Why do people hate Liberals?

[Dhara]

I merely asked you to consider how you would have felt if it were YOUR relatives.

Consider how Canada treated the Syrian refugees.

That is irrelevant to me.

It's not irrelevant to me. Study the history of immigraton law.

I can give you a multitude of reasons why we should not accept immigrants. I would like a list from you as to why we should. I like to measure the pros and cons.

Today, we don't have to agree on which president is most responsible for the tide of humanity crashing onto Europe's shores. Maybe you blame George W. Bush for starting a war that brought chaos to Iraq, which spilled into Syria. Maybe you fault Barack Obama for pulling out of Iraq and declining to take out Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

We don't have to agree on which president broke the region. But one or both of them had a hand in the destruction. So we can't very well pretend we have no obligation to the hordes driven from their homes. This is the biggest refugee crisis since World War II, a humanitarian emergency of the highest order, and the U.S. isn't doing enough to ameliorate it.
This Is Why America Should Take More Syrian Refugees

We caused the problem, we have a responsibility to the people affected by it.

I don't care who you want to blame. I haven't done anything to any of these people, and I feel NO obligations to them whatsoever. I notice that you avoided giving me the list of pros. Until you can give me a list of pros that outweigh the cons, then I will stick to my original position on this topic.

It's not my job to convince you of anything. I don't care if you keep your position or not. You're entitled to it. You asked me what reasons I have for wanting to admit refugees into our country as immigrants, and I gave you a major one.

The US once accepted 800,000 Vietnamese refugees. We have accepted only 1500 Syrians.

 

[Dhara]

As I see images of the children cowering under rubble,
my heart bleeds for them more than the media, or maybe not more;
just the fact that massacred children won't get the coverage

How will we end this bloodshed if the majority does not know it exists? If we are not willing to witness the role we all play?
I see their blood and blown off limbs but don't hear the gun shots, but I wish the bombs were not a sound for children.

I'm not claiming to know about politics or every world event that isn't covered by the media - I don't. I can only imagine the many who pay the consequence for a minority.

There are a hundred and ninety six countries in the world, it seems all I hear about is one; occupied by 22.85 million people living in dirt; I too would want to escape the wasteland.

An article states their are 187 Syrian refugees based in the UK, survivors of torture, violence - mothers and children requiring medical care. How lucky we are to live in this first world not yet torn apart, how can we judge when I have never witnessed an air strike on this street.

I hope one day we welcome you with open arms, that you find something to cling onto other than your parents dead body.

I am sorry that the world makes this an even bigger fight to survive for you.

Shannice Thompson

 

[Desperado]

Because they will not mind their own business. They will give you their opinion whether you ask for it or not.
More often than not, their mind are closed to any discussion. To them it is their way or the highway.

 

[PK1]

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.

From my perusals of the forums, I've never seen so much pathological hatred towards Conservatives. But then, American partisan divisions have reached an all time high. What happened to the "heal the world" mantra espoused by Barack Obama?

Where are all the old style Democrats who seem to have disappeared into the ether? Such as Kennedy, who could become a hawk when needed. Or Clinton, who was prepared to move to the centre, when expedient.

Present day liberals bear no relation to Democrats, IMHO.

---
I would say present day conservatives bear no relation to previous generation Republicans.
.

"Liberalism"
As mentioned earlier (post 2950), the USA was founded on this ideology.
Can any conservative justify their contrarian position without exposing their hypocrisy, greed, and intolerance?
.

 

[PK1]

I merely asked you to consider how you would have felt if it were YOUR relatives.

Consider how Canada treated the Syrian refugees.

That is irrelevant to me.

It's not irrelevant to me. Study the history of immigraton law.

I can give you a multitude of reasons why we should not accept immigrants. I would like a list from you as to why we should. I like to measure the pros and cons.

Today, we don't have to agree on which president is most responsible for the tide of humanity crashing onto Europe's shores. Maybe you blame George W. Bush for starting a war that brought chaos to Iraq, which spilled into Syria. Maybe you fault Barack Obama for pulling out of Iraq and declining to take out Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

We don't have to agree on which president broke the region. But one or both of them had a hand in the destruction. So we can't very well pretend we have no obligation to the hordes driven from their homes. This is the biggest refugee crisis since World War II, a humanitarian emergency of the highest order, and the U.S. isn't doing enough to ameliorate it.
This Is Why America Should Take More Syrian Refugees

We caused the problem, we have a responsibility to the people affected by it.

I don't care who you want to blame. I haven't done anything to any of these people, and I feel NO obligations to them whatsoever. I notice that you avoided giving me the list of pros. Until you can give me a list of pros that outweigh the cons, then I will stick to my original position on this topic.

---
"I feel NO obligations to them whatsoever."

That sounds really COLD.
:-(

Not very Christian-like, and i'm not even religious. Just have empathy.
.

 

[Foxfyre]

That is irrelevant to me.

It's not irrelevant to me. Study the history of immigraton law.

I can give you a multitude of reasons why we should not accept immigrants. I would like a list from you as to why we should. I like to measure the pros and cons.

Today, we don't have to agree on which president is most responsible for the tide of humanity crashing onto Europe's shores. Maybe you blame George W. Bush for starting a war that brought chaos to Iraq, which spilled into Syria. Maybe you fault Barack Obama for pulling out of Iraq and declining to take out Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

We don't have to agree on which president broke the region. But one or both of them had a hand in the destruction. So we can't very well pretend we have no obligation to the hordes driven from their homes. This is the biggest refugee crisis since World War II, a humanitarian emergency of the highest order, and the U.S. isn't doing enough to ameliorate it.
This Is Why America Should Take More Syrian Refugees

We caused the problem, we have a responsibility to the people affected by it.

I don't care who you want to blame. I haven't done anything to any of these people, and I feel NO obligations to them whatsoever. I notice that you avoided giving me the list of pros. Until you can give me a list of pros that outweigh the cons, then I will stick to my original position on this topic.

---
"I feel NO obligations to them whatsoever."

That sounds really COLD.
:-(

Not very Christian-like, and i'm not even religious. Just have empathy.
.

Chris didn't say she didn't have empathy. That is a separate thing from obligation. I do believe our first obligation is to not put innocent American citizens at higher risk and if that means we can't take in Syrian refugees because we have no way to vet them, then so be it. I have no objection to providing them shelter, food, medical, etc in refugee camps or whatever is necessary to help the helpless there.. But we sure don't have to let them become pawns and cover for terrorists to have much greater access to our own people here.

 

[Dhara]

It is appropriate to let in far more Syrian refugees than we have.That's my opinion.

The inscription on the Statue of Liberty reads:

“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

 

[thanatos144]

That is irrelevant to me.

It's not irrelevant to me. Study the history of immigraton law.

I can give you a multitude of reasons why we should not accept immigrants. I would like a list from you as to why we should. I like to measure the pros and cons.

Today, we don't have to agree on which president is most responsible for the tide of humanity crashing onto Europe's shores. Maybe you blame George W. Bush for starting a war that brought chaos to Iraq, which spilled into Syria. Maybe you fault Barack Obama for pulling out of Iraq and declining to take out Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

We don't have to agree on which president broke the region. But one or both of them had a hand in the destruction. So we can't very well pretend we have no obligation to the hordes driven from their homes. This is the biggest refugee crisis since World War II, a humanitarian emergency of the highest order, and the U.S. isn't doing enough to ameliorate it.
This Is Why America Should Take More Syrian Refugees

We caused the problem, we have a responsibility to the people affected by it.

I don't care who you want to blame. I haven't done anything to any of these people, and I feel NO obligations to them whatsoever. I notice that you avoided giving me the list of pros. Until you can give me a list of pros that outweigh the cons, then I will stick to my original position on this topic.

It's not my job to convince you of anything. I don't care if you keep your position or not. You're entitled to it. You asked me what reasons I have for wanting to admit refugees into our country as immigrants, and I gave you a major one.

The US once accepted 800,000 Vietnamese refugees. We have accepted only 1500 Syrians.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[thanatos144]

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.

From my perusals of the forums, I've never seen so much pathological hatred towards Conservatives. But then, American partisan divisions have reached an all time high. What happened to the "heal the world" mantra espoused by Barack Obama?

Where are all the old style Democrats who seem to have disappeared into the ether? Such as Kennedy, who could become a hawk when needed. Or Clinton, who was prepared to move to the centre, when expedient.

Present day liberals bear no relation to Democrats, IMHO.

---
I would say present day conservatives bear no relation to previous generation Republicans.
.

"Liberalism"
As mentioned earlier (post 2950), the USA was founded on this ideology.
Can any conservative justify their contrarian position without exposing their hypocrisy, greed, and intolerance?
.

It was democrats that were the greedy racist not conservatives. .. do learn some history

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[KissMy]

Of course you don't. You're a liberal.

Don't you mean "a pinko liberal"

 

[PK1]

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.

From my perusals of the forums, I've never seen so much pathological hatred towards Conservatives. But then, American partisan divisions have reached an all time high. What happened to the "heal the world" mantra espoused by Barack Obama?

Where are all the old style Democrats who seem to have disappeared into the ether? Such as Kennedy, who could become a hawk when needed. Or Clinton, who was prepared to move to the centre, when expedient.

Present day liberals bear no relation to Democrats, IMHO.

---
I would say present day conservatives bear no relation to previous generation Republicans.
.

"Liberalism"
As mentioned earlier (post 2950), the USA was founded on this ideology.
Can any conservative justify their contrarian position without exposing their hypocrisy, greed, and intolerance?
.

It was democrats that were the greedy racist not conservatives. .. do learn some history

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

---
I'm not a democrat; i'm a prosocial Libertarian. Besides, your reference to racist democrats were the Southerners who subsequently became republicans after the civil rights movement in the 60's. You're the one in need of a history lesson, as well as political science.

If you are a conservative, you have not justified a contrarian position to Liberalism.
.

 

[KissMy]

It's not irrelevant to me. Study the history of immigraton law.

I can give you a multitude of reasons why we should not accept immigrants. I would like a list from you as to why we should. I like to measure the pros and cons.

Today, we don't have to agree on which president is most responsible for the tide of humanity crashing onto Europe's shores. Maybe you blame George W. Bush for starting a war that brought chaos to Iraq, which spilled into Syria. Maybe you fault Barack Obama for pulling out of Iraq and declining to take out Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

We don't have to agree on which president broke the region. But one or both of them had a hand in the destruction. So we can't very well pretend we have no obligation to the hordes driven from their homes. This is the biggest refugee crisis since World War II, a humanitarian emergency of the highest order, and the U.S. isn't doing enough to ameliorate it.
This Is Why America Should Take More Syrian Refugees

We caused the problem, we have a responsibility to the people affected by it.

I don't care who you want to blame. I haven't done anything to any of these people, and I feel NO obligations to them whatsoever. I notice that you avoided giving me the list of pros. Until you can give me a list of pros that outweigh the cons, then I will stick to my original position on this topic.

It's not my job to convince you of anything. I don't care if you keep your position or not. You're entitled to it. You asked me what reasons I have for wanting to admit refugees into our country as immigrants, and I gave you a major one.

The US once accepted 800,000 Vietnamese refugees. We have accepted only 1500 Syrians.

View attachment 57523

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Straw-man Retard!

 

[bripat9643]

Of course you don't. You're a liberal.

Don't you mean "a pinko liberal"

"pinko" in front of "liberal" is redundant.

 

[OldLady]

I don't want to get into detail because then I would be accused of being hateful toward cons. But while liberals view the world with shades of gray, conservatives view the world as black vs white,us vs them,good vs evil.

The weird thing is - there seems to be some truth in that.

I just don't see a lot of more left wing posters going on about "typical conservative mindset" or claiming "conservatives are so stupid".

I'm glad we don't see that, but still...

You don't read very many threads, here, do you?

 

[thanatos144]

I can give you a multitude of reasons why we should not accept immigrants. I would like a list from you as to why we should. I like to measure the pros and cons.

Today, we don't have to agree on which president is most responsible for the tide of humanity crashing onto Europe's shores. Maybe you blame George W. Bush for starting a war that brought chaos to Iraq, which spilled into Syria. Maybe you fault Barack Obama for pulling out of Iraq and declining to take out Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

We don't have to agree on which president broke the region. But one or both of them had a hand in the destruction. So we can't very well pretend we have no obligation to the hordes driven from their homes. This is the biggest refugee crisis since World War II, a humanitarian emergency of the highest order, and the U.S. isn't doing enough to ameliorate it.
This Is Why America Should Take More Syrian Refugees

We caused the problem, we have a responsibility to the people affected by it.

I don't care who you want to blame. I haven't done anything to any of these people, and I feel NO obligations to them whatsoever. I notice that you avoided giving me the list of pros. Until you can give me a list of pros that outweigh the cons, then I will stick to my original position on this topic.

It's not my job to convince you of anything. I don't care if you keep your position or not. You're entitled to it. You asked me what reasons I have for wanting to admit refugees into our country as immigrants, and I gave you a major one.

The US once accepted 800,000 Vietnamese refugees. We have accepted only 1500 Syrians.

View attachment 57523

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Straw-man Retard!

I am sure you wish it was.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[thanatos144]

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.

From my perusals of the forums, I've never seen so much pathological hatred towards Conservatives. But then, American partisan divisions have reached an all time high. What happened to the "heal the world" mantra espoused by Barack Obama?

Where are all the old style Democrats who seem to have disappeared into the ether? Such as Kennedy, who could become a hawk when needed. Or Clinton, who was prepared to move to the centre, when expedient.

Present day liberals bear no relation to Democrats, IMHO.

---
I would say present day conservatives bear no relation to previous generation Republicans.
.

"Liberalism"
As mentioned earlier (post 2950), the USA was founded on this ideology.
Can any conservative justify their contrarian position without exposing their hypocrisy, greed, and intolerance?
.

It was democrats that were the greedy racist not conservatives. .. do learn some history

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

---
I'm not a democrat; i'm a prosocial Libertarian. Besides, your reference to racist democrats were the Southerners who subsequently became republicans after the civil rights movement in the 60's. You're the one in need of a history lesson, as well as political science.

If you are a conservative, you have not justified a contrarian position to Liberalism.
.

So you are a lying democrat.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[Foxfyre]

That is irrelevant to me.

It's not irrelevant to me. Study the history of immigraton law.

I can give you a multitude of reasons why we should not accept immigrants. I would like a list from you as to why we should. I like to measure the pros and cons.

Today, we don't have to agree on which president is most responsible for the tide of humanity crashing onto Europe's shores. Maybe you blame George W. Bush for starting a war that brought chaos to Iraq, which spilled into Syria. Maybe you fault Barack Obama for pulling out of Iraq and declining to take out Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

We don't have to agree on which president broke the region. But one or both of them had a hand in the destruction. So we can't very well pretend we have no obligation to the hordes driven from their homes. This is the biggest refugee crisis since World War II, a humanitarian emergency of the highest order, and the U.S. isn't doing enough to ameliorate it.
This Is Why America Should Take More Syrian Refugees

We caused the problem, we have a responsibility to the people affected by it.

I don't care who you want to blame. I haven't done anything to any of these people, and I feel NO obligations to them whatsoever. I notice that you avoided giving me the list of pros. Until you can give me a list of pros that outweigh the cons, then I will stick to my original position on this topic.

It's not my job to convince you of anything. I don't care if you keep your position or not. You're entitled to it. You asked me what reasons I have for wanting to admit refugees into our country as immigrants, and I gave you a major one.

The US once accepted 800,000 Vietnamese refugees. We have accepted only 1500 Syrians.

Were the South Vietnamese blowing holes in our ships or bombing or burning down our embassies and killing as many personnel as they could? Were there terrorists among them determined to explode bombs in crowds of U.S. citizens or send suicide bombers or gunners into U.S. businesses? Were the South Vietnamese trying to get a dirty bomb into the USA or were hijacking airplane to fly into buildings killing thousands of innocent Americans?

I have personally helped settle both Cuban and Vietnamese refugees over the years. And in every case those people wanted to adopt the American way of life, fit in, be Americans, and be a positive influence here. Destroying 'infidels' was the furthest thing from their minds.

Both the State Department and Defense Department spokespersons have admitted we have no way to separate out the terrorists from peaceful people among the Syrian refugees. And that there are thousands of terrorists who would take every advantage given them to get into this country, including posing as peaceful Syrian refugees. You don't see the government proposing that these people be taken in near the White House or placed in neighborhoods where government officials and their families live do you? How many are you willing to accept next door to you when you know it is possible somebody who wants to kill you would likely be among them?

By all means offer humanitarian aid to those who are suffering. Our nation has always done that. But how stupid do we have to be in order to be considered humane? And what do you tell the survivors to justify a policy when it is their loved ones being maimed and murdered?

And while most Muslims would almost surely choose peace over mayhem, there are many thousands of Muslims who will commit mayhem and murder on a large scale here the first opportunity they have to do that.

 

[PK1]

From my perusals of the forums, I've never seen so much pathological hatred towards Conservatives. But then, American partisan divisions have reached an all time high. What happened to the "heal the world" mantra espoused by Barack Obama?

Where are all the old style Democrats who seem to have disappeared into the ether? Such as Kennedy, who could become a hawk when needed. Or Clinton, who was prepared to move to the centre, when expedient.

Present day liberals bear no relation to Democrats, IMHO.

---
I would say present day conservatives bear no relation to previous generation Republicans.
.

"Liberalism"
As mentioned earlier (post 2950), the USA was founded on this ideology.
Can any conservative justify their contrarian position without exposing their hypocrisy, greed, and intolerance?
.

It was democrats that were the greedy racist not conservatives. .. do learn some history

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

---
I'm not a democrat; i'm a prosocial Libertarian. Besides, your reference to racist democrats were the Southerners who subsequently became republicans after the civil rights movement in the 60's. You're the one in need of a history lesson, as well as political science.

If you are a conservative, you have not justified a contrarian position to Liberalism.
.

So you are a lying democrat.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

---
Were you demonstrating your stupidity or avoiding my challenge?

If you are a conservative, you have not justified a contrarian position to Liberalism.

Do you need a reminder for what Liberalism is?
.

 

[thanatos144]

---
I would say present day conservatives bear no relation to previous generation Republicans.
.

"Liberalism"
As mentioned earlier (post 2950), the USA was founded on this ideology.
Can any conservative justify their contrarian position without exposing their hypocrisy, greed, and intolerance?
.

It was democrats that were the greedy racist not conservatives. .. do learn some history

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

---
I'm not a democrat; i'm a prosocial Libertarian. Besides, your reference to racist democrats were the Southerners who subsequently became republicans after the civil rights movement in the 60's. You're the one in need of a history lesson, as well as political science.

If you are a conservative, you have not justified a contrarian position to Liberalism.
.

So you are a lying democrat.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

---
Were you demonstrating your stupidity or avoiding my challenge?

If you are a conservative, you have not justified a contrarian position to Liberalism.

Do you need a reminder for what Liberalism is?
.

It is not my job to justify your bent leanings just fight against it.

 

[Samson]

It is not my job to justify your bent leanings just fight against it.

No, it is your job to consistently amuse us with your incredibly inane posting.