Why do people hate Liberals?

[Mr. H.]

I'm insulted by Liberals.

I was once poor, yet Liberals did not come to my defense.

I was once downtrodden, yet Liberals did not rescue me from my demise.

I went hungry, yet... blah blah blah.

Fuck you Liberal **** buckets.

Your poor is not my poor.

Never was, never will be.

 

[American_Jihad]

liberal logic 101 - Google Search



...

 

[SuperDave]

Well for starters, they call republicans racist if they disagree with obama.

That's not true. We call certain people racists who:

• criticize the President less than 10 days after his inaugaration before he's even had a chance to do anything to be criticized for.
• make up baseless accusations just to criticize him.
• hold up racist signs at pep rallys.
• say that we need to bring back Jim Crow laws like Tom Tancredo said at a town hall.
• people who say he has a "deep seated hatred for white people".
• people who claim "he's not one of us"; "he's a muslim"; "he's not from here"; "he pals around with terrorists"'
• people who sing songs like "Barack the magic negro"

And people who simply refuse to respect the Office of the Presidency, no matter what he does.

Those are the people we call racist.

1) So we had just had nearly a year of campaigning, primaries and an election where, at the time, candidate Obama described in great detail his plans for what he was going to do during his Presidency up to and including "Fundamentally Changing" the nature of the country. But since we didn't wait until he actually started changing the nature of the country to criticize his policies we must be racist.

2) Then we make up baseless accusations to criticize him. Next thing you know we'll be hurling vague, non-specific accusations at him that contain no substance or detail. And of course the only people who've ever made up baseless accusations to criticize someone are Racists. I mean no one ever accused a Conservative or a Republican or even the rare Conservative Republican of doing that to President Clinton

3) I'm assuming you're specifically referring to Tea Party rally's, though you're accusations are pretty consistent in their vagueness. You are right though there were some racists at those rally's, any good sized gathering will have some, even Racists are allowed to support a balanced budget, and with thousands of people there and the media looking as hard as they could it's not surprising that they were able to find some racist signs. If you're looking for it, racism isn't hard to find, for example the Senate Democrats were led by a Grand Wizard for years, and I'm not talking about the 50's, I'm talking about the 21st Century.

My favorites though were when they showed white guys with scary looking guns. The first picture showed one such person standing next to someone with a racist sign, insinuating of course he must be racist as well. Then they showed another white guy with a similar gun but no sign but of course the implicatio was "same type of gun must also be a racist". Then they showed someone else decked out in camoflauge with a scary gun but they only filmed him from the chest down, implication..just another scary, racist, white gun-nut. Of course the next day when another film of the same man taken from a different angle turned up and it turned out he was actually African-American, it kind of poked a hole in the media's assumptions, but I'm sure that had nothing to do with why the media didn't show his skin color the day before.

4) Don't know much about Tom Tancredo and again it's tough to make a determination based on a vague accusation. Got a link?

5) How does the belief that President Obama doesn't like White people make someone racist? It may make them stupid, mis-informed, easily manipulated and any number of other things but it provides no basis for the belief they are racist?

6) Most of this is covered by the same response as 5 but I'll try to address them more individually. "He's not one of us" WTF does that mean? Again it's far too vague to have any real meaning...He's not an American? a Capitalist? What is he not one of?

"He's a Muslim" Again...Stupid, mis-informed, mal-adjusted and racist are all possibilities but there is no proof that racist is the right explanation, in fact you're abusing your stock material and the other Liberals are going to chastise you for it. Screaming racist is your fall back position when you're losing an argument, you don't break it out when you have the clear upper-hand like in this case.

"He's not from here"... Don't mis-interpret this, I'm quite certain he is an American citizen but this is a bizarre one on many levels. For one he could have put an end to this at any time by simply producing the BC when first asked to when registering for the NJ Democratic Primary but instead of spending $20 on a Notary which he probably wouldn't have actually had to spend because I'm sure he had Attorneys on staff, he instead spend tens of thousands of dollars to fight the NJ law requiring him to produce the BC. In La. I have to produce a BC in order to get a Drivers License or to register to vote but he can run for POTUS without one....that makes absolutely no sense.

Personally I think it was a brilliant campaign decision. He knew that refusing to produce it, it would cause that small percentage of people who buy into any conspiracy to go absolutely apoplectic. That wouldn't have really done much for him, it's probably less than 1% of the population but by keeping it out there every time someone questioned anything he did and accused him of doing anything a little shady then he could paint them with the same "Birther" brush.

Again I do believe without question he is a U.S. citizen but I do not see how you can run for President without proving it, I do find that truly off the wall.

7) As for "Barack the Magic Negro" I guess what you're saying is that you're really upset with African-American, L.A. Times columnist David Ehrenstein since he's the one who wrote and first sang the song.

And finally "respect for the office of the President", the last Democratic President destroyed all semblance of respectability for the office of POTUS when he decided to play "hide the cigar in the intern" under the Oval Office desk, tracing maps of the world to explain foreign policy on the covers of the bed in the Lincoln Bedroom while 5 women were under them and somewhat less destructive but still fairly tasteless threw pizza parties complete with beer and people propping their feet, sometimes shod sometimes bare, on tables where international treaties were signed while scarfing down Pepperoni with extra cheese and cans of Bud. And of course there was the "Everyone grab a souvenir" ransacking of the White House and AF1 as they were leaving.

President Bush 43 tried to regain some measure of respectability where he could, like re-instituting the coat and tie policy but it's hard to make progress towards decorum and respect when members of the opposition party are constantly referring to you, not in private but on the floor of the House and Senate, as a Nazi, a moron, etc....

 

[bayoubill]

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.

I don't hate liberals, per say...

I do, however, despise folks who think they know what's best for each and every one of the rest of us...

and it's been my experience that most such folks happen to be of the liberal persuasion...

 

[WethePeopleUS]

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.

I think the liberals have turned the United States into one of the largest welfare states in the world. They have created a system where thousands (if not millions) of people rape the system every day. People who are fully capable of working, but would rather sit on their ass all day and collect a check for the government. More kids? Why not? You get a bigger check from the government. Don't wanna pay full rent? Don't worry, you can get section 8 housing where you pay less than $20 a month for rent. It is absolute ridiculous the amount of money that is wasted on lazy no-good leeches in this country (and that goes for any race, creed, or color).

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Because you seem to be after EVERYTHING in the bill of rights.

9th Amendment - I always start with this, because it's where I have the most beef with the far left.
The Ninth Amendment states that your rights are derived from the Creator, endowed at birth, unalienable and unassailable. Furthermore, that the Constitution only enumerates a small portion of these pre-existing rights, and the our rights are even more fundamental than the Constitution.

Modern liberals try to push this idea of "Government" created rights, that the State creates rights, and may deny or disparage those rights. These are not rights, they are privileges. At the rate we're going, we're going to end up with a very small class of citizens who have all of the rights guaranteed under the Constitution - the filthy rich bankers and the politicians.

1st Amendment --> Occupy Wall Street declared terrorists (freedom of assembly/speech); internet censorship (and political forum manipulation) (freedom of press/speech); both parties are guilty on the religion issue, don't use religious reasons to tell people they can't have sex and can't have abortions (republicans), don't force people against their religion to pay for abortions (democrats).

2nd Amendment --> Read any of my threads, no point in discussing this here

3rd Amendment --> Spy Drone police state with non-lethal weapon technology to soon be equipped.

4th Amendment --> Patriot Act (not yet repealed), full access to anyone's financial records, no knock warrants

5th Amendment --> NDAA + Bush policies on steriods

6th Amendment --> Red Light cameras (where is my accuser), zero benefit for traffic accidents, both parties are at fault, this is the start of the cyber security state.

7th Amendment --> unaccountable taxation (polls for instance), both parties are at fault here, this is going to ramp up in the near cyber future (cyber poll taxes incoming to limit the information super highway)

8th Amendment --> punishment for crimes are too long (cruel and unusual) for generally minor offenses, both parties are at fault here

10th Amendment --> Every fucking national bill you guys pass tears up States rights.

Habaes Corpus --> I thought Obama was going to end the Bush era practice? Wtf happened? He intensified it. 1) Habaes Corpus can only be denied in times of Rebellion or Invasion (Invasion and War are DIFFERENT THINGS), to be in a state of invasion we must have a formal declaration of War from Congress, and the enemy must be on our shores. WWII was the last official war declaration.

Treason Due Process (Article III, Section 3) - ??? Obama tossed this out the window.

This is why.

The real question is why do liberals hate freedom? Why do you call yourself "Liberals" when you hate liberty? You should call yourself "Restrictionals"

 

[JimBowie1958]

Hate liberals? Nah, but I do hate the fucking trolls that pose as liberals because they think this is what is expected of them so they paroy yhe libral party line without a smidgeon of understanding of it.

They contradict themselves constantly, like claiming to be pro-choice on abortion yet not doing anything about Obama appointees who favor forced abortion, nor do they protest China's forced aborion policies. I guess Darfur is just so much more fashionable.

These jack asses cant discuss these things that they dont understand, like the old school librals like Humphrey or JFK. So they try to shout you down, trap you into getting banned, repeat the same stupid lines over and over and over, and completely ignore what we do know from science and reason, because Truth is not their concern, only sucking up to the libtard establishment.

Take as another example the Jefferson-Hemmings controversy.
Background DNA Study | Thomas Jefferson - Sally Hemings

While the DNA evidence ruled out T JEfferson being the father of any of Hemmings children except perhaps for Eston, the libtards ignore the science where it contradicts them and claims that Thomas fathered ALL of Hemings children! lol

And the whole conduct of the Nature articles title and content were concealed from one of the researchers who was misled about what the conclusion of the article would be, especially when he later found out that it was completely contrary to the DNA evidence.

But libtards in the media repeat this bullshit so consistently that anyone who has not taken the trouble to read BOTH sides of the controversy would never know that there was any doubt at all, much less absolute proof Thomas did not father any but perhaps one child, Eston.

This duplicity, fraud, shameless lying, slandering, ostracising, black listing, corruption and trechery are typical of the libtard groups from the leftwing 'civil rights' black leaders, to the gay mafia, to the closet commies and closted haters of our country and more.

Real classic liberals are good folk, though I most often disagree with them. Ideological libtard fanatics can kiss my ass and go to hell.

 

[editec]

Why do people hate Liberals?

Because nitwits need scapegoats?

 

[squeeze berry]

Why do people hate Liberals?

Because nitwits need scapegoats?

Obama is the perfect example

 

[peach174]

People do not hate liberals.
What they do hate, is their ideology and how they dupe Americans into their failed ideas.

Liberal (progressive) ideology causes more poverty, inequality and injustice.

The more Government grows and spends the more it hurts the middle class and keeps the poor in poverty.

Social programs is not about equity or equality.
This is one of the biggest lies that many people buy into.

Social programs weakens & disempowers strong, self-reliant citizens, while strengthening & empowering weak, dependent citizens.
It shifts wealth from productive people (tax payers) to unproductive people(non tax payers)

This always leads to the downfall of the middle class.

Under socialism, for instance, “the poor” that live on government handouts have higher and higher standards of living with even amenities like air conditioning, cell phones and cable TV. Meanwhile productive middle-class people are crushed with taxes to pay for those amenities. And then often the middle class cannot afford simple pleasures like… cable TV, cell phones or air conditioning.

That is why the middle class disappears under socialism/ communism, as it did in the Soviet Union. And why the whole population ends up poor – because the poor rise up as they are subsidized by the middle class, while the middle class sinks. And then they all become equal.

Equally poor, that is.

Indeed the “equality” of socialism is real. But it is a negative equality, not a positive one. And that is what the liberals never will tell you or explain ahead of time.

So indeed three separate groups on three economic levels prosper under socialism:

First, “the poor” prosper. Because if you have few skills and little education, discipline or ambition like many poor people, and you then are given a middle-class standard of living with food, clothing, shelter, medical care, education and other amenities, then that is indeed ‘prosperous’. And the money for this prosperity comes largely from the heavily-taxed, private-sector, wealth-producing middle class which struggles every day to have more skills, education, discipline and ambition.

Second, the bureaucratic government class prospers. They get ever more in pay, benefits and pensions. Unions allied with the Democrat party then protect the government class and harms the taxpayers, which is happening in liberal states today like California, New York and Illinois. That is why these states are becoming functionally bankrupt. Unions bankrupted many private industries and companies throughout the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. Now unions are bankrupting taxpayers and states via the government.

Today government workers have higher standards of living than private-sector workers. This is an intentional outcome of socialism. This comes about through heavy taxation of private-sector, wealth-producing citizens and the transfer of that wealth to the government class.

And while there are good people in the government, many government workers often have been some of the least ambitious and least competent people in the workforce, which is why they migrate to government jobs in the first place. You know the old story… “take the civil service exam…” or “close enough for government work…”

The third group to prosper are super-wealthy but often completely unproductive people on the Democrat left. Like The Al Gore and George Soros types.They make plenty of money but don't produce any amount of real employees just a few

These groups then give the Dems the votes that they need.
The poor
The Government workers
The Super Wealthy

 

[rightwinger]

Jesus was a liberal

Nobody hates Jesus

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Jesus was a liberal

Nobody hates Jesus

Jesus preached that rights came from Government and not from God?

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Natural rights are preexisting, meaning that they are not granted by laws or the state, rather States and Laws are created in order to guarantee those rights. And Government is legitimate only if it protects those rights and rules with the consent of the governed.

Now the Left (liberal, progressive, socialist, call it what you will) Have always been in conflict with this doctrine. And not just because most of them are atheistic. They have always felt that there are no absolutes, therefore everything in the world must be viewed only in it’s proper context. everything is relative.

This is of course a path to disaster. If, at any time the populace concedes that the Government has all of the rights and merely bestows them as it sees fit then it is a slippery slop down to tyranny.

As usual the roll of the lefty is to destroy. They would rather destroy our rights and replace it with something much much less; such things are called Privileges, instead of rights. This system always degenerates into a plutocracy.

 

[peach174]

 

[rightwinger]

Jesus was a liberal

Nobody hates Jesus

Jesus preached that rights came from Government and not from God?

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Damn....Those liberal founding fathers really knew their shit

 

[poet]

I don't hate liberals. BTW they are progressives. They just stole the liberal moniker when people realized how nuts progressives were.

I just want them to stop taking my money and interfering in my life. That's all.

I'm just taking a wild guess, but I'm thinking you don't have any money (worth talking about), and you're responsible for your own life, are you not, interference aside? Do you need a waaaaaambulance?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Jesus was a liberal

Nobody hates Jesus

Jesus preached that rights came from Government and not from God?

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Natural rights are preexisting, meaning that they are not granted by laws or the state, rather States and Laws are created in order to guarantee those rights. And Government is legitimate only if it protects those rights and rules with the consent of the governed.

Now the Left (liberal, progressive, socialist, call it what you will) Have always been in conflict with this doctrine. And not just because most of them are atheistic. They have always felt that there are no absolutes, therefore everything in the world must be viewed only in it’s proper context. everything is relative.

This is of course a path to disaster. If, at any time the populace concedes that the Government has all of the rights and merely bestows them as it sees fit then it is a slippery slop down to tyranny.

As usual the roll of the lefty is to destroy. They would rather destroy our rights and replace it with something much much less; such things are called Privileges, instead of rights. This system always degenerates into a plutocracy.

Damn....Those liberal founding fathers really knew their shit

The Founding Fathers were Classical Liberals, after John Locke.

Would you care to tell us where modern liberals derive their philosophical teachings?

 

[Darkwind]

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.

If you cannot see the depth of hatred and contempt that is exhibited by the progressives on this forum for not only conservatives, but for ANYONE who dares speak of a different view of life than theirs, then there is no use at all for My pointing out that you are not seeing things as clearly as you could.

 

[rightwinger]

Conservatives love Liberals

They always manage to userp liberal ideals about 30 years after the fact and then claim it as their own

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Conservatives love Liberals

They always manage to userp liberal ideals about 30 years after the fact and then claim it as their own

So you haven't answered the question:

Where do modern liberals derive their philosophies from? (The answer is obviously NOT John Locke, a classical liberal)

 

[rightwinger]

Jesus preached that rights came from Government and not from God?









Natural rights are preexisting, meaning that they are not granted by laws or the state, rather States and Laws are created in order to guarantee those rights. And Government is legitimate only if it protects those rights and rules with the consent of the governed.

Now the Left (liberal, progressive, socialist, call it what you will) Have always been in conflict with this doctrine. And not just because most of them are atheistic. They have always felt that there are no absolutes, therefore everything in the world must be viewed only in it’s proper context. everything is relative.

This is of course a path to disaster. If, at any time the populace concedes that the Government has all of the rights and merely bestows them as it sees fit then it is a slippery slop down to tyranny.

As usual the roll of the lefty is to destroy. They would rather destroy our rights and replace it with something much much less; such things are called Privileges, instead of rights. This system always degenerates into a plutocracy.

Damn....Those liberal founding fathers really knew their shit

The Founding Fathers were Classical Liberals, after John Locke.

Would you care to tell us where modern liberals derive their philosophical teachings?

Not if you asked them

They looked at the issues of the day and applied liberal methodologies to address them. We all know conservatives of the day supported the crown

Of course, we liberals were allowed to tar and feather conservatives back then

Ohhhhh....for the good ole days!