Why do people hate Liberals?

[Bfgrn]

And here, Pogo, with this statement:

And here, the reason I kept this list alive, is an illustration of what anti-Liberalism is: a hair-on-fire demagoguery determined to paint the despised group (the eliminatee) in specious emotionally-based disingenuous bovine waste product in an attempt not to engage in rational intellectual discourse but to charge the target with demonic character.​

in my opinion you are inadvertently and likely unintentionally guilty of the very thing you accused the author of the list of being: demonstrating demagoguery in your opinion of the other. I rather think the author was being quite honest in the development of the list, but because of his/her inability to keep it objective, many of the question are phrased in a flawed manner making an objective answer difficult if not impossible.

As a conservative, I knew exactly where he/she was probably coming from and it is likely from a sincere place. You, a liberal, seemed unable to see it in that light. Which is another manifestation of modern day American liberalism as it is most often defined in our modern day culture and why liberalism seems so angry, hateful, and wrong to many of us. It does not make you unlovable which obvously you are not unlovable. But the topic of the thread is liberals/liberalism and why they/it are seen so unfavorably when that is the case.

Ah well now you're moving your own goalposts. First it was a "flawed" list with "leading" "intentionally provocative" and "foolish" questions -- now in the time it takes to post a single thought, the same list becomes "honest" and "sincere". All this referring to a list that takes the ironic position in its preamble that "Liberalism doesn't convince with logic". Ironic since since half-formed emotional arguments, non sequiturs and various other fallacies are what he uses for virtually the entire list. A pattern you yourself already caught without my leading you there.

Duality duly noted. Duality duly noted.

I did note your post with comments on the 20 questions, but will not address the questions further lest we derail the intent of this thread.

I, the conservative, was not critiquing the motives of writer of the list. You see, I, the conservative, can see the list itself as 'flawed' in form while appreciating that it was intended as sincere and honest by the author.

You, the liberal, accused the author of demgoguery and otherwise accused him while making no effort of any kind to appreciate the thought that had gone into the list or that the subject matter was worthy of discussion.

I criticized the form as not being conducive to objective discussion and explained why I saw it that way along with some suggestions for some better questions. (And of course there is no doubt that somebody else could come up with even better questions than the ones I suggested off the top of my head.)

You seemed to criticize the person for forming the questions in the first place and/or rejected him as being unworthy of your consideration simply because he did not phrase his questions properly or to whatever standards you would consider acceptable.

And when it comes to discussion of various topics, THAT is a problem in communication between conservatives and liberals. The conservative is capable of being objective in the discussion and most liberals, at least based on my experience, are not. I'm not sure how we get around that to find common ground.

haughty

1. disdainfully proud; snobbish; scornfully arrogant; supercilious:

 

[Pogo]

And here, Pogo, with this statement:

And here, the reason I kept this list alive, is an illustration of what anti-Liberalism is: a hair-on-fire demagoguery determined to paint the despised group (the eliminatee) in specious emotionally-based disingenuous bovine waste product in an attempt not to engage in rational intellectual discourse but to charge the target with demonic character.​

in my opinion you are inadvertently and likely unintentionally guilty of the very thing you accused the author of the list of being: demonstrating demagoguery in your opinion of the other. I rather think the author was being quite honest in the development of the list, but because of his/her inability to keep it objective, many of the question are phrased in a flawed manner making an objective answer difficult if not impossible.

As a conservative, I knew exactly where he/she was probably coming from and it is likely from a sincere place. You, a liberal, seemed unable to see it in that light. Which is another manifestation of modern day American liberalism as it is most often defined in our modern day culture and why liberalism seems so angry, hateful, and wrong to many of us. It does not make you unlovable which obvously you are not unlovable. But the topic of the thread is liberals/liberalism and why they/it are seen so unfavorably when that is the case.

Ah well now you're moving your own goalposts. First it was a "flawed" list with "leading" "intentionally provocative" and "foolish" questions -- now in the time it takes to post a single thought, the same list becomes "honest" and "sincere". All this referring to a list that takes the ironic position in its preamble that "Liberalism doesn't convince with logic". Ironic since since half-formed emotional arguments, non sequiturs and various other fallacies are what he uses for virtually the entire list. A pattern you yourself already caught without my leading you there.

Duality duly noted. Duality duly noted.

I did note your post with comments on the 20 questions, but will not address the questions further lest we derail the intent of this thread.

I, the conservative, was not critiquing the motives of writer of the list. You see, I, the conservative, can see the list itself as 'flawed' in form while appreciating that it was intended as sincere and honest by the author.

You, the liberal, accused the author of demgoguery and otherwise accused him while making no effort of any kind to appreciate the thought that had gone into the list or that the subject matter was worthy of discussion.

I criticized the form as not being conducive to objective discussion and explained why I saw it that way along with some suggestions for some better questions. (And of course there is no doubt that somebody else could come up with even better questions than the ones I suggested off the top of my head.)

You seemed to criticize the person for forming the questions in the first place and/or rejected him as being unworthy of your consideration simply because he did not phrase his questions properly or to whatever standards you would consider acceptable.

And when it comes to discussion of various topics, THAT is a problem in communication between conservatives and liberals. The conservative is capable of being objective in the discussion and most liberals, at least based on my experience, are not. I'm not sure how we get around that to find common ground.

We start by not sticking our fingers in our ears and going whenever the other speaks. What the hell do you think the point of 2758 was?

"Derail the intent of this thread"? Are you fing kidding me?? Anti-liberalism IS THE WHOLE POINT of this thread. Now you want to run away from it when it becomes inconvenient?

 

[Foxfyre]

Ah well now you're moving your own goalposts. First it was a "flawed" list with "leading" "intentionally provocative" and "foolish" questions -- now in the time it takes to post a single thought, the same list becomes "honest" and "sincere". All this referring to a list that takes the ironic position in its preamble that "Liberalism doesn't convince with logic". Ironic since since half-formed emotional arguments, non sequiturs and various other fallacies are what he uses for virtually the entire list. A pattern you yourself already caught without my leading you there.

Duality duly noted. Duality duly noted.

I did note your post with comments on the 20 questions, but will not address the questions further lest we derail the intent of this thread.

I, the conservative, was not critiquing the motives of writer of the list. You see, I, the conservative, can see the list itself as 'flawed' in form while appreciating that it was intended as sincere and honest by the author.

You, the liberal, accused the author of demgoguery and otherwise accused him while making no effort of any kind to appreciate the thought that had gone into the list or that the subject matter was worthy of discussion.

I criticized the form as not being conducive to objective discussion and explained why I saw it that way along with some suggestions for some better questions. (And of course there is no doubt that somebody else could come up with even better questions than the ones I suggested off the top of my head.)

You seemed to criticize the person for forming the questions in the first place and/or rejected him as being unworthy of your consideration simply because he did not phrase his questions properly or to whatever standards you would consider acceptable.

And when it comes to discussion of various topics, THAT is a problem in communication between conservatives and liberals. The conservative is capable of being objective in the discussion and most liberals, at least based on my experience, are not. I'm not sure how we get around that to find common ground.

We start by not sticking our fingers in our ears and going whenever the other speaks. What the hell do you think the point of 2758 was?

"Derail the intent of this thread"? Are you fing kidding me?? Anti-liberalism IS THE WHOLE POINT of this thread. Now you want to run away from it when it becomes inconvenient?

And here you totally misinterpreted what I said. I intended to reassure you, as a courtesy, that I was not ignoring your post and explained why I would not respond further to the specific questions, as the topic was not the questions, but was rather how we view and/or respond to them as liberals and conservatives.

And you hear that as me accusing you of derailing the thread.

I believe you honestly did not/do not see what I am saying. It isn't a matter of sticking fingers in ears and refusing to hear. It is an inability to hear. A disconnect between how a liberal sees and hears things and how a conservative hears and sees things.

Also, as I have explained already, I don't see the thread as being about anti-liberalism as much as it explores why some see liberals/liberalism so negatively. (I translate 'hate' as 'negative' here so that I can participate in the discussion.) But in fairness to you, that might be splitting hairs and I can see why some would not separate those two things.

It is that kind of disconnect I don't know how we get around. But it is part of the issue, I think, in why liberalism receives such poor marks from conservatives. Liberals simply don't focus on a concept in the same way conservatives do.

I am sure that any of my conservative friends here will correct me if I am wrong about that.

 

[Mojo2]

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.

You could do my speakin for me most days, Ma'am!

Couldn't agree more.

I'll add, they keep trying to prove their emotional bona fides.

Well, THAT'S not what should even be in the discussion when it comes to how well they govern or legislate.

Lefties, don't prove to US how nice you want US to believe you are.

Prove to US you have the character and the brains to lead this great country.

If it wasn't for the low information voters we'd have enjoyed watching a BRILLIANT businessman, and one who went to the NAACP, knowing ahead of time that he'd meet with a crowd of ALL Black men and women who make up Obama's base of support.

And he promised them his presidency would be better for Black people than Obama's second term would be.

That was a bold and courageous and compassionate and loving sign of true leadership.

And, as usual, the Black man gets eliminated early on in the horror film.

We were in bad economic trouble in 08, Obama STILL hadn't steered us out of the perilous waters by 2012, yet y'all gave him another chance.

And still NOTHING!

Well, Romney made economic turnarounds his mutha fizzukin BIZNESS!.

If you wanted to just elect Mitt and then dog his ass the next four years we'd STILL be better off with him.

'Gee, Moj, you have no way of proving that.'

Well, you may be right but when you recognize the US was in financial trouble and you bet on Obama instead of Romney, just based on each one's respective training and areas of interest, training, education, track records of success, the conduct of their performance and their intangibles of character, voting for Obama was a stupid bet.

That is, if you place any value on keeping America strong, prosperous and free.

So, to conclude, it's already been established that Libs will do any mindless thing in THE BLINDEST way just to be considered "nice."

Libs, don't convince me you are nice, convince me you are rational, intelligent, in control of your emotions, and that you are far sighted, that you love America and that you have morals and a high placed set of values.

Jeez, we coulda had Romney but instead we chose the one who's bad for US.

Sounds like the typical story of a Sistah who always chooses the wrong guy.

 

[mamooth]

Lefties, don't prove to US how nice you want US to believe you are.

No one this board has ever called me nice. Where did you get such a crazy idea that liberals want to thought of as nice? Most of the conservatives here spend their days complaining about how meeeeeeeaaaaaaaan we liberals are.

So, to conclude, it's already been established that Libs will do any mindless thing in THE BLINDEST way just to be considered "nice."

To conclude, you've given no evidence for such a bizarre assertion. It appears to be a merely a deranged fantasy that you take some emotional comfort from.

And that's why you lose elections. Romney was largely rejected because he was seen as out-of-touch with the real world. Plus, he sucked hard as a businessman, only showing competence at destroying companies and sending jobs to Mexico.

 

[Mojo2]

And thank you Wolfsister!!!!

Okay, Wolfsister has provided an objective answer to the question. She did it without making it partisan, without demonizing or accusing anybody, and without referencing a single politician or other person. She thus demonstrates that an intelligent liberal CAN argue something without being ad hominem or insulting to some person or group. Kudos. (She also, in my opinion, is very rare. )

The first paragraph of her response directly answers the question. The remainder is related and I presume intended to support her opinion that requiring able bodied people to work is feasible and is being demonstrated in California.

I have to note that she gave her opinion that welfare recipients should not have to repay what they receive if and when they are able to do so, but did not provide a rationale for that. That really is a tougher question than is a work for welfare issue.

Meg Whitman, candidate for governor, in 2010 wrote an equally objective opinion about California welfare that suggests that the official policy and the reality are separate things:

Excerpt:


Hopefully not shifting the focus of the thread to welfare as that isn't the purpose of this exercise, the question then becomes:

Who is the more compassionate in their views toward welfare?:

Wolfsister, the liberal, who argues that the government has the right approach?

. . . .or. . . .

Meg, the conservative, who argues that the government approach is not meeting the goal of "helping more welfare recipients leave welfare for a life of greater independence and dignity:?

Is it possible that both points of views are equally compassionate and demonstrate equal concern for those who need a hand up?

But how do we get past the demogoguery, demonization, partisanship, and deep seated prejudices targeted at people who think or see differently so that we can even discuss the topic or agree on the goal, much less agree on how best to accomplish a goal?

. . . .

How?

Recognize that even though 'Mom' is sweet and kind and comes up with good ideas every now and then, her best role is as helpmate to "Dad," who is the boss of the house because he makes better decisions more reliably than Mom.

Until we all recognize who wears the pants we will always be trying to establish that pecking order.

Look at any of the nature programs dealing with packs of predators. Lions, dogs, wolves even the cute little Meerkat. Until it's clearly established who rules the roost there will be a struggle to establish dominance.

And many Conservatives can't trust Liberals to guide this country AT THIS PERILOUS POINT IN TIME!*

So, this issue of who will lead the USA is of vital importance in settling before we can go forward...together, again.



*And note that I'm not mentioning the O name here. (Major concession on my part in the interests of rapprochement. )

There you go Foxfyre. Someone who unwittingly just defined the 'conservative' world view of social Darwinism.

Translation: What Conservatives Really Want

Conservatives really want to change the basis of American life, to make America run according to the conservative moral worldview in all areas of life.

In the 2008 campaign, candidate Obama accurately described the basis of American democracy: Empathy -- citizens caring for each other, both social and personal responsibility -- acting on that care, and an ethic of excellence. From these, our freedoms and our way of life follow, as does the role of government: to protect and empower everyone equally. Protection includes safety, health, the environment, pensions and empowerment starts with education and infrastructure. No one can be free without these, and without a commitment to care and act on that care by one's fellow citizens.

The conservative worldview rejects all of that.

Conservatives believe in individual responsibility alone, not social responsibility. They don't think government should help its citizens. That is, they don't think citizens should help each other. The part of government they want to cut is not the military (we have 174 bases around the world), not government subsidies to corporations, not the aspect of government that fits their worldview. They want to cut the part that helps people. Why? Because that violates individual responsibility.

But where does that view of individual responsibility alone come from?

The way to understand the conservative moral system is to consider a strict father family. The father is The Decider, the ultimate moral authority in the family. His authority must not be challenged. His job is to protect the family, to support the family (by winning competitions in the marketplace), and to teach his kids right from wrong by disciplining them physically when they do wrong. The use of force is necessary and required. Only then will children develop the internal discipline to become moral beings. And only with such discipline will they be able to prosper. And what of people who are not prosperous? They don't have discipline, and without discipline they cannot be moral, so they deserve their poverty. The good people are hence the prosperous people. Helping others takes away their discipline, and hence makes them both unable to prosper on their own and function morally.

Only the clueless and those who listen to the idiots on MSNBC believe this crap. Okay, sorry for being redundant.


Gee, you were making solid progress and then, BAM, your left front got a blow out and
you started veering that way and out of control.

Me thinks SOMEONE may have some unresolved Daddy issues and is intent on making the entire United States suffer his public attempts to work through those issues with our money and our safety and our citizen's freedoms.

When you are able to gain mastery of your demons (lottsa luck with that, Pal. I mean it.) and look past the immediate effect of Obama's actions and policies you will gain a greater appreciation for just how he is using US, er, well...YOU.

I'm reminded of the frequent compliments expressed by so many over the years about the original Rocky and Bullwinkle TV show episodes.

They were entertaining to young kids of 5 but they also weaved into every story rich, adult references and allusions that flew right over the youngsters' heads but were heard and enjoyed by their parents.

 

[Mojo2]

Lefties, don't prove to US how nice you want US to believe you are.

No one this board has ever called me nice. Where did you get such a crazy idea that liberals want to thought of as nice? Most of the conservatives here spend their days complaining about how meeeeeeeaaaaaaaan we liberals are.

So, to conclude, it's already been established that Libs will do any mindless thing in THE BLINDEST way just to be considered "nice."

To conclude, you've given no evidence for such a bizarre assertion. It appears to be a merely a deranged fantasy that you take some emotional comfort from.

And that's why you lose elections. Romney was largely rejected because he was seen as out-of-touch with the real world. Plus, he sucked hard as a businessman, only showing competence at destroying companies and sending jobs to Mexico.

Ahh. I look forward to future exchanges where I'll have the opportunity to trash your posts as a way of showing you, "who's yo' Daddy!"

 

[Pogo]

Lefties, don't prove to US how nice you want US to believe you are.

No one this board has ever called me nice. Where did you get such a crazy idea that liberals want to thought of as nice? Most of the conservatives here spend their days complaining about how meeeeeeeaaaaaaaan we liberals are.

So, to conclude, it's already been established that Libs will do any mindless thing in THE BLINDEST way just to be considered "nice."

To conclude, you've given no evidence for such a bizarre assertion. It appears to be a merely a deranged fantasy that you take some emotional comfort from.

And that's why you lose elections. Romney was largely rejected because he was seen as out-of-touch with the real world. Plus, he sucked hard as a businessman, only showing competence at destroying companies and sending jobs to Mexico.

I don't know why you bother with that clown - he's so addicted to blanket statements he makes Linus look independent.

I can see he's trolling the thread down, Wildcard can't even show up to defend his own post, and Foxy, the only antagonist operating with any kind of brain cell, doesn't want to discuss it so I'm going to join the OP and bail out here. Y'all want to swim in the soup of your own denial in lieu of real answers, have at and enjoy the echo chamber. I tried talking reason but there's only so much you can say to a collective wall.

As a parting shot-in-the-dark, I leave you once again with this -- I posted it before to underwhelming crickets but if some of y'all take your blinders off it might answer questions you don't know you have.

 

[Mojo2]

How?

Recognize that even though 'Mom' is sweet and kind and comes up with good ideas every now and then, her best role is as helpmate to "Dad," who is the boss of the house because he makes better decisions more reliably than Mom.

Until we all recognize who wears the pants we will always be trying to establish that pecking order.

Look at any of the nature programs dealing with packs of predators. Lions, dogs, wolves even the cute little Meerkat. Until it's clearly established who rules the roost there will be a struggle to establish dominance.

And many Conservatives can't trust Liberals to guide this country AT THIS PERILOUS POINT IN TIME!*

So, this issue of who will lead the USA is of vital importance in settling before we can go forward...together, again.

*And note that I'm not mentioning the O name here. (Major concession on my part in the interests of rapprochement. )

Okay, Mojo, in his own unique "Mojo" way , has provided an objective observation here while Bfgn, addressing the same post, launched right into a highly partisan and/or ad hominem ideological demogoguery that is typical of most liberals at USMB and, by logical extension, is one of the reasons liberalism is held in such poor esteem by non liberals.

So lets focus on Mojo's response.

Even though the response was given objectively, I was unable to be sure whether he:

a) Was suggesting a natural pecking order in an efficient and/or effective society by suggesting we need a shepherd or authority in chief who will make our decisions for us. . . .

. . . .that would be a decidedly liberal (as we understand the term in our present culture) point of view and would be rejected by most libertarians/conservatives/classical liberals. . .

. . .or. . . .

b) Was suggesting that some are more effective and efficient in others in doing or managing certain things in which case I could easily agree though I am not certain that is even applicable in a discussion of whether Wolfsister or Meg Whitman are equally compassionate in their views of the less fortunate among us.

I would agree that liberalism, as it is generally applied in the current US culture, has produced far more negatives than positives everywhere it has been applied. But I am looking at that through conservative, as it is generally applied in the current US culture, eyes. I see liberalism as squelching or discouraging individual liberty, options, choices, opportunity, and initiative and conservatism embracing policy or lack of government interference that promotes individual liberty, options, choices, opportunity, and initiative as I believe that produces a far better quality of life for the vast majority of U.S. citizens.

I believe encouraging dependence holds a very real danger of producing a lowered permanent quality of life that should not be tolerable to any American. For every person who climbs out of the dependency, there will be two or more who become too comfortable in it and lose the will to escape it. And that, to me, a conservative, is as cruel and indefensible as deliberately getting a person hookied on crack or heroin.

Further toward the ends of increased dependency, whether that is the stated goal or not, the liberal concept of reinstalling a king or other authoritarian government--the very concept the Founders intended to free us from--is abhorent to the conservative sense of what government was intended to be. Thus, we do NOT hand over authority to anybody just because they are bigger, stronger, smarter, etc. but rather we assign duties to those best equipped to perform them well while the people retain the authority.

We are fast losing that concept in America, however.

Did you hear that grandma? Climb out of your 'dependency' and your wheel chair and get a JOB you lazy mooch!

Do you hear me grandma?

Do you hear me grandma?

Do you hear me grandma?

Do you hear me grandma?

You shall rise up before the gray-headed and honor the aged, and you shall revere your God; I am the Lord.
Leviticus 19:32

Don't raise your voice at Nana!

Go and find an attendant!

Bfgrn?

Hah!

Why not Bfidjit?!

 

[Mojo2]

Lefties, don't prove to US how nice you want US to believe you are.

No one this board has ever called me nice. Where did you get such a crazy idea that liberals want to thought of as nice? Most of the conservatives here spend their days complaining about how meeeeeeeaaaaaaaan we liberals are.

So, to conclude, it's already been established that Libs will do any mindless thing in THE BLINDEST way just to be considered "nice."

To conclude, you've given no evidence for such a bizarre assertion. It appears to be a merely a deranged fantasy that you take some emotional comfort from.

And that's why you lose elections. Romney was largely rejected because he was seen as out-of-touch with the real world. Plus, he sucked hard as a businessman, only showing competence at destroying companies and sending jobs to Mexico.

I don't know why you bother with that clown - he's so addicted to blanket statements he makes Linus look independent.

I can see he's trolling the thread down, Wildcard can't even show up to defend his own post, and Foxy, the only antagonist operating with any kind of brain cell, doesn't want to discuss it so I'm going to join the OP and bail out here. Y'all want to swim in the soup of your own denial in lieu of real answers, have at and enjoy the echo chamber. I tried talking reason but there's only so much you can say to a collective wall.

Are you still here, Fredo??

 

[American_Jihad]

The Black Book of the American Left

December 18, 2013 by Theodore Dalrymple

...

He was a red diaper baby, that is to say the child of ‘orthodox’ communist parents, but by the time he came to young adulthood the Soviet Union was no longer plausibly the hope of the world. However, Horowitz did not at that stage want to throw the baby out with the diapers, and therefore helped to found the New Left. Unfortunately, the internal logic of its socialist beliefs led it to support or make excuses for totalitarian regimes such as Castro’s, just as the previous generation of orthodox communists had done. It also indulged in what would have been comic operetta revolutionism had it not been for the extreme criminal nastiness of the acts which it excused, condoned, concealed or perpetrated.

Horowitz’s essays collected here, written over twenty-five years, are dedicated to demonstrating that this leftism was not an ‘infantile disorder,’ to quote Lenin, or a mild and mostly harmless childhood illness like mumps, but more usually like a chronic condition with lingering after-effects and flare-ups. Those who suffered it only very rarely got over it fully, the late Christopher Hitchens being a good example of one who did not. He, Hitchens, could never bring himself to admit that he had for all his life admired and extolled a man who was at least as bad as Stalin, namely Trotsky; and his failure to renounce his choice of maître à penser became in time not just a youthful peccadillo of a clever adolescent who wanted to shock the adults but a symptom of a deep character flaw, a fundamental indifference to important truth. With the exception of Hitchens, for whom he has a soft spot and to whom in my opinion he is over-indulgent, Horowitz does not want any of the leftists to get away with it by rewriting not only history but their own biographies.

...

The Black Book of the American Left | FrontPage Magazine

 

[Bfgrn]

Okay, Mojo, in his own unique "Mojo" way , has provided an objective observation here while Bfgn, addressing the same post, launched right into a highly partisan and/or ad hominem ideological demogoguery that is typical of most liberals at USMB and, by logical extension, is one of the reasons liberalism is held in such poor esteem by non liberals.

So lets focus on Mojo's response.

Even though the response was given objectively, I was unable to be sure whether he:

a) Was suggesting a natural pecking order in an efficient and/or effective society by suggesting we need a shepherd or authority in chief who will make our decisions for us. . . .

. . . .that would be a decidedly liberal (as we understand the term in our present culture) point of view and would be rejected by most libertarians/conservatives/classical liberals. . .

. . .or. . . .

b) Was suggesting that some are more effective and efficient in others in doing or managing certain things in which case I could easily agree though I am not certain that is even applicable in a discussion of whether Wolfsister or Meg Whitman are equally compassionate in their views of the less fortunate among us.

I would agree that liberalism, as it is generally applied in the current US culture, has produced far more negatives than positives everywhere it has been applied. But I am looking at that through conservative, as it is generally applied in the current US culture, eyes. I see liberalism as squelching or discouraging individual liberty, options, choices, opportunity, and initiative and conservatism embracing policy or lack of government interference that promotes individual liberty, options, choices, opportunity, and initiative as I believe that produces a far better quality of life for the vast majority of U.S. citizens.

I believe encouraging dependence holds a very real danger of producing a lowered permanent quality of life that should not be tolerable to any American. For every person who climbs out of the dependency, there will be two or more who become too comfortable in it and lose the will to escape it. And that, to me, a conservative, is as cruel and indefensible as deliberately getting a person hookied on crack or heroin.

Further toward the ends of increased dependency, whether that is the stated goal or not, the liberal concept of reinstalling a king or other authoritarian government--the very concept the Founders intended to free us from--is abhorent to the conservative sense of what government was intended to be. Thus, we do NOT hand over authority to anybody just because they are bigger, stronger, smarter, etc. but rather we assign duties to those best equipped to perform them well while the people retain the authority.

We are fast losing that concept in America, however.

Did you hear that grandma? Climb out of your 'dependency' and your wheel chair and get a JOB you lazy mooch!

Do you hear me grandma?

Do you hear me grandma?

Do you hear me grandma?

Do you hear me grandma?

You shall rise up before the gray-headed and honor the aged, and you shall revere your God; I am the Lord.
Leviticus 19:32

Don't raise your voice at Nana!

Go and find an attendant!

Bfgrn?

Hah!

Why not Bfidjit?!

Among the diminished human abilities the elderly face besides being unable to compete in the workforce is the diminishing physical abilities. HEARING is one of them. Grandma can't HEAR well...

 

[JimBowie1958]

I did note your post with comments on the 20 questions, but will not address the questions further lest we derail the intent of this thread.

I, the conservative, was not critiquing the motives of writer of the list. You see, I, the conservative, can see the list itself as 'flawed' in form while appreciating that it was intended as sincere and honest by the author.

You, the liberal, accused the author of demgoguery and otherwise accused him while making no effort of any kind to appreciate the thought that had gone into the list or that the subject matter was worthy of discussion.

I criticized the form as not being conducive to objective discussion and explained why I saw it that way along with some suggestions for some better questions. (And of course there is no doubt that somebody else could come up with even better questions than the ones I suggested off the top of my head.)

You seemed to criticize the person for forming the questions in the first place and/or rejected him as being unworthy of your consideration simply because he did not phrase his questions properly or to whatever standards you would consider acceptable.

And when it comes to discussion of various topics, THAT is a problem in communication between conservatives and liberals. The conservative is capable of being objective in the discussion and most liberals, at least based on my experience, are not. I'm not sure how we get around that to find common ground.

We start by not sticking our fingers in our ears and going whenever the other speaks. What the hell do you think the point of 2758 was?

"Derail the intent of this thread"? Are you fing kidding me?? Anti-liberalism IS THE WHOLE POINT of this thread. Now you want to run away from it when it becomes inconvenient?

And here you totally misinterpreted what I said. I intended to reassure you, as a courtesy, that I was not ignoring your post and explained why I would not respond further to the specific questions, as the topic was not the questions, but was rather how we view and/or respond to them as liberals and conservatives.

And you hear that as me accusing you of derailing the thread.

I believe you honestly did not/do not see what I am saying. It isn't a matter of sticking fingers in ears and refusing to hear. It is an inability to hear. A disconnect between how a liberal sees and hears things and how a conservative hears and sees things.

Also, as I have explained already, I don't see the thread as being about anti-liberalism as much as it explores why some see liberals/liberalism so negatively. (I translate 'hate' as 'negative' here so that I can participate in the discussion.) But in fairness to you, that might be splitting hairs and I can see why some would not separate those two things.

It is that kind of disconnect I don't know how we get around. But it is part of the issue, I think, in why liberalism receives such poor marks from conservatives. Liberals simply don't focus on a concept in the same way conservatives do.

I am sure that any of my conservative friends here will correct me if I am wrong about that.

So many people hate liberals because they are lying bastards who will say anything to win the immediate point and then deny it later if they think they can get away with it.

A particular loathesome specimen is Pogo, one of the worst liars on this board.

 

[editec]

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.

Most of the self proclaiming liberals I know are smug affluent children of smug affluent parents.

They are mostly hypocrites.

And if you're old enough to remember what the Liberals were like when they controlled everything?

You'll remember that they abused power no less than the so called Conservatives do.

 

[RKMBrown]

And here you totally misinterpreted what I said.
...

I believe you honestly did not/do not see what I am saying. It isn't a matter of sticking fingers in ears and refusing to hear. It is an inability to hear. A disconnect between how a liberal sees and hears things and how a conservative hears and sees things.

...

It is that kind of disconnect I don't know how we get around. But it is part of the issue, I think, in why liberalism receives such poor marks from conservatives. Liberals simply don't focus on a concept in the same way conservatives do.

I am sure that any of my conservative friends here will correct me if I am wrong about that.

You are getting closer to the truth, but your arrogance and pride keeps you from the finish line.

The issue of communication breakdown is not limited to liberals vs. conservatives, nor men vs. women.

On any given topic, the number of differing opinions and differing experiences of people are vast. Additionally each of us use different vocabularies when describing said opinions based on said experiences.

Liberals in fact use even common words in very different ways than Conservatives, same for Libertarians, same for men and women, same for southerners and northerners....

Anyone of intelligence can usually discern different ways to read a sentence, now switch to this thread with dozens of people each reading the sentence with a completely different background.

Then we have the jerks that intentionally bait by using dual meanings in their sentences, to convey their biases and berate to others.

The way to get around it is to provide more detail than a summary, thus allowing more context. This was my argument to you in one of your threads where you demanded that everyone just "knows" what you meant and I was being a jerk by asking you to explain your questions with more detail. Hell you freaked out because I asked you to define what you meant by the word "benefit" since as I stated everyone interprets benefits by their own experience. Yet you demanded that explaining what benefit you were asking about was "derailing the thread." Thus you purposefully decided to create a communication breakdown, then demanded to maintain the communication breakdown, this evidently because you benefit from the communication breakdown.

Just as democrats benefit from communication breakdowns by using feel good terms like hope and change, so do the republicans. If we will be attempt to use clarity the communication breakdowns will begin to subside. But then what would we have to argue about?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Great article here about the psychology of conservatives and liberals.
Unconscious Reactions Separate Liberals and Conservatives: Scientific American

"For example, in a study published in January, a team led by psychologist Michael Dodd and political scientist John Hibbing of the University of Nebraska–Lincoln found that when viewing a collage of photographs, conservatives' eyes unconsciously lingered 15 percent longer on repellent images, such as car wrecks and excrement—suggesting that conservatives are more attuned than liberals to assessing potential threats."

Meanwhile examining the contents of 76 college students' bedrooms, as one group did in a 2008 study, revealed that conservatives possessed more cleaning and organizational items, such as ironing boards and calendars, confirmation that they are orderly and self-disciplined. Liberals owned more books and travel-related memorabilia, which conforms with previous research suggesting that they are open and novelty-seeking.

Psychologists have found that conservatives are fundamentally more anxious than liberals, which may be why they typically desire stability, structure and clear answers even to complicated questions. “Conservatism, apparently, helps to protect people against some of the natural difficulties of living,” says social psychologist Paul Nail of the University of Central Arkansas. “The fact is we don't live in a completely safe world. Things can and do go wrong. But if I can impose this order on it by my worldview, I can keep my anxiety to a manageable level.”

Anxiety is an emotion that waxes and wanes in all of us, and as it swings up or down our political views can shift in its wake. When people feel safe and secure, they become more liberal; when they feel threatened, they become more conservative."

more at link.

 

[koshergrl]

We should listen to a journalist opine about this..why, exactly?

It's an opinion piece, bolstered with questionable *studies* and anecdotes.

She's a screaming progressive who spends her time skewing information to promote a progressive world view.

"...She was a Ted Scripps Fellow in Environmental Journalism in 1993-94. Before coming to CUNY, Laber-Warren taught for 12 years in NYU’s Science, Health, and Environmental Reporting Program. She is the author of “A Walk in the Woods: Into the Field Guide,” an introduction to forest ecology for young children, to be published by Downtown Bookworks in June 2013. She has a B.A. in Humanities from Yale."

CUNY Graduate School of Journalism » Health & Science Faculty

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Phil Robertson Incident demonstrates how thin-skinned, intolerant and petty the Left is

 

[Dot Com]

why are providing links, for the rw'ers zany assertions, never put in their posts? There either aren't any credible sources or they're too lazy. Which is it?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

why are providing links, for the rw'ers zany assertions, never put in their posts? There either aren't any credible sources or they're too lazy. Which is it?

Because if they gave their sources it'd be all conservapedia, godhatesfag.com, stormfront.org and links like that