, expecting obedience to party rather than dedication to philosophy or values.

As a liberal, I hold fast to a set of values - advocacy of liberty, particularly freedom of speech and thought, followed by economic liberty - which can only be secured through Laissez Faire Capitalism. It is not possible to be a liberal, and not promote liberty. The leftists, who seek economic slavery to the all powerful state, are the antithesis of what it is to be a liberal.

 

[numan]

If we don't know what our goal is, all we do to improve things will just be rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

I have news for you, Foxy. Our 21st century world has already hit the iceberg.

It really doesn't matter what what your goals are. No one now can do anything but rearrange deckchairs on the Titanic. The moronic, clueless human race has blown it.

.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Uhh.... really Pothead?

(for those of you who haven't seen the act, this is the part where I challenge Unsensical to "back that shit up" and having nothing, he tucks tail and slinks away. So I guess I'm up... )

Ahem-- Go ahead, quote me where I've espoused curtailment of these liberties. Watcha got?



As always.... cue crickets.

I admit I don't know why he keeps digging himself into these holes. He's like a dog.

Quick Pogo, say something "liberal."

I realize that you think your little "prove water is wet" routine is really clever; but the reality is that it's infantile.

My view of you is that you are purely a leftist, opposed to economic freedom, favoring restrictions on speech, curtailment of 2nd amendment rights, eradication of 9th amendment protections, essentially a typical democrat.

IF you want to convince others that you are anything but a clone of TM or Rdean, then the onus is on you to do so - as always.

 

[Foxfyre]

If we don't know what our goal is, all we do to improve things will just be rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

I have news for you, Foxy. Our 21st century world has already hit the iceberg.

It really doesn't matter what what your goals are. No one now can do anything but rearrange deckchairs on the Titanic. The moronic, clueless human race has blown it.

.

While I sympathise with the sentiment, I can't believe that Numan.

I constantly taught my children, sometimes chide my husband, sometimes give a Dutch Uncle lecture to myself, to focus energy and effort on solving a problem rather than wringing hands and/or getting mad because we have one.

I am a person of faith, so my philosophy is that the Lord never allows a poison without giving us the ability to find and implement an anecdote for it. But for those who are not spiritually inclined, the lesson is the same. We can of course damage, destroy, and ruin indiviuals or even whole groups of people. But as a society, we have changed our thinking, our values, our beliefs into something much better time and time again. And we can do so now.

Native Americans no longer send their old out to die of cold and starvation. They now have a different view of life and individual worth.

We no longer have the Crusades or Inquisition and most of the world no longer condones slavery or indentured servitude or many other concepts once viewed as the norm. There was much to admire in the culture and inspiration of the best of the Roman Empire, but there was also unconscionable cruelty and bloody wars and pure evil. You have to look long and hard now to find a Nazi who thinks gassing millions of Jews is okay. Think of the grandeur and nobility of ancient Egypt--also magnificent greatness mixed with evil--and look at the turmoil and chaos that exists there now. That too can pass.

Yes we Americans and Europeans have made something of a mess of things but we didn't get here over night. It was a process of drip drip drip over decades. We won't fix it over night either--it will have to be reversed slowly and carefully to avoid creating even worse chaos. But I don't believe it can't be done. And if the large majority of us agree on the goal we want to achieve, we can do it.

But returning to your comment, I do believe time is running out, and this is the last generation who will have the ability to begin restoring the concept of Ameica short of another bloody revolution.

 

[Uncensored2008]

If they truly do hate liberals, aka people they don't even know, and couldn't pick out of a line-up, I'm guessing they are mentally ill.

What people are expressing, is that leftists constitute a clear and present danger to their way of life.

The sharp turn left of the democrats with the open hostility toward individual liberty and basic concepts of privacy, evoke strong emotions in many people. The campaign to mislabel the philosophy involved has been largely successful, so despite the fact that democrats have nothing to do with liberal, people equate the two.

When people say that they hate liberals, they mean they hate the authoritarian concentration of centralized power in the hands of Washington oligarchs who are crushing the life out of the nation with an iron boot to our neck.

And yes, I do mean Obama.

 

[Foxfyre]

If they truly do hate liberals, aka people they don't even know, and couldn't pick out of a line-up, I'm guessing they are mentally ill.

What people are expressing, is that leftists constitute a clear and present danger to their way of life.

The sharp turn left of the democrats with the open hostility toward individual liberty and basic concepts of privacy, evoke strong emotions in many people. The campaign to mislabel the philosophy involved has been largely successful, so despite the fact that democrats have nothing to do with liberal, people equate the two.

When people say that they hate liberals, they mean they hate the authoritarian concentration of centralized power in the hands of Washington oligarchs who are crushing the life out of the nation with an iron boot to our neck.

And yes, I do mean Obama.

And yet I don't think many, if any, of us conservatives/classical liberals/libertarians hate Obama, the person. We hate what he represents. We hate that he is unchallenged, even defended, by so many that have been brainwashed or enslaved by an ideology. We hate that those to whom he belongs are allowed to get away with what we once would consider to be evil.

 

[Uncensored2008]

And yet I don't think many, if any, of us conservatives/classical liberals/libertarians hate Obama, the person. We hate what he represents. We hate that he is unchallenged, even defended, by so many that have been brainwashed or enslaved by an ideology. We hate that those to whom he belongs are allowed to get away with what we once would consider to be evil.

It's a tough question.

To be sure, it is the establishment of a central, authoritarian state that I oppose. But Obama is the figurehead associated with the eradication of Constitutional liberty, replaced by the rapidly expanding police state.

This hardly endears the man to me.

And I fully realize that 9/11 was the moment that we veered into a police state, that Bush holds much of the blame. Even so, Obama has accelerated to demise of civil rights to a level not dreamed about under Bush.

Perhaps I'm just surely today because Gestapo agents accosted me on the train, demanded papers and searching my bag - but then, 20 years ago, such was the stuff of films about life under the Third Reich, not the every day reality of America.

I do not love Big Brother - queue the rats...

 

[Foxfyre]

And yet I don't think many, if any, of us conservatives/classical liberals/libertarians hate Obama, the person. We hate what he represents. We hate that he is unchallenged, even defended, by so many that have been brainwashed or enslaved by an ideology. We hate that those to whom he belongs are allowed to get away with what we once would consider to be evil.

It's a tough question.

To be sure, it is the establishment of a central, authoritarian state that I oppose. But Obama is the figurehead associated with the eradication of Constitutional liberty, replaced by the rapidly expanding police state.

This hardly endears the man to me.

And I fully realize that 9/11 was the moment that we veered into a police state, that Bush holds much of the blame. Even so, Obama has accelerated to demise of civil rights to a level not dreamed about under Bush.

Perhaps I'm just surely today because Gestapo agents accosted me on the train, demanded papers and searching my bag - but then, 20 years ago, such was the stuff of films about life under the Third Reich, not the every day reality of America.

I do not love Big Brother - queue the rats...

Well that would probably make a lot of us a bit surly for sure. I don't like the concept that I can be practically strip searched at the airport even though I fit the profile of absolutely no terrorists ever known to humankind. And while I really don't want to share planes and trains and public buildings with suicide bombers, I resent the fact that political correctness does not allow authorities to focus on those who behave suspciously or fit the profile of those who would commit mayhem.

Liberty means that all have the same rights. It is a different thing than inflicting consequences on everybody to avoid offending or irritating or hurting the feelings of a few.

 

[Pogo]

Uhh.... really Pothead?

(for those of you who haven't seen the act, this is the part where I challenge Unsensical to "back that shit up" and having nothing, he tucks tail and slinks away. So I guess I'm up... )

Ahem-- Go ahead, quote me where I've espoused curtailment of these liberties. Watcha got?



As always.... cue crickets.

I admit I don't know why he keeps digging himself into these holes. He's like a dog.

Quick Pogo, say something "liberal."

I realize that you think your little "prove water is wet" routine is really clever; but the reality is that it's infantile.

My view of you is that you are purely a leftist, opposed to economic freedom, favoring restrictions on speech, curtailment of 2nd amendment rights, eradication of 9th amendment protections, essentially a typical democrat.

IF you want to convince others that you are anything but a clone of TM or Rdean, then the onus is on you to do so - as always.

The onus is on ME to prove YOUR theory because you forgot to justify it.
Yet another what they call "epic fail" from the Master of Ipse Dixit. No link, no quote, no evidence no nuttin'.

Good to know there are some things we can always count on.

You're a joke.

 

[numan]

Quick Pogo, say something "liberal."

I'm quite willing to say something "liberal."

I think all children should receive access to education and opportunities for advancement equal to those available to the children of inherited wealth.

Everyone should be encouraged and given the opportunity to lead as worthwhile a life as possible.

Is a "conservative" going to disagree?
.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The onus is on ME to prove YOUR theory because you forgot to justify it.

My OPINION is based on your posts.

You claim, it is a misinterpretation of the real Pogo. So yes, the onus is upon you to prove your contention.

Yet another what they call "epic fail" from the Master of Ipse Dixit. No link, no quote, no evidence no nuttin'.

Good to know there are some things we can always count on.

You're a joke.

LOL

So, you think that excessive use of smilies makes up for your utter lack of content?