Why do people hate Liberals?

[Wolfsister77]

Let's all join in and say, "How typically Liberal!"

Let's not and call it what it really is. You being a partisan hack. You can't think for yourself. You think you know what you are talking about but really don't have a clue. And you wouldn't know facts if they were right in front of your face because to you only one perspective has any relevance.

One sided people who label everyone else falsely and then pretend they won some sort of victory when the person doesn't want to deal with you, are boring as hell.

Think outside the box for once or just go talk to folks who think like you, there are plenty of them here. And some of them debate with an open mind. Yours is already closed. Closed and locked and buried in the desert somewhere where only people like Rush Limbaugh have the key.

Good luck going through life like that.

Sometimes it doesn't take long at all to peg these bozos. They'll out themselves, as here.
Which is a good thing in a way because idiots like this are what drag threads down in an endless and mindless echo of "yammer yammer libtard yammer yammer" that succeeds only in generating a cacophony of rhetorical pink noise.

I agree and unfortunately, it's a waste of time dealing with such strict partisans that immediately discount anyone who doesn't think like them. But they are good with the partisan poo flinging in the threads. Lets see all Liberals............Obama..............It's boring.

 

[Pogo]

I hate Liberals because they like me.

Until they know me.

Some of my best of friends suddenly discover that I don't THINK as they do. I don't SUBSCRIBE to their ideologies. And I don't CONFORM to their agenda.

Bye-bye little bird-brained fuckers.

I feel the same way about anyone that bases whether or not they like a person based only on their political beliefs. You miss out on getting to know some decent people. I can't think of the exact article right now but I read somewhere during the 2012 election that this lady getting married uninvited a good friend of hers from the wedding and wouldn't speak to her anymore when she found out who she was voting for. C'mon now folks. Politics is only so important. You can't just surround yourself with like minded people.

Even worse are the wackos who stick labels on others, even if based on nothing, and then extrapolate all sorts of sordid personality traits on people they've never met -- like Bozo2 here. That's how I spell Loser.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Ah, so you're one of these cretins who can't see past his own prefab labels. That's why the entire post sailed over your head.
Fuck that onanism shit. This is a message board. That means dialogue.
Too bad, so sad. Off you go to Ignoreland then. Have fun with your mirror.

He crushes you with logic and reason, and you put him on ignore?

Fear much?

 

[Pogo]

Ah, so you're one of these cretins who can't see past his own prefab labels. That's why the entire post sailed over your head.
Fuck that onanism shit. This is a message board. That means dialogue.
Too bad, so sad. Off you go to Ignoreland then. Have fun with your mirror.

He crushes you with logic and reason, and you put him on ignore?

Fear much?

You wish, Pothead Btw learn the subtle difference between "logic and reason" versus "blanket ad hominem". I know they look a lot alike to you.

I didn't even address his issue; I just noted he's getting into the morass of making arguments with moving goalposts, to which he responded by dropping into blanket ad hominem on people he just met ten minutes ago. That tells me he's not here for debate, so I'm not going to waste my time.
I thought I just said all this. Read much?

I mean you do the same thing, but you at least were here a while before you became a rhetorical degenerate... as far as I know anyway.

Actually I was just brushing that out of the way while I wait for the Joker to answer his four-day-old question. He was, after all, here first.

 

[Wolfsister77]

mojo started this shit in his intro thread

 

[mamooth]

Why do the liberal-hating kooks think that crying at people is going to win them converts? They've already got a lock on the whiner-American demographic. There simply aren't any new voters to be gained there.

 

[NLT]

The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.

The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.

I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.

Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.

Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.

And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?

The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.

If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.

Read any post by the following
Rderp
Rightwinger
Luddy
Franco
Sallow
Luiisa
BDBOOP
Bodey
Jake Starkey
Wry Catcher
Plasma Balls
Sarah G
Black Label
Noomi
just to name a few, and that will answer your question on why people hate liberals.

 

[Pogo]

The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.

The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.

I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.

Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.

Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.

And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?

The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.

If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.

Read any post by the following
Rderp
Rightwinger
Luddy
Franco
Sallow
Luiisa
BDBOOP
Bodey
Jake Starkey
Wry Catcher
Plasma Balls
Sarah G
Black Label
Noomi
just to name a few, and that will answer your question on why people hate liberals.

All you did here was to restate the question.
Nanoseconds of thought went into this post, I can tell. Because corralling a group of people and declaring "everything these guys say is stupid" is obviously deep deductive reasoning.

Rather than restate the OP question we could raise a new one: why do intellectual sloths fall on blanket statements? Does their power of self-delusion enable them to actually not mind looking this stupid? Discuss.

 

[Foxfyre]

Stepping on soap box. . . .

Reading over the last couple of pages on this thread--no I haven't read the whole thing because there's only so much nonsense a reasonable person can tolerate--I conclude that there is a LOT of nonsense and non sequitur demonstrated here from both sides.

The OP asked a simple question: Why do people hate liberals. The question, of course, is in itself non sequitur since so few people do hate liberals. I certainly don't. What I wanted to discuss is why do people hate LIBERALISM as it is most often defined in America today.

Instead we have had mostly a flame thread focused on individuals and ad hominem that is not useful to the discussion. Both sides have been guilty of that. You have one member who focuses almost entirely on the technical definition of 'liberal' instead of the intent of the thread and will not acknowledge that definitions change with common usage. You have other members who don't seem to remember what the thread topic was about. And still others, both left and right, who post insulting one liners or the same old tired characterizations that simply won't hold up in court.

In my opiinion, LIBERALISM, as it is most often understood and defined in America these days, has been detrimental to the United States in that it has created a cultural change that makes us a far weaker, less capable people all too willing to look for a big sugar daddy to accomplish what we no longer have the will to do for ourselves. And that's why I hate it.

I wonder if anybody would be wiling to discuss that?

I don't hate anybody, much less somebody because he or she is a liberal.

Steps off soapbox. . . .

 

[Pogo]

Stepping on soap box. . . .

Reading over the last couple of pages on this thread--no I haven't read the whole thing because there's only so much nonsense a reasonable person can tolerate--I conclude that there is a LOT of nonsense and non sequitur demonstrated here from both sides.

The OP asked a simple question: Why do people hate liberals. The question, of course, is in itself non sequitur since so few people do hate liberals. I certainly don't. What I wanted to discuss is why do people hate LIBERALISM as it is most often defined in America today.

Instead we have had mostly a flame thread focused on individuals and ad hominem that is not useful to the discussion. Both sides have been guilty of that. You have one member who focuses almost entirely on the technical definition of 'liberal' instead of the intent of the thread and will not acknowledge that definitions change with common usage. You have other members who don't seem to remember what the thread topic was about. And still others, both left and right, who post insulting one liners or the same old tired characterizations that simply won't hold up in court.

In my opiinion, LIBERALISM, as it is most often understood and defined in America these days, has been detrimental to the United States in that it has created a cultural change that makes us a far weaker, less capable people all too willing to look for a big sugar daddy to accomplish what we no longer have the will to do for ourselves. And that's why I hate it.

I wonder if anybody would be wiling to discuss that?

I don't hate anybody, much less somebody because he or she is a liberal.

Steps off soapbox. . . .

That would be me I assume. And I don't think the topic, whether Liberals the people or Liberalism the philosophy, CAN advance absent a working definition. You can't run the train service without time zones, so to speak. If we all mean something different there can be no comparisons. The last few blanket ad hominae are examples of that.

Love ya Foxy, welcome back.

 

[Mojo2]

Let's not and call it what it really is. You being a partisan hack. You can't think for yourself. You think you know what you are talking about but really don't have a clue. And you wouldn't know facts if they were right in front of your face because to you only one perspective has any relevance.

One sided people who label everyone else falsely and then pretend they won some sort of victory when the person doesn't want to deal with you, are boring as hell.

Think outside the box for once or just go talk to folks who think like you, there are plenty of them here. And some of them debate with an open mind. Yours is already closed. Closed and locked and buried in the desert somewhere where only people like Rush Limbaugh have the key.

Good luck going through life like that.

Sometimes it doesn't take long at all to peg these bozos. They'll out themselves, as here.
Which is a good thing in a way because idiots like this are what drag threads down in an endless and mindless echo of "yammer yammer libtard yammer yammer" that succeeds only in generating a cacophony of rhetorical pink noise.

I agree and unfortunately, it's a waste of time dealing with such strict partisans that immediately discount anyone who doesn't think like them. But they are good with the partisan poo flinging in the threads. Lets see all Liberals............Obama..............It's boring.

Oh, I think Lib girls are dreamy. When I was a young stud one of my BESTEST friends was a raven haired beauty who had a venomous hatred for Reagan like I had never before seen or heard! She thought the $$ spent on his Secret Service detail was an outrage. She thought he shouldn't have had ANY protection at all!

Well, I can say when it came to protection she was no hypocrite.

My dear sexy, Liberal friend who appeared normal in all other respects, seemed to get an abortion every year whether she needed it or not. (Little humor there.) And that is when I began practicing safe sex all the time.

She taught me things in bed I had never before dreamed of!

And my family, as you might imagine ( I am a Negro as are all of my family) are virtually all Liberals. And, aside from the normal dysfunction experienced by any family, I love them all.

I have not stopped watching MOST Liberal performers in the movies and TV.

One exception, however, is Julia Louis-Dreyfus.

Lusted after her when she was featured on SNL. Loved her as Elaine on Seinfeld. Although, I had to consciously bite my tongue in tolerating her character's thrill at discovering her date was a 'real life Communist' in one episode. I chalked it up to fictional TV sitcom plotting. But I didn't like it that she found it exciting to be dating a Commie. In another episode she went ape-crap crazy when she discovered Puddy was a Christian. I was getting the picture. But, I could still separate her from her character and enjoy her artistry.

Then, she was in Old Christine-New Christine and in one episode her son spent the weekend with her ex and his new wife (New Christine) and when she found out they'd taken the boy to Church services she went ape-crap. I swore off of her forever then. Although I did make an exception when she started to warm up to Blair Underwood. I was reminded of my relationship with my red headed former ballerina. Did I forget to mention earlier that she once danced with the ABT? Sorry, my bad!

Anyway, I like Liberal girls. But I don't want them making decisions about our government unless it's in the role of providing leavening to the typically dull and unimaginative Conservative approach to things. A little flavoring and coloring and decoration and perfoming and drama and theatrics in government CAN be a good thing IN SMALL DOSES. And infrequently. And in matters that are not life and death crucial.

And, one more thing.

I hope some of the Libs on this board will come forth and defend my reputation about being fair and reasonable with Libs who love America. They can see from some of my actual posts here that I am warm and brotherly towards any Lib just so long as they LOVE OUR COUNTRY.

Real patriotism makes up for a great deal of the sins of Liberalitis in my book.

There. I hope your future posts reflect this new info.

 

[NLT]

The one thing about this board that most baffles me is the incredible depth of hatred and contempt for liberals.

The amount of comments from people suggesting all liberals are stupid, anti-patriotic, dumb...you name it. One even suggested liberals don't know what paragraphs are.

I don't get it. And I don't see anything the like the contempt expressed by liberals towards conservatives.

Firstly, the term "liberal" could be used to describe about half of the planet. Like "leftist", it's a fairly cliched catch-all adjective that have little real meaning. It's just too general to be much use.

Secondly, I've met extremely intelligent people from right across the political spectrum - and as many idiots. I've talked to brilliant facists, idiotic conservatives, intelligent communists and brain-dead centrists. I don't see a pattern there at all.

And lastly, why hate liberals when many of the most successful and celebrated administrations have been liberal ones? Were the governments if Clinton, Wilson, FDR, JFK and Truman really so much worse than conservative governments of similar eras?

The constant attacks on liberals seems to me (as an outsider) just a sign of incredible arrogance and conceit - and I would consider attacks on conservatives the same way.

If there is a REAL reason, with facts, for hating liberals - let's hear about it.

Read any post by the following
Rderp
Rightwinger
Luddy
Franco
Sallow
Luiisa
BDBOOP
Bodey
Jake Starkey
Wry Catcher
Plasma Balls
Sarah G
Black Label
Noomi
just to name a few, and that will answer your question on why people hate liberals.

All you did here was to restate the question.
Nanoseconds of thought went into this post, I can tell. Because corralling a group of people and declaring "everything these guys say is stupid" is obviously deep deductive reasoning.

Rather than restate the OP question we could raise a new one: why do intellectual sloths fall on blanket statements? Does their power of self-delusion enable them to actually not mind looking this stupid? Discuss.

Read any post by the following
Rderp
Rightwinger
Luddy
Franco
Sallow
Luiisa
BDBOOP
Bodey
Jake Starkey
Wry Catcher
Plasma Balls
Sarah G
Black Label
Noomi
POGO
just to name a few, and that will answer your question on why people hate liberals

FIXED

 

[Foxfyre]

Stepping on soap box. . . .

Reading over the last couple of pages on this thread--no I haven't read the whole thing because there's only so much nonsense a reasonable person can tolerate--I conclude that there is a LOT of nonsense and non sequitur demonstrated here from both sides.

The OP asked a simple question: Why do people hate liberals. The question, of course, is in itself non sequitur since so few people do hate liberals. I certainly don't. What I wanted to discuss is why do people hate LIBERALISM as it is most often defined in America today.

Instead we have had mostly a flame thread focused on individuals and ad hominem that is not useful to the discussion. Both sides have been guilty of that. You have one member who focuses almost entirely on the technical definition of 'liberal' instead of the intent of the thread and will not acknowledge that definitions change with common usage. You have other members who don't seem to remember what the thread topic was about. And still others, both left and right, who post insulting one liners or the same old tired characterizations that simply won't hold up in court.

In my opiinion, LIBERALISM, as it is most often understood and defined in America these days, has been detrimental to the United States in that it has created a cultural change that makes us a far weaker, less capable people all too willing to look for a big sugar daddy to accomplish what we no longer have the will to do for ourselves. And that's why I hate it.

I wonder if anybody would be wiling to discuss that?

I don't hate anybody, much less somebody because he or she is a liberal.

Steps off soapbox. . . .

That would be me I assume. And I don't think the topic, whether Liberals the people or Liberalism the philosophy, CAN advance absent a working definition. You can't run the train service without time zones, so to speak. If we all mean something different there can be no comparisons. The last few blanket ad hominae are examples of that.

Love ya Foxy, welcome back.

Yes, the discussion CAN proceed based on the people's perceptions of what something is because, after all, that is the working definition.

For me a modern American liberal is one who is comfortable with and actually promotes more and more government participation over all aspects of our lives coupled with a notion that their point of view is the only compassionate or caring one. They really do believe that they, as a group,are nicer, more intelligent, more commendable people than are those who do not share their views. And more importantly, they do not trust their fellow man to do the right thing and look to government to require him/her to do the right thing that they see as right. And of course they see a left leaning government as the only entity capable of bringing about a better society.

Love you too.

 

[Pogo]

Stepping on soap box. . . .

Reading over the last couple of pages on this thread--no I haven't read the whole thing because there's only so much nonsense a reasonable person can tolerate--I conclude that there is a LOT of nonsense and non sequitur demonstrated here from both sides.

The OP asked a simple question: Why do people hate liberals. The question, of course, is in itself non sequitur since so few people do hate liberals. I certainly don't. What I wanted to discuss is why do people hate LIBERALISM as it is most often defined in America today.

Instead we have had mostly a flame thread focused on individuals and ad hominem that is not useful to the discussion. Both sides have been guilty of that. You have one member who focuses almost entirely on the technical definition of 'liberal' instead of the intent of the thread and will not acknowledge that definitions change with common usage. You have other members who don't seem to remember what the thread topic was about. And still others, both left and right, who post insulting one liners or the same old tired characterizations that simply won't hold up in court.

In my opiinion, LIBERALISM, as it is most often understood and defined in America these days, has been detrimental to the United States in that it has created a cultural change that makes us a far weaker, less capable people all too willing to look for a big sugar daddy to accomplish what we no longer have the will to do for ourselves. And that's why I hate it.

I wonder if anybody would be wiling to discuss that?

I don't hate anybody, much less somebody because he or she is a liberal.

Steps off soapbox. . . .

That would be me I assume. And I don't think the topic, whether Liberals the people or Liberalism the philosophy, CAN advance absent a working definition. You can't run the train service without time zones, so to speak. If we all mean something different there can be no comparisons. The last few blanket ad hominae are examples of that.

Love ya Foxy, welcome back.

Yes, the discussion CAN proceed based on the people's perceptions of what something is because, after all, that is the working definition.

For me a modern American liberal is one who is comfortable with and actually promotes more and more government participation over all aspects of our lives coupled with a notion that their point of view is the only compassionate or caring one. They really do believe that they, as a group,are nicer, more intelligent, more commendable people than are those who do not share their views. And more importantly, they do not trust their fellow man to do the right thing and look to government to require him/her to do the right thing that they see as right. And of course they see a left leaning government as the only entity capable of bringing about a better society.

Love you too.

Well you'll need a new definition then because I don't agree with that one. Except for the personality traits you basically described leftistm there, not liberalism.

The personality traits are (I guess) an invention, because there's no way you can know that. I'm at a loss to guess how you can infer personality traits from political philosophies. That's an indication of a flawed definition right there. I mean -- what kind of personality traits to conservatives have? That isn't a serious question -- because it can't be.

Yeah, but I love you more

 

[Foxfyre]

That would be me I assume. And I don't think the topic, whether Liberals the people or Liberalism the philosophy, CAN advance absent a working definition. You can't run the train service without time zones, so to speak. If we all mean something different there can be no comparisons. The last few blanket ad hominae are examples of that.

Love ya Foxy, welcome back.

Yes, the discussion CAN proceed based on the people's perceptions of what something is because, after all, that is the working definition.

For me a modern American liberal is one who is comfortable with and actually promotes more and more government participation over all aspects of our lives coupled with a notion that their point of view is the only compassionate or caring one. They really do believe that they, as a group,are nicer, more intelligent, more commendable people than are those who do not share their views. And more importantly, they do not trust their fellow man to do the right thing and look to government to require him/her to do the right thing that they see as right. And of course they see a left leaning government as the only entity capable of bringing about a better society.

Love you too.

Well you'll need a new definition then because I don't agree with that one. Except for the personality traits you basically described leftistm there, not liberalism.

The personality traits are (I guess) an invention, because there's no way you can know that. I'm at a loss to guess how you can infer personality traits from political philosophies. That's an indication of a flawed definition right there. I mean -- what kind of personality traits to conservatives have? That isn't a serious question -- because it can't be.

Yeah, but I love you more

I can't do anything about your refusal to see how people use a word or term. And I won't waste more time trying to convince you of how most people use a term or word. To most people in America, liberalism/progressivism/leftism are indistinguishable from each other and I am going with the common understanding of the terms.

It isn't a personality trait that I discern in the mindset of the various ideologies but rather a core belief system even if that is poorly understood and poorly defined.

It is as simple as say the views on charity that I will use as an example only.

In matters of charity, most modern day American conservatives/rightwingers/libertarians/classical liberals see that as an individual choice or at most should be managed at the state or local level. And they believe that the culture should demand that every citizen, who is capable of doing so, should work for what they expect to receive and that this is the more compassionate point of view because it does not encourage dependency that is detrimental to the person and/or his/her family.

Liberals see the federal government as the more efficient and effective distributor of charity that they don't really see as charity at all but a right for people to have. And the concept of individual responsibility or accountability is a separate issue and not to be considered in the dispensation of such right to certain government benefits. Dependency on government as a negative thing is something that is not to be considered or discussed at all and every effort will be made to divert attention from it.

I do not intend this to encourage a discussion on welfare, but rather to illustrate the different mindset that occurs in our different cultural conservative vs liberal groups in America today.

 

[Pogo]

Yes, the discussion CAN proceed based on the people's perceptions of what something is because, after all, that is the working definition.

For me a modern American liberal is one who is comfortable with and actually promotes more and more government participation over all aspects of our lives coupled with a notion that their point of view is the only compassionate or caring one. They really do believe that they, as a group,are nicer, more intelligent, more commendable people than are those who do not share their views. And more importantly, they do not trust their fellow man to do the right thing and look to government to require him/her to do the right thing that they see as right. And of course they see a left leaning government as the only entity capable of bringing about a better society.

Love you too.

Well you'll need a new definition then because I don't agree with that one. Except for the personality traits you basically described leftistm there, not liberalism.

The personality traits are (I guess) an invention, because there's no way you can know that. I'm at a loss to guess how you can infer personality traits from political philosophies. That's an indication of a flawed definition right there. I mean -- what kind of personality traits to conservatives have? That isn't a serious question -- because it can't be.

Yeah, but I love you more

I can't do anything about your refusal to see how people use a word or term. And I won't waste more time trying to convince you of how most people use a term or word. To most people in America, liberalism/progressivism/leftism are indistinguishable from each other and I am going with the common understanding of the terms.

It isn't a personality trait that I discern in the mindset of the various ideologies but rather a core belief system even if that is poorly understood and poorly defined.

It is as simple as say the views on charity that I will use as an example only.

In matters of charity, most modern day American conservatives/rightwingers/libertarians/classical liberals see that as an individual choice or at most should be managed at the state or local level. And they believe that the culture should demand that every citizen, who is capable of doing so, should work for what they expect to receive and that this is the more compassionate point of view because it does not encourage dependency that is detrimental to the person and/or his/her family.

Liberals see the federal government as the more efficient and effective distributor of charity that they don't really see as charity at all but a right for people to have. And the concept of individual responsibility or accountability is a separate issue and not to be considered in the dispensation of such right to certain government benefits. Dependency on government as a negative thing is something that is not to be considered or discussed at all and every effort will be made to divert attention from it.

I do not intend this to encourage a discussion on welfare, but rather to illustrate the different mindset that occurs in our different cultural conservative vs liberal groups in America today.

If we can't agree on what we're talking about, perhaps we need the OP to define it. Because as long as you're describing a term I don't agree with the definition of, you're having a monologue. I still say we need to define our terms. Because the contrast you've described above has nothing to do with Liberalism.

As a (re)starting point, would you care to address Wildcard's list of 20 questions back here, since he runs away from it? It's not only a rash of specious reasoning, but to my eyes there is exactly one question on that list of twenty that has any relation to Liberalism. I asked him to figure out which one it was.

Do you agree? How do you see that list as a whole? I have a reason for asking...

To make it easier, here's the list brought forward.

>> 20 Questions Liberals Can't Answer

John Hawkins | Apr 20, 2013

Liberalism doesn't convince with logic. It can't, because the policies liberals advocate don't work. So instead, liberals have to use emotion-based ploys and attack the motives of people they disagree with while attempting to keep conservative arguments from being heard at all. Why? Because they have no good answers to questions like these.

1) A few days ago, we were hearing that the Boston Marathon bombers COULD BE conservative, which proved that the Right is evil. Now, when we know that the terrorists are Muslims, how can the same liberals be saying that it means nothing?

2) If you believe we have a "right" to things like health care, food, shelter and a good education, then doesn't that also mean you believe we also have a right to force other people to unwillingly provide those things at gunpoint?

3) How can you simultaneously want a big government that will make decisions that have an enormous impact on the lives of every American while also saying that the character and morals of our politicians don't matter?

4) What exactly is the "fair share" of someone's income that he’s earned that he should be able to keep?

5) Why is it that time and time again, revenue paid to the treasury has GONE UP after we've cut taxes?

6) Are you pro-choice or pro-abortion? If it's pro-choice, do you feel people should be able to choose to have an assault weapon, what kind of light bulb they use in their house or whether they'd like to put their Social Security funds into a private retirement account?

7) If corporations are so awful, greedy and bad for the country, then shouldn't we be celebrating when they decide to close their plants here and move overseas?

8) How can liberal economists like Paul Krugman be right when they claim that our economy isn't doing well because we aren't spending enough money when we're already running massive, unsustainable deficits and spending is going up every year?

9) If Republicans don’t care about the poor, why do studies consistently show that they give more to charity than Democrats do?

10) Give us a ballpark estimate: If something doesn't change dramatically, how long do you think it will be until we have an economic crash in this country similar to the one we're seeing in Greece or Cyprus?

11) Since we "all agree" with the idea that our level of deficit spending is "unsustainable," what would be wrong with permanently freezing federal spending at the current level until we balance the budget by increasing revenue, cutting spending or some combination thereof?

12) If we change God's definition of marriage to make gay marriage legal, then what's the logical argument against polygamy or even adult siblings supposed to be?

13) In a world where people can easily change states and can, with a bit more difficulty, permanently move to other roughly comparable parts of the globe, do you really think it's feasible over the long haul to have a tax system where 86% of the income taxes are paid by the top 25% of the income earners?

14) If you win a lawsuit that's filed against you, why should you have to pay huge legal bills when you did nothing wrong while the person who filed the suit pays no penalty for wrongly accusing you?

15) How can you oppose putting murderers to death and be fine with killing innocent children via abortion?

16) A minimum wage raises salaries for some workers at the cost of putting other workers out of jobs entirely. What's the acceptable ratio for that? For every 10 people who get a higher salary, how many are you willing to see lose their jobs?

17) The earth has been warming and cooling for thousands of years with temperature drops and increases that are much larger than the ones we've seen over the last century. Since we can't adequately explain or model those changes, what makes us think we can say with any sort of confidence that global warming is being caused by man?

18) We live in a world where people have more choices than ever before in music, entertainment, careers, news sources and what to do with their time. Shouldn't government mirror that trend by moving towards federalism and states’ rights instead of centralizing more and more power in Washington, DC?

19) If people in the middle class aren't willing to pay enough in taxes to cover the government services that they use because they don't think it's worth the money, shouldn't we prune back government to a level people do feel comfortable paying for in taxes?

20) If firms can get by with paying women 72 cents on the dollar for the same quality of work as men, then why don't we see any firms with all female labor forces using those lower costs to dominate the marketplace? <<

The question is: (a) how many of these are related to Liberalism, and (b) how many of these are legitimate questions?

 

[Foxfyre]

Well you'll need a new definition then because I don't agree with that one. Except for the personality traits you basically described leftistm there, not liberalism.

The personality traits are (I guess) an invention, because there's no way you can know that. I'm at a loss to guess how you can infer personality traits from political philosophies. That's an indication of a flawed definition right there. I mean -- what kind of personality traits to conservatives have? That isn't a serious question -- because it can't be.

Yeah, but I love you more

I can't do anything about your refusal to see how people use a word or term. And I won't waste more time trying to convince you of how most people use a term or word. To most people in America, liberalism/progressivism/leftism are indistinguishable from each other and I am going with the common understanding of the terms.

It isn't a personality trait that I discern in the mindset of the various ideologies but rather a core belief system even if that is poorly understood and poorly defined.

It is as simple as say the views on charity that I will use as an example only.

In matters of charity, most modern day American conservatives/rightwingers/libertarians/classical liberals see that as an individual choice or at most should be managed at the state or local level. And they believe that the culture should demand that every citizen, who is capable of doing so, should work for what they expect to receive and that this is the more compassionate point of view because it does not encourage dependency that is detrimental to the person and/or his/her family.

Liberals see the federal government as the more efficient and effective distributor of charity that they don't really see as charity at all but a right for people to have. And the concept of individual responsibility or accountability is a separate issue and not to be considered in the dispensation of such right to certain government benefits. Dependency on government as a negative thing is something that is not to be considered or discussed at all and every effort will be made to divert attention from it.

I do not intend this to encourage a discussion on welfare, but rather to illustrate the different mindset that occurs in our different cultural conservative vs liberal groups in America today.

If we can't agree on what we're talking about, perhaps we need the OP to define it. Because as long as you're describing a term I don't agree with the definition of, you're having a monologue. I still say we need to define our terms. Because the contrast you've described above has nothing to do with Liberalism.

As a (re)starting point, would you care to address Wildcard's list of 20 questions back here, since he runs away from it? It's not only a rash of specious reasoning, but to my eyes there is exactly one question on that list of twenty that has any relation to Liberalism. I asked him to figure out which one it was.

Do you agree? How do you see that list as a whole? I have a reason for asking...

To make it easier, here's the list brought forward.

>> 20 Questions Liberals Can't Answer

John Hawkins | Apr 20, 2013

Liberalism doesn't convince with logic. It can't, because the policies liberals advocate don't work. So instead, liberals have to use emotion-based ploys and attack the motives of people they disagree with while attempting to keep conservative arguments from being heard at all. Why? Because they have no good answers to questions like these.

1) A few days ago, we were hearing that the Boston Marathon bombers COULD BE conservative, which proved that the Right is evil. Now, when we know that the terrorists are Muslims, how can the same liberals be saying that it means nothing?

2) If you believe we have a "right" to things like health care, food, shelter and a good education, then doesn't that also mean you believe we also have a right to force other people to unwillingly provide those things at gunpoint?

3) How can you simultaneously want a big government that will make decisions that have an enormous impact on the lives of every American while also saying that the character and morals of our politicians don't matter?

4) What exactly is the "fair share" of someone's income that he&#8217;s earned that he should be able to keep?

5) Why is it that time and time again, revenue paid to the treasury has GONE UP after we've cut taxes?

6) Are you pro-choice or pro-abortion? If it's pro-choice, do you feel people should be able to choose to have an assault weapon, what kind of light bulb they use in their house or whether they'd like to put their Social Security funds into a private retirement account?

7) If corporations are so awful, greedy and bad for the country, then shouldn't we be celebrating when they decide to close their plants here and move overseas?

8) How can liberal economists like Paul Krugman be right when they claim that our economy isn't doing well because we aren't spending enough money when we're already running massive, unsustainable deficits and spending is going up every year?

9) If Republicans don&#8217;t care about the poor, why do studies consistently show that they give more to charity than Democrats do?

10) Give us a ballpark estimate: If something doesn't change dramatically, how long do you think it will be until we have an economic crash in this country similar to the one we're seeing in Greece or Cyprus?

11) Since we "all agree" with the idea that our level of deficit spending is "unsustainable," what would be wrong with permanently freezing federal spending at the current level until we balance the budget by increasing revenue, cutting spending or some combination thereof?

12) If we change God's definition of marriage to make gay marriage legal, then what's the logical argument against polygamy or even adult siblings supposed to be?

13) In a world where people can easily change states and can, with a bit more difficulty, permanently move to other roughly comparable parts of the globe, do you really think it's feasible over the long haul to have a tax system where 86% of the income taxes are paid by the top 25% of the income earners?

14) If you win a lawsuit that's filed against you, why should you have to pay huge legal bills when you did nothing wrong while the person who filed the suit pays no penalty for wrongly accusing you?

15) How can you oppose putting murderers to death and be fine with killing innocent children via abortion?

16) A minimum wage raises salaries for some workers at the cost of putting other workers out of jobs entirely. What's the acceptable ratio for that? For every 10 people who get a higher salary, how many are you willing to see lose their jobs?

17) The earth has been warming and cooling for thousands of years with temperature drops and increases that are much larger than the ones we've seen over the last century. Since we can't adequately explain or model those changes, what makes us think we can say with any sort of confidence that global warming is being caused by man?

18) We live in a world where people have more choices than ever before in music, entertainment, careers, news sources and what to do with their time. Shouldn't government mirror that trend by moving towards federalism and states&#8217; rights instead of centralizing more and more power in Washington, DC?

19) If people in the middle class aren't willing to pay enough in taxes to cover the government services that they use because they don't think it's worth the money, shouldn't we prune back government to a level people do feel comfortable paying for in taxes?

20) If firms can get by with paying women 72 cents on the dollar for the same quality of work as men, then why don't we see any firms with all female labor forces using those lower costs to dominate the marketplace? <<

The question is: (a) how many of these are related to Liberalism, and (b) how many of these are legitimate questions?

In my opinion, most--not necessarily all--items on the list are related to or at least can be considered wtihin ideological concepts of liberalsm and conservatism as those terms are most commonly used and understood in America today. You know--that working understanding of the terms that you will not understand or acknowledge. \

I haven't spent much time pondering those 20 questions because to me it is a flawed list--some questions are leading; some intentionally provocative; others foolish because nobody but a dedicated economist doing intense research could even ballpark competently, much less answer with any degree of accuracy.

But even if we do consdier the list. . . .

Another way to entitle the list is "20 questions among those that liberals WILL NOT ADDRESS" or consider as a concept. That is another trait I have noted in modern American liberalism as the term is most commonly used and understood at this time. It is an extremely rare liberal who will consider or address a concept head on. Instead he or she will almost always change the question, throw out a straw man or red herring, or otherwise divert from the concept to something easier to attack, accuse, or criticize.

For instance take a single issue or question:

Should able bodied welfare recipients be required to do any work for what they receive or be required to repay their welfare payments if their circumstances improve?​

I'm not saying all conservatives WILL address that objectively and without partisan overtones, but I will say that ALL conservatives CAN address the principle involved without dragging anything else into it.

I honestly don't know many liberals who can or will do that.

 

[Foxfyre]

Now playing with that 20 questions list, let's turn them into objective concepts:

1. ORIGINAL: A few days ago, we were hearing that the Boston Marathon bombers COULD BE conservative, which proved that the Right is evil. Now, when we know that the terrorists are Muslims, how can the same liberals be saying that it means nothing?

A BETTER QUETION: Is it okay to relate bad acts of Muslims to an extremist religion, to relate bad acts of politicians to a political party, to relate a bad act of an individual to the Tea Party or other religious groups?​

2) ORIGINAL: If you believe we have a "right" to things like health care, food, shelter and a good education, then doesn't that also mean you believe we also have a right to force other people to unwillingly provide those things at gunpoint?

A BETTER QUESTION: How do you justify a government having the ability to force one citizen to support another and how do you draw the line on what government can force a citizen to do?​

3) ORIGINAL: How can you simultaneously want a big government that will make decisions that have an enormous impact on the lives of every American while also saying that the character and morals of our politicians don't matter?

A BETTER QUESTON: Does character and do morals matter when electing those who will have ability to make decisions that profoundly affect our lives​

?

4) ORIGINAL: What exactly is the "fair share" of someone's income that he’s earned that he should be able to keep?

This one is okay as is.​

5) ORIGINAL: Why is it that time and time again, revenue paid to the treasury has GONE UP after we've cut taxes?

This one is okay as is.​

6) ORIGINAL: Are you pro-choice or pro-abortion? If it's pro-choice, do you feel people should be able to choose to have an assault weapon, what kind of light bulb they use in their house or whether they'd like to put their Social Security funds into a private retirement account?

This one is okay as is.​

7) ORIGINAL: If corporations are so awful, greedy and bad for the country, then shouldn't we be celebrating when they decide to close their plants here and move overseas?

I don't really like how this one is worded, but it basically is okay as is.​

8) ORIGINAL: How can liberal economists like Paul Krugman be right when they claim that our economy isn't doing well because we aren't spending enough money when we're already running massive, unsustainable deficits and spending is going up every year?

A BETTER QUESTION: Is government spending or government austerity the better choice to bring down a runaway deficit and national debt?​

9) ORIGINAL: If Republicans don’t care about the poor, why do studies consistently show that they give more to charity than Democrats do?

A BETTER QUESTION: Who is more charitable? Those who want government to give more to the poor or those who voluntarily give more out of their own pockets?​

10) ORIGINAL: Give us a ballpark estimate: If something doesn't change dramatically, how long do you think it will be until we have an economic crash in this country similar to the one we're seeing in Greece or Cyprus?

A BETTER QUESTION: Can a nation continue to add trillions to the national debt each year and remain solvent?​

11) Since we "all agree" with the idea that our level of deficit spending is "unsustainable," what would be wrong with permanently freezing federal spending at the current level until we balance the budget by increasing revenue, cutting spending or some combination thereof?

I would have worded it somewhat differently, but in concept this one is okay as is.​

12) ORIGINAL: If we change God's definition of marriage to make gay marriage legal, then what's the logical argument against polygamy or even adult siblings supposed to be?

This one is okay as is.​

13) ORIGINAL: In a world where people can easily change states and can, with a bit more difficulty, permanently move to other roughly comparable parts of the globe, do you really think it's feasible over the long haul to have a tax system where 86% of the income taxes are paid by the top 25% of the income earners?

A BETTER QUESTION: What is the best argument against having the same percentage of taxation applied to all income?​

14) ORIGINAL: If you win a lawsuit that's filed against you, why should you have to pay huge legal bills when you did nothing wrong while the person who filed the suit pays no penalty for wrongly accusing you?

This one is okay as is.​

15) ORIGINAL: How can you oppose putting murderers to death and be fine with killing innocent children via abortion?

A BETTER QUESTION: Is it irrational to support the death penalty but oppose abortion? Conversely is it irrational to oppose the death penalty and support abortion?​

16) ORIGINAL: A minimum wage raises salaries for some workers at the cost of putting other workers out of jobs entirely. What's the acceptable ratio for that? For every 10 people who get a higher salary, how many are you willing to see lose their jobs?

A BETTER QUESTION: If it is shown that a higher minimum wage shuts many teenagers and lower skilled workers out of the job market altogether, would you support a higher minimum wage? Why or why not?​

17) ORIGINAL: The earth has been warming and cooling for thousands of years with temperature drops and increases that are much larger than the ones we've seen over the last century. Since we can't adequately explain or model those changes, what makes us think we can say with any sort of confidence that global warming is being caused by man?

A BETTER QUESTION: Do you trust your own government and/or the world community sufficiently to hand over your choices, options, opportunities, and personal liberties for them to manage on your belief that this is necessary to combat global warming? Why or why not​

?

18) ORIGINAL: We live in a world where people have more choices than ever before in music, entertainment, careers, news sources and what to do with their time. Shouldn't government mirror that trend by moving towards federalism and states’ rights instead of centralizing more and more power in Washington, DC?

A BETTER QUESTION: What is in our best interest: more centralized power in Washington or more power returned/given to the states and local communities? Explain your answer.​

19) ORIGINAL: If people in the middle class aren't willing to pay enough in taxes to cover the government services that they use because they don't think it's worth the money, shouldn't we prune back government to a level people do feel comfortable paying for in taxes?

A BETTER QUESTION: Should government be limited to what the people are willing and able to pay for?​

20) ORIGINAL: If firms can get by with paying women 72 cents on the dollar for the same quality of work as men, then why don't we see any firms with all female labor forces using those lower costs to dominate the marketplace?

A BETTER QUESTION: What is a fair wage and how is it determined?​

 

[Bfgrn]

Now Mathew, you really think that the economic theories that resulted in the First Great Republican Depression were not destructive? And that the deconstruction of the regulations that were put into place because of that Depression, leading up to October, 2008, and a very near brush with the Second Great Republican Depression, were not destuctive?

I think the jury is still out on who gets the "credit" for the economic calamity of 08.

And that I need to point this out to you, assuming you are a fair and earnest poster, (a "plain dealer" if you will allow me a bit of American heritage lingo), a man of character who values the truth and integrity in others and who just happens to be a Liberal is typical of Liberals.

You are politically aware and yet I had to inform you that George W. Bush and/or members of his administration warned about the dangers of Fannie And Freddy's lax lending practices from early in his administration until near the end as the crisis began to hit.

In fact...

"Bushco" made more than thirty warnings about the possibility of an economic crises if policies and practices weren't changed!!

And you know what the leading Liberals in Congress said in response to these warnings?

Watch this...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM]Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Dems of financial and housing crisis; meltdown - YouTube[/ame]

What were those warning signs? Who raised them? And who disputed them?

So, tell me again, after having watched that video, 'who was responsible for the meltdown?'

That's one thing that irks me about libs. That even a great guy like you didn't know this and you have been making important decisions based on this faulty info for many years now. Decisions based on myths and propaganda and lies.

And the folks responsible for keeping you in the dark about all of this, and God knows what else, have profited by their deception and you if you are a typical Liberal will just refuse to see it.

And I get the impression it isn't always a conscious choice not to believe the truth and then change course. I sometimes believe that some Libs are mentally, physically, biologically or psychologically incapable of controlling themselves...of making themselves do what is right after they have made their emotion based decisions.

So instead they double down on defending these jerks and con men who have used them like two bit ho's..

And, again, if you respond to my post by defending them once again, you'll have a perfect example of why I can't stand Liberals.

Okay.

Now what?

Herein lies your problem(s)...

Here is what we DO know:

1) The financial crisis was not caused by low and middle income families buying a home.

2) It was not caused by dead beat poor people.

3) Fannie and Freddie were not to cause.

4) The Community Investment Act was not the culprit either.

The crisis was caused by private lending, to mostly upper middle class and the wealthy. ONLY 6% of of all the higher-priced loans were extended by CRA-covered lenders to lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods in their CRA assessment areas. The majority of those foreclosed on were wealthy and upper middle class, plus a large segment of buyers who were wealthy home flippers looking for a fast buck. They strategically walked away from their mortgages, leaving people who bought homes to live in with lower values on their house and neighborhood.

AND, what really sucks for the right wing propaganda of lies, all the way back to the late '90's there was one very outspoken and vocal critic of predatory lending practices, they even held protests at companies like Wells Fargo and Lehman Brothers...ACORN


WSJ - Fed’s Kroszner: Don’t Blame CRA

WSJ - Fed’s Kroszner: Don’t Blame CRA - The Sequel

Reuters - UPDATE 2-Lending to poor didn't spur crisis

Don't Blame the Community Reinvestment Act

Business Insider - Here's Why Fannie And Freddie Are Not At Fault For The Housing Bubble

Center for Responsible Lending - CRA is not to Blame for the Mortgage Meltdown

Don't blame Fannie and Freddie

Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis

ForeclosureS.com - ACORN - Progress in the Fight Against Predatory Lending

Acorn Led Financial Sector With Warnings on Lending

Biggest Defaulters on Mortgages Are the Rich

The Millionaire Foreclosure Club

Foreclosure double standard: Why the rich get away with defaulting

More Rich People Default On Mortgages

The rich bail faster on mortgages

Biggest Defaulters on Mortgages Are the Rich

Rich Borrowers More Likely to Default on Mortgage

Foreclosures & Walking Away: 60 Minutes Eyes an ‘Epidemic’

Speculation By Investors Largely Cause Of Foreclosure Crisis

How the Foreclosure Crisis Started: Investors, Speculators, Mortgage Fraud & Lax Lending Standards

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did "Bushco" make more than thirty warnings about the possibility of an economic crises if HIS policies and practices weren't changed???

Maybe you just FORGOT...

Bush's 'ownership society'

"America is a stronger country every single time a family moves into a home of their own," George W. Bush said in October 2004. To achieve his vision, Bush pushed new policies encouraging homeownership, like the "zero-down-payment initiative," which was much as it sounds—a government-sponsored program that allowed people to get mortgages without a down payment. More exotic mortgages followed, including ones with no monthly payments for the first two years. Other mortgages required no documentation other than the say-so of the borrower. Absurd though these all were, they paled in comparison to the financial innovations that grew out of the mortgages—derivatives built on other derivatives, packaged and repackaged until no one could identify what they contained and how much they were, in fact, worth.

As we know by now, these instruments have brought the global financial system, improbably, to the brink of collapse.

End of the ‘Ownership Society’


"Eighty percent of Republicans are just Democrats that don't know what's going on"
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

 

[American_Jihad]

Let's not and call it what it really is. You being a partisan hack. You can't think for yourself. You think you know what you are talking about but really don't have a clue. And you wouldn't know facts if they were right in front of your face because to you only one perspective has any relevance.

One sided people who label everyone else falsely and then pretend they won some sort of victory when the person doesn't want to deal with you, are boring as hell.

Think outside the box for once or just go talk to folks who think like you, there are plenty of them here. And some of them debate with an open mind. Yours is already closed. Closed and locked and buried in the desert somewhere where only people like Rush Limbaugh have the key.

Good luck going through life like that.

Sometimes it doesn't take long at all to peg these bozos. They'll out themselves, as here.
Which is a good thing in a way because idiots like this are what drag threads down in an endless and mindless echo of "yammer yammer libtard yammer yammer" that succeeds only in generating a cacophony of rhetorical pink noise.

I agree and unfortunately, it's a waste of time dealing with such strict partisans that immediately discount anyone who doesn't think like them. But they are good with the partisan poo flinging in the threads. Lets see all Liberals............Obama..............It's boring.

Wolfsissy, Not necessarily yawl have a lot of comedians on da left like this commie beatch...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3I-PVVowFY]Maxine Waters (D) Slip of the Tongue Reveals True Intentions (Socialism for America) - YouTube[/ame]

...