Why do people hate Liberals?

[HomeInspect]

Another reason to hate LIberals... this is their culture :

So now we find out that the entire Tsarnaev family (Dad, Mom, 2 sons 2 daughters) started receiving government assistance as soon as they set foot in our country. As political refugees they were entitled to settlement assistance from day one. (Section 8 Housing, public healthcare, food stamps etc.)

Then their stellar older son impregnates and marries the daughter of a doctor, and this new little Muslim family receives 18 months of government assistance. They only came off welfare after the naïve young wife starts working 70 hours a week while husband Tamerlan stays home and builds bombs and plans to kill and injure the very Americans
who have paid for his pathetic existence for the past 12 plus years.


A Breakdown of our investment into the Tsarnaev Family:

Section 8 housing
Free public healthcare
Food stamps and other EFT transfer payments
Federal Pell Grants for both sons and most likely their daughters as well. (That is $5200.00 per year for each son or daughter who attended a college.)

City of Cambridge awarded a $2500 per year scholarship to the younger son.

Younger son also reportedly received a state college scholarship.


What did taxpayers receive for their “investment”:

· Older son was arrested for domestic battery on a former girlfriend.

· The mother was arrested last year for shoplifting $1600 in
merchandise from a Lord & Taylor store. Mother is facing immediate arrest for failure to appear regarding this matter.

· Then of course we know that the two sons combined to kill
four people (3 Americans & a Chinese exchange student), severely injure 100 plus other people, carjacked another victim and only let him live when they found out that he was not an American citizen.

· Now we have the two pathetic parents who have returned to Russia and are claiming that their poor sons are innocent and being framed by the same American government that paid for their pathetic existence the past 12 plus years.

 

[editec]

Who ARE these liberals?

That truly depends on your own point of view, doesn't it?

Some people here, for example, think Obama is a liberal.

Why? I have no idea, since his record indicates that he is neither fish nor fowl.

Some people here, for example, thought BUSH II was a conservative

He was, likewise, in my opinion, neither a conservative nor a liberal, as I define those terms.

So we can debate this issue forever as long as we all have our own particular definitions of terms, and can never come to an agreement about their meanings.

Semantic differences is really what drives MOST debates here.

 

[Foxfyre]

Who ARE these liberals?

That truly depends on your own point of view, doesn't it?

Some people here, for example, think Obama is a liberal.

Why? I have no idea, since his record indicates that he is neither fish nor fowl.

Some people here, for example, thought BUSH II was a conservative

He was, likewise, in my opinion, neither a conservative nor a liberal, as I define those terms.

So we can debate this issue forever as long as we all have our own particular definitions of terms, and can never come to an agreement about their meanings.

Semantic differences is really what drives MOST debates here.

Obama IS a liberal because:

1. He embraces at least some Marxist concepts, i.e. wealth redistribution.

2. He embraces big government solutions for every want or desire or problem, and seeks to increase the size and power of government to be in charge of every facet of our lives from health care to education to acquiring income to speech/conduct/protocol to ever expanding dependency on government.

3. He considers everything to be the property of the people and presumes the power to determine what property shall be allocated to the people to use.

George W. Bush was also liberal in various areas looking for big government solutions to deal with:
1. Immigration
2. Energy
3. Education
4. Healthcare
5. Environment
The only area in which he was pretty conservative was in economic policy as he did understand that all true wealth comes not from government but from private initiative.

 

[numan]

Knowing the way modern governments operate, these could just as easily be agents provocateurs employed to discredit the people who are demonstrating.
.

 

[numan]

Does 'a nation of laws' really have to mean 'a nation of lawyers?'

Apparently, under the tyranny of an irrational, archaic, out-moded Constitution, that is exactly what it does mean !!

You'd better watch out, you'd better not cry,
You'd better not pout, I'm telling you why,
The FBI is coming to town !

They know when you are sleeping,
They know when you're awake,
They know if you've been bad or good,
So be good for goodness' sake !!
.

 

[jwoodie]

Because liberals are dishonest to themselves and everyone around them.

 

[Immanuel]

Knowing the way modern governments operate, these could just as easily be agents provocateurs employed to discredit the people who are demonstrating.
.

Absolutely correct on that. Either side can do that.

Immie

 

[American_Jihad]

Knowing the way modern governments operate, these could just as easily be agents provocateurs employed to discredit the people who are demonstrating.
.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Who ARE these liberals?

That truly depends on your own point of view, doesn't it?

Some people here, for example, think Obama is a liberal.

Why? I have no idea, since his record indicates that he is neither fish nor fowl.

Some people here, for example, thought BUSH II was a conservative

He was, likewise, in my opinion, neither a conservative nor a liberal, as I define those terms.

So we can debate this issue forever as long as we all have our own particular definitions of terms, and can never come to an agreement about their meanings.

Semantic differences is really what drives MOST debates here.

I know what both Bush and Obama are: Wall Street lap dogs.

 

[SAYIT]

Knowing the way modern governments operate, these could just as easily be agents provocateurs employed to discredit the people who are demonstrating.

Yeah, and the moon could be made of Swiss Cheese. Adults understand the diff between possibility and probability and there are plenty of rabid ideologues ready, willing and able to act on their beliefs.

 

[SAYIT]

Does 'a nation of laws' really have to mean 'a nation of lawyers?'

Apparently, under the tyranny of an irrational, archaic, out-moded Constitution, that is exactly what it does mean !!

You'd better watch out, you'd better not cry,
You'd better not pout, I'm telling you why,
The FBI is coming to town !

They know when you are sleeping,
They know when you're awake,
They know if you've been bad or good,
So be good for goodness' sake !!.

Thanks to that constitution you have the right to get off your duff and move some where you prefer. Since you feel tyranized by our constitution why not exercize that right, Princess?
I'll even help you pack.

 

[American_Jihad]

Does 'a nation of laws' really have to mean 'a nation of lawyers?'

Apparently, under the tyranny of an irrational, archaic, out-moded Constitution, that is exactly what it does mean !!

You'd better watch out, you'd better not cry,
You'd better not pout, I'm telling you why,
The FBI is coming to town !

They know when you are sleeping,
They know when you're awake,
They know if you've been bad or good,
So be good for goodness' sake !!.

Thanks to that constitution you have the right to get off your duff and move some where you prefer. Since you feel tyranized by our constitution why not exercize that right, Princess?
I'll even help you pack.

We can all chip in and get "it" a ticket to N Korea...

 

[American_Jihad]

The Left’s War on Father’s Day

June 7, 2013 By Larry Elder

...

Studies back up the link between the explosive growth in government welfare — begun in the ’60s — and the increase of out-of-wedlock births.

In 1960, 5 percent of America’s children entered the world without a mother and father married to each other. By 1980 it was 18 percent, and by 2000 it had risen to 33 percent. Today, the number is 41 percent. For blacks, out-of-wedlock births have gone from 25 percent in 1965 to 73 percent today. The ethnic group with the next-highest percent of births to unmarried mothers is that of Native Americans, at 66 percent. For whites, out-of-wedlock births stand at 29 percent. For Hispanics, out-of-wedlock births are at 53 percent.

In every state, a woman with two children “makes” more money on welfare than were she to take a minimum wage job. The array of federal and state programs amounts to over $60K spent for every poor household. But because of costs, the recipient household ends up getting far less.

How do we know that the welfare state creates disincentives that hurt the people we are trying to help? They tell us. In 1985, the Los Angeles Times asked whether poor women “often” have children to get additional benefits. Most of the non-poor respondents said no. When the same question was asked of the poor, however, 64 percent said yes.

People, of course, need help. A humane society does not ignore those who cannot or even will not fend for themselves. But good faith does not substitute for sound policy. The welfare state is an assault on families.

The Left?s War on Father?s Day | FrontPage Magazine

 

[numan]

In 1960, 5 percent of America’s children entered the world without a mother and father married to each other. By 1980 it was 18 percent, and by 2000 it had risen to 33 percent. Today, the number is 41 percent.

You poor, naive ideologue -- both the government and monopoly capitalism pursue a conscious policy to break up the traditional family.

First, they want everybody to be working and exploited by Big Money -- of course, for as low wages as practicable. Having women at home raising children runs counter to their exploitation for corporate profit, so naturally the single-parent agenda has been pursued for decades, aided by the spiffiest, most up-to-date brainwashing techniques.

Apart from the goal of maximum utilization of human production units, destroying the family serves the essential purpose making these human units as weak, defenceless and controllable as possible. The ideal of the modern state and economic apparatus is to deprive their human cattle of as much mutual support as possible -- that means destroying family, friendships, and all other communities. This ideal is exemplified by the traditional Chinese phrase, "a plate of loose sand" -- meaning people deprived of all mutual support and cohesion.

In accordance with George Orwell's principle of New Speak double-talk, the propaganda apparatus of our rulers constantly trumpets the word "community" -- which is the code word for its exact opposite. If you are still so bamboozled by your brainwashed conditioning that you cannot accept what I am writing, undertake an experiment. Wherever in the mass media you find the word "community", and especially where it is most strongly proclaimed, look closely at what is being pushed into your consciousness. You will invariably find that the ultimate goal is to destroy community.
.

 

[squeeze berry]

^

 

[Pete7469]

Heeey, PeterEater is back.

How you doing you fucking disgusting cum gargling faggot?

Naw..no swallow for you.

You move on to bowery bums yet?

They need your attention.

Is there anything to like about these assholes?

 

[HUGGY]

In 1960, 5 percent of America’s children entered the world without a mother and father married to each other. By 1980 it was 18 percent, and by 2000 it had risen to 33 percent. Today, the number is 41 percent.

You poor, naive ideologue -- both the government and monopoly capitalism pursue a conscious policy to break up the traditional family.

First, they want everybody to be working and exploited by Big Money -- of course, for as low wages as practicable. Having women at home raising children runs counter to their exploitation for corporate profit, so naturally the single-parent agenda has been pursued for decades, aided by the spiffiest, most up-to-date brainwashing techniques.

Apart from the goal of maximum utilization of human production units, destroying the family serves the essential purpose making these human units as weak, defenceless and controllable as possible. The ideal of the modern state and economic apparatus is to deprive their human cattle of as much mutual support as possible -- that means destroying family, friendships, and all other communities. This ideal is exemplified by the traditional Chinese phrase, "a plate of loose sand" -- meaning people deprived of all mutual support and cohesion.

In accordance with George Orwell's principle of New Speak double-talk, the propaganda apparatus of our rulers constantly trumpets the word "community" -- which is the code word for its exact opposite. If you are still so bamboozled by your brainwashed conditioning that you cannot accept what I am writing, undertake an experiment. Wherever in in the mass media you find the word "community", and especially where it is most strongly proclaimed, look closely at what is being pushed into your consciousness. You will invariably find that the ultimate goal is to destroy community.

Walmart is now advertising that 60% of Americans buy products in thier stores at least once a month. They are bragging about it. This is commerce that used to go to local mom and pop stores and American manufacturers that provided good incomes that bought houses..cars and sent kids to college in your own communities. Now that money is being sent to China. Congratulations to those of you that believe saving a few pennies on the dollar at Walmart is worth helping to destroy your local economy. Atta boy! Good job!

God would have it no other way!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

ObamaPhone: Do you fear me now?

 

[tinydancer]

There are no liberals as I know them anymore.

 

[francoHFW]

Liberals haven't changed a bit, it's your brainwashed little RW brains that have....change the channel.