Why do people hate Liberals?

I hate Liberals because they believe in their heart of hearts that they are correct, and I am abjectly wrong. And for that I have lost several friends over the years.

I dearly want to love them my friends, but if they choose to have absolutely no common ground with me...

well then, fuck 'em.
 
And yet another reason why I hate liberals.

No matter what it is, liberals believe that Obama can do no wrong nor say no wrong, because in their hearts and brain-washed minds, he is perfect or close to perfection.

:cuckoo::cuckoo::cuckoo:
 
It's actually what Wildcard thinks about Obama. Many conservatives have a big mancrush on the President. They can't admit to such a forbidden love openly, so they say what they feel by projecting it on to someone else.
 
Last edited:
There was a time when I thought you were a moderate conservative. But something has changed...drastically. I suspect you have been listening to right wing propaganda. Turn it off Immie. It is rotting your brain.

That was Westwall, not Immanuel.

Otherwise, spot on. The liberal-haters in general are kind of crazy and paranoid, seeing dark liberal enemies lurking behind every bush.
 
Bgfrn continues to demonstrate the kind of reading comprehension dysfunction that seems to plague those of his ideology. (I still think it must be something in the water they drink.)

I have not said modern conservatives are liberal. I have said what we usually label modern day conservatism is almost a mirror image of what was 18th and 19th century liberalism. But because modern day liberalism resembles 18th and 19th century liberalism not at all, I prefer to call it 'classical liberalism' or that liberalism embraced by the Founders. You know, the liberalism that modern day liberals now mostly reject and/or deem irrelevent or stupid or no longer applicable.

But I don't expect modern day liberals to be honest about that.

Here is a fairly good definition of classical liberalism:

Prior to the 20th century, classical liberalism was the dominant political philosophy in the United States. It was the political philosophy of Thomas Jefferson and the signers of the Declaration of Independence and it permeates the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers and many other documents produced by the people who created the American system of government. Many of the emancipationists who opposed slavery were essentially classical liberals, as were the suffragettes, who fought for equal rights for women.

Basically, classical liberalism is the belief in liberty. Even today, one of the clearest statements of this philosophy is found in Jefferson's Declaration of Independence. At that time, as is the case today, most people believed that rights came from government. People thought they only had such rights as government elected to give them. But following the British philosopher John Locke, Jefferson argued that it's the other way around. People have rights apart from government, as part of their nature. Further, people can form governments and dissolve them. The only legitimate purpose of government is to protect these rights.
What Is Classical Liberalism? | NCPA
 
And yet another reason why I hate liberals.

No matter what it is, liberals believe that Obama can do no wrong nor say no wrong, because in their hearts and brain-washed minds, he is perfect or close to perfection.

:cuckoo::cuckoo::cuckoo:

Really? You've got proof of this?

Really? Are you serious?

Most of you liberals if not all, will vilify and attack anyone who critizes Obama's policies, his decisions, or he himself. That is a fact.

For example, Obama NEVER took full resonsibilty for what happened in Benghazi, because he was more concerned about covering his own ass while having his people cover up the truth.

Obama knew that the embassy was located in an extremely unstable and dangerous area, but failed to provide the necessary security. Thus, the blood of those who were killed is on the hands on Obama.

However, you liberals will not acknowledge or accept anything negative said about Obama, which in turn will lead the liberals to "play the blame game" and blame everyone else. Because liberal logic would dictate that surely something like Benghazi, cannot be Obama's fault, and you liberals WILL NOT BELIEVE OR ACCEPT ANYTHING LESS.
 
Last edited:
It's actually what Wildcard thinks about Obama. Many conservatives have a big mancrush on the President. They can't admit to such a forbidden love openly, so they say what they feel by projecting it on to someone else.

Hey Mamooth,

Do you practice being stupid or does it come naturally for you?
 
And yet another reason why I hate liberals.

No matter what it is, liberals believe that Obama can do no wrong nor say no wrong, because in their hearts and brain-washed minds, he is perfect or close to perfection.

:cuckoo::cuckoo::cuckoo:

Really? You've got proof of this?

Really? Are you serious?

Most of you liberals if not all, will vilify and attack anyone who critizes Obama's policies, his decisions, or he himself. That is a fact.

For example, Obama NEVER took full resonsibilty for what happened in Benghazi, because he was more concerned about covering his own ass while having his people cover up the truth.

Obama knew that the embassy was located in an extremely unstable and dangerous area, but failed to provide the necessary security. Thus, the blood of those who were killed is on the hands on Obama.

However, you liberals will not acknowledge or accept anything negative said about Obama, which in turn will lead the liberals to "play the blame game" and blame everyone else. Because liberal logic would dictate that surely something like Benghazi, cannot be Obama's fault, and you liberals WILL NOT BELIEVE OR ACCEPT ANYTHING LESS.

Riiiight, I love when people tell me what a whole group of people think or believe. Who thinks Obama is perfection or close to it? I don't. I think he's made some mistakes. He's not a God and the only ones who call him a messiah are those on the right. If you can't criticize your elected officials, including the President, who can you criticize?

Having said that, I don't blame Benghazi on Obama entirely. It happened on his watch. Mistakes were made. But I am not as rabid about that as some on the right. Mainly those who think Obama should get no credit for Bin Laden's death, staged a woman fainting for some reason, and think he stood by and allowed these folks in Benghazi to die and wouldn't help them, you know those with ODS................:cuckoo:
 
It's actually what Wildcard thinks about Obama. Many conservatives have a big mancrush on the President. They can't admit to such a forbidden love openly, so they say what they feel by projecting it on to someone else.

Hey Mamooth,

Do you practice being stupid or does it come naturally for you?

Ummm..... read your own posts, Einstein:

And yet another reason why I hate liberals.

No matter what it is, liberals believe that Obama can do no wrong nor say no wrong, because in their hearts and brain-washed minds, he is perfect or close to perfection.

:cuckoo::cuckoo::cuckoo:

Strawman2b.bmp
blanketstatement-500x373.jpg

DUH.
 
Last edited:
Really? You've got proof of this?

Really? Are you serious?

Most of you liberals if not all, will vilify and attack anyone who critizes Obama's policies, his decisions, or he himself. That is a fact.

For example, Obama NEVER took full resonsibilty for what happened in Benghazi, because he was more concerned about covering his own ass while having his people cover up the truth.

Obama knew that the embassy was located in an extremely unstable and dangerous area, but failed to provide the necessary security. Thus, the blood of those who were killed is on the hands on Obama.

However, you liberals will not acknowledge or accept anything negative said about Obama, which in turn will lead the liberals to "play the blame game" and blame everyone else. Because liberal logic would dictate that surely something like Benghazi, cannot be Obama's fault, and you liberals WILL NOT BELIEVE OR ACCEPT ANYTHING LESS.

Riiiight, I love when people tell me what a whole group of people think or believe. Who thinks Obama is perfection or close to it? I don't. I think he's made some mistakes. He's not a God and the only ones who call him a messiah are those on the right. If you can't criticize your elected officials, including the President, who can you criticize?

Having said that, I don't blame Benghazi on Obama entirely. It happened on his watch. Mistakes were made. But I am not as rabid about that as some on the right. Mainly those who think Obama should get no credit for Bin Laden's death, staged a woman fainting for some reason, and think he stood by and allowed these folks in Benghazi to die and wouldn't help them, you know those with ODS................:cuckoo:

It isn't so much being eager to accuse Obama, Wolfsister, but an expectation that our President be honest and up front with us. When those who criticize him are presumably targeted by government agencies, it raises valid suspicions about his integrity and his motives. When gag orders are clamped on ALL witnesses to the Benghazi attack, 'why?" is a fair question and it is not unreasonable or illegitimate to believe they are hiding something. When there is grevious misconduct on the part of government agencies and no heads roll, we have valid reason to believe the President approved that misconduct and doesn't dare punish those he ordered lest they testify that they were ordered. When you have scandal after scandal after scandal in which nobody seems to know who ordered the misconduct, you have to believe the President knew more than he says he knew. And when he says again and again and again that he didn't know, it is reasonable to expect that a) he is lying or b) he is totally incompetent.

If this happened once, we could shrug it off as a glitch. But when it happens again and again and again, it is too much to expect reasonable people to ignore it.
 
Last edited:
When those who criticize him are presumably targeted by government agencies, it raises valid suspicions about his integrity and his motives.

"Presumably" meaning "The voices in my head told me this". Or some blog. Same difference.

The only valid questions being raised here concern the mental stability of the ODS crowd.
 
When those who criticize him are presumably targeted by government agencies, it raises valid suspicions about his integrity and his motives.

"Presumably" meaning "The voices in my head told me this". Or some blog. Same difference.

The only valid questions being raised here concern the mental stability of the ODS crowd.

You mean the IRS targeting tea party organizations wasn't real?
 
When those who criticize him are presumably targeted by government agencies, it raises valid suspicions about his integrity and his motives.

"Presumably" meaning "The voices in my head told me this". Or some blog. Same difference.

The only valid questions being raised here concern the mental stability of the ODS crowd.

You mean the IRS targeting tea party organizations wasn't real?

Also. . . .

The DOJ targeting James Rosen and his family wasn't real?

Grabbing e-mails specifically of AP reporters wasn't real?

The refusal to disclose names of people who ordered improper invasion of privacy or targeting of conservative groups isn't real?

The gag order on Benghazi witnesses is not real?

The fact that there has been little or no disciplinary action re improper conduct is not real?

When you have the most liberal media sources reporting this stuff about their own 'messiah', you can be damn sure it is real.
 
Bgfrn continues to demonstrate the kind of reading comprehension dysfunction that seems to plague those of his ideology. (I still think it must be something in the water they drink.)

I have not said modern conservatives are liberal. I have said what we usually label modern day conservatism is almost a mirror image of what was 18th and 19th century liberalism. But because modern day liberalism resembles 18th and 19th century liberalism not at all, I prefer to call it 'classical liberalism' or that liberalism embraced by the Founders. You know, the liberalism that modern day liberals now mostly reject and/or deem irrelevent or stupid or no longer applicable.

But I don't expect modern day liberals to be honest about that.

Here is a fairly good definition of classical liberalism:

Prior to the 20th century, classical liberalism was the dominant political philosophy in the United States. It was the political philosophy of Thomas Jefferson and the signers of the Declaration of Independence and it permeates the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers and many other documents produced by the people who created the American system of government. Many of the emancipationists who opposed slavery were essentially classical liberals, as were the suffragettes, who fought for equal rights for women.

Basically, classical liberalism is the belief in liberty. Even today, one of the clearest statements of this philosophy is found in Jefferson's Declaration of Independence. At that time, as is the case today, most people believed that rights came from government. People thought they only had such rights as government elected to give them. But following the British philosopher John Locke, Jefferson argued that it's the other way around. People have rights apart from government, as part of their nature. Further, people can form governments and dissolve them. The only legitimate purpose of government is to protect these rights.
What Is Classical Liberalism? | NCPA

There is nothing about modern day conservatives that resembles our founding father's beliefs. I have posted this before and you continue to refuse to address it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Debate and argument over the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Federalist papers has been going on for over 200 years by and between citizens, scholars, theologians and polemics. It is nothing new, and our founder's true intent on many issues has not become any closer to being resolved.

So when we have an example of how those same men applied all those principles, beliefs and ideas to actual governing, it serves as the best example of how they put all those principles, beliefs and ideas to use. Their actions carry the most weight.

Our founding fathers did not subscribe to Adam Smith's 'invisible hand'. They believed in very heavy regulations and restrictions on corporations. They were men who held ethics as the most important attribute. They viewed being paid by the American people for their services as a privilege not a right. And they had no problem closing down any corporation that swindled the people, and holding owners and stockholder personally liable for any harm to the people they caused.

Early laws regulating corporations in America

*Corporations were required to have a clear purpose, to be fulfilled but not exceeded.

*Corporations’ licenses to do business were revocable by the state legislature if they exceeded or did not fulfill their chartered purpose(s).

*The state legislature could revoke a corporation’s charter if it misbehaved.

*The act of incorporation did not relieve corporate management or stockholders/owners of responsibility or liability for corporate acts.

*As a matter of course, corporation officers, directors, or agents couldn’t break the law and avoid punishment by claiming they were “just doing their job” when committing crimes but instead could be held criminally liable for violating the law.

*Directors of the corporation were required to come from among stockholders.

*Corporations had to have their headquarters and meetings in the state where their principal place of business was located.

*Corporation charters were granted for a specific period of time, such as twenty or thirty years (instead of being granted “in perpetuity,” as is now the practice).

*Corporations were prohibited from owning stock in other corporations, to prevent them from extending their power inappropriately.

*Corporations’ real estate holdings were limited to what was necessary to carry out their specific purpose(s).

*Corporations were prohibited from making any political contributions, direct or indirect.

*Corporations were prohibited from making charitable or civic donations outside of their specific purposes.

*State legislatures could set the rates that some monopoly corporations could charge for their products or services.

*All corporation records and documents were open to the legislature or the state attorney general.

The Early Role of Corporations in America

The Legacy of the Founding Parents
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What caused the Progressive movement

We tried unregulated corporations in America. The closest experiment to total deregulation in this country occurred between the end of the Civil War and the beginning of the 19th century...it was called the Gilded Age; an era where America was as far from our founder's intent of a democratic society and closest to an aristocracy that our founder's were willing to lay down their lives to defeat.

It was opposition to that same Gilded Age that was the genesis of the Progressive movement in this country. When you study history, almost always just cause is behind it.

The only enemies of the Constitution are those who try to wield it as a weapon against the living, by using the words of the dead.
Me
 
You mean the IRS targeting tea party organizations wasn't real?

What rock have you been hiding under? That phony scandal fizzled long ago, just like all the other phony scandals.

People like you and Fox and are cultists. You barricade yourselves inside an anti-reality bubble and repeat only the various conspiracies which you've been fed. Any information from outside your cult is instantly defined as "liberal propaganda", and hence ignored, which ensures your bubble stays intact.
 

Forum List

Back
Top