Why do people hate Liberals?

[dblack]

Then WHY did slaves want to escape???

Freedom? Is the concept really so perplexing? Slaves didn't want to escape because the food was bad. They wanted the independence and freedom to feed themselves.

It was a rhetorical question

Yes, a rhetorical question offered in defense of the preposterous claim that the burden of providing for oneself is the equivalent off slavery. That point of view is an insult to the memory of real slaves who longed for the freedom you're so eager to give up in exchange for caretaker government.

 

[Bfgrn]

Its called knowing history you stupid hack.

Unfortunately for you history did not END 120 years ago...

nor did it change magically 50 years ago.

Actually, it DID...LOL

Presidential Vote and Party Identification of African Americans, 1956-1964

As you can see, over the course of just eight years, African American support for the Republican Party practically evaporated.

How did this happen? It can be tied directly to the acts and leadership of three men: Martin Luther King, Jr., who was the leader of the Civil Rights movement; John F. Kennedy, the nation’s president from 1961 through November, 1963, when he was assassinated; and Lyndon Baines Johnson, Kennedy’s successor as president.

Most know who Martin Luther King, Jr, was, and probably President Kennedy as well; President Johnson, although pivotal in the passage of civil rights laws, is undoubtedly the lesser known and least revered among these three historical figures.

But they were all key players in eliminating segregation and legalized discrimination in the South.

How these three men were linked in changing the face of African American politics:

In October of 1960, less then three weeks before the presidential election, Martin Luther King Jr., already recognized as Black America’s most prominent civil rights leader, had been arrested in Georgia on a traffic technicality: he was still using his Alabama license, although by then he had lived in Georgia for three months.

A swift series of moves by the state’s segregationist power structure resulted in King being sentenced to four months of hard labor on a Georgia chain gang. He was quickly spirited away to the state’s maximum security prison, and many of his supporters, fearing for his life, urgently called both the Nixon and Kennedy camps for help.

Nixon, about to campaign in South Carolina in hopes of capturing the state’s normally solid Democratic vote, took no action. Kennedy took swift action. He made a brief telephone call to a frantic Coretta Scott King, speaking in soothing generalities and telling her, “If there’s anything I can do to help, please feel free to call on me.”

It’s likely that Kennedy did not at that moment realize the political implications of that call. Ever the pragmatist, he had resisted the pleas of several aides throughout the campaign that he take bolder public stands on civil rights issues. The telephone call came because one aide caught him late at night after a hard day of campaigning and staff meetings as he was about to turn in. The aide, Harris Wofford, pitched it as just a call to calm King’s fearful spouse. Kennedy replied, “What the hell. That’s a decent thing to do. Why not? Get her on the phone.”

King was soon released, unharmed, due to a groundswell of pressure directed by blacks and whites in numerous quarters toward Georgia officials (Robert F. Kennedy himself, who was managing his brother’s campaign called the judge who sentenced King to prison). At the time, the white media paid little attention to the call, which suited the Kennedys fine. But it likely transformed the black vote. King’s father, Martin Luther King Sr., a dominating, fire-and-brimstone preacher with wide influence throughout Black America, had, like many black Southerners, always been a Republican and until that moment had said he couldn’t vote for Kennedy because he was a Catholic.

(But) the day his son was released from prison, the elder King thundered from the pulpit of his famed Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta: “I had expected to vote against Senator Kennedy because of his religion. But now he can be my president, Catholic or whatever he is… He has the moral courage to stand up for what he knows is right. I’ve got all my votes and I’ve got a suitcase, and I’m going to take them up there and dump them in his lap.”

Why Do Blacks Vote for Democrats? MLK, JFK, and LBJ

 

[Immanuel]

I dont think people hate liberals... I think they despise the hate Liberals represent....I mean the democrat party is the party of the KKK, Jim Crow laws, Slavery, Segregation, And Ghetto slave pens.

Beyond absurd...

Do you not know anything of the party you support?

It is easier just to blame the other guy and go on hating and being intolerant. It takes too much effort to examine one's self and make changes.

Immie

 

[thanatos144]

Okay liberals. You want the government to dictate to me the wages and benefits I will be required to provide to my employees as well as how much vacation, sick pay, and personal leave they will receive rather than leave that to me and my employees to agree on.

That's not what we're saying at all. What we are saying is the everyone should be entitled, at a minimum, to two weeks off per year. If you want to negotatiate/offer more than two weeks, you're free to do so. If you want to negotiate/offer higher than minimum wages, you're free to do so, but these are the minimum standards which will apply, if you want to give/negotiate better benefits, you're free to do so.

Just like everyone has standards to adhere to, so should employers.

Why? What entitles anybody to have two weeks off at somebody else's expense? By what rationale can somebody be forced to finance somebody else's vacation?

I have worked for most of the last 30 years without a single day of paid vacation, not a single paid holiday, no sick leave. It was by my choice in return for the ability to earn as much as I had the energy and expertise to earn when I did work. However, I have also employed people along with the two weeks' vacation, paid holidays, sick leave etc. because that was how I attracted the best people I could find to work for me. It was purely voluntary and win win for us all.

The free market works in the free market just as efficiently and effectively as everything else. The employees who don't provide some quality of life for their employees will be able to hire only the dregs of the labor market that nobody else will hire. And they will lose those same employees just as soon as they find something more attractive.

I get paid vacations and I use them..... Only a fool wouldn't use a a fringe benefit a employer gives you.

 

[thanatos144]

Unfortunately for you history did not END 120 years ago...

nor did it change magically 50 years ago.

Actually, it DID...LOL

Presidential Vote and Party Identification of African Americans, 1956-1964

As you can see, over the course of just eight years, African American support for the Republican Party practically evaporated.

How did this happen? It can be tied directly to the acts and leadership of three men: Martin Luther King, Jr., who was the leader of the Civil Rights movement; John F. Kennedy, the nation’s president from 1961 through November, 1963, when he was assassinated; and Lyndon Baines Johnson, Kennedy’s successor as president.

Most know who Martin Luther King, Jr, was, and probably President Kennedy as well; President Johnson, although pivotal in the passage of civil rights laws, is undoubtedly the lesser known and least revered among these three historical figures.

But they were all key players in eliminating segregation and legalized discrimination in the South.

How these three men were linked in changing the face of African American politics:

In October of 1960, less then three weeks before the presidential election, Martin Luther King Jr., already recognized as Black America’s most prominent civil rights leader, had been arrested in Georgia on a traffic technicality: he was still using his Alabama license, although by then he had lived in Georgia for three months.

A swift series of moves by the state’s segregationist power structure resulted in King being sentenced to four months of hard labor on a Georgia chain gang. He was quickly spirited away to the state’s maximum security prison, and many of his supporters, fearing for his life, urgently called both the Nixon and Kennedy camps for help.

Nixon, about to campaign in South Carolina in hopes of capturing the state’s normally solid Democratic vote, took no action. Kennedy took swift action. He made a brief telephone call to a frantic Coretta Scott King, speaking in soothing generalities and telling her, “If there’s anything I can do to help, please feel free to call on me.”

It’s likely that Kennedy did not at that moment realize the political implications of that call. Ever the pragmatist, he had resisted the pleas of several aides throughout the campaign that he take bolder public stands on civil rights issues. The telephone call came because one aide caught him late at night after a hard day of campaigning and staff meetings as he was about to turn in. The aide, Harris Wofford, pitched it as just a call to calm King’s fearful spouse. Kennedy replied, “What the hell. That’s a decent thing to do. Why not? Get her on the phone.”

King was soon released, unharmed, due to a groundswell of pressure directed by blacks and whites in numerous quarters toward Georgia officials (Robert F. Kennedy himself, who was managing his brother’s campaign called the judge who sentenced King to prison). At the time, the white media paid little attention to the call, which suited the Kennedys fine. But it likely transformed the black vote. King’s father, Martin Luther King Sr., a dominating, fire-and-brimstone preacher with wide influence throughout Black America, had, like many black Southerners, always been a Republican and until that moment had said he couldn’t vote for Kennedy because he was a Catholic.

(But) the day his son was released from prison, the elder King thundered from the pulpit of his famed Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta: “I had expected to vote against Senator Kennedy because of his religion. But now he can be my president, Catholic or whatever he is… He has the moral courage to stand up for what he knows is right. I’ve got all my votes and I’ve got a suitcase, and I’m going to take them up there and dump them in his lap.”

Why Do Blacks Vote for Democrats? MLK, JFK, and LBJ

Yep LBJ's plan to and I quote "Get those ******* voting democrat for decades" seem to have worked.... He fooled them into trading one type of slavery for another. You should watch Runaway slave.

 

[Foxfyre]

That's not what we're saying at all. What we are saying is the everyone should be entitled, at a minimum, to two weeks off per year. If you want to negotatiate/offer more than two weeks, you're free to do so. If you want to negotiate/offer higher than minimum wages, you're free to do so, but these are the minimum standards which will apply, if you want to give/negotiate better benefits, you're free to do so.

Just like everyone has standards to adhere to, so should employers.

Why? What entitles anybody to have two weeks off at somebody else's expense? By what rationale can somebody be forced to finance somebody else's vacation?

I have worked for most of the last 30 years without a single day of paid vacation, not a single paid holiday, no sick leave. It was by my choice in return for the ability to earn as much as I had the energy and expertise to earn when I did work. However, I have also employed people along with the two weeks' vacation, paid holidays, sick leave etc. because that was how I attracted the best people I could find to work for me. It was purely voluntary and win win for us all.

The free market works in the free market just as efficiently and effectively as everything else. The employees who don't provide some quality of life for their employees will be able to hire only the dregs of the labor market that nobody else will hire. And they will lose those same employees just as soon as they find something more attractive.

I get paid vacations and I use them..... Only a fool wouldn't use a a fringe benefit a employer gives you.

The issue was not that people take advantage of the benefits they receive or negotiate for. All of us do that.

The issue was the idea that I should have a right - an entitlement - to a two week paid vacation that you, or somebody else, is required to pay for.

For the government to mandate that is to enslave one person in servitude to another.

For the employer and a valuable employee to voluntarily negotiate that in an employment contract is simply good business.

 

[numan]

Democrats are the slavery party

Reps and Dems are just two wings of the Slavery Party.

And those who accord either of them any respect are just Willing Slaves.

.

 

[Bfgrn]

Beyond absurd...

Do you not know anything of the party you support?

It is easier just to blame the other guy and go on hating and being intolerant. It takes too much effort to examine one's self and make changes.

Immie

The Democratic Party has been at the forefront of EVERY civil rights legislation for the last 60 years. The Republican party of Lincoln is dead.

 

[thanatos144]

Do you not know anything of the party you support?

It is easier just to blame the other guy and go on hating and being intolerant. It takes too much effort to examine one's self and make changes.

Immie

The Democratic Party has been at the forefront of EVERY civil rights legislation for the last 60 years. The Republican party of Lincoln is dead.

really so Kennedy didn't vote against civil rights? you are full of shit

Welcome to my nightmare

 

[Bfgrn]

It is easier just to blame the other guy and go on hating and being intolerant. It takes too much effort to examine one's self and make changes.

Immie

The Democratic Party has been at the forefront of EVERY civil rights legislation for the last 60 years. The Republican party of Lincoln is dead.

really so Kennedy didn't vote against civil rights? you are full of shit

Welcome to my nightmare

Civil Rights Act of 1964

In an 11 June 1963 speech broadcast live on national television and radio, President John F. Kennedy unveiled plans to pursue a comprehensive civil rights bill in Congress, stating, ‘‘this nation, for all its hopes and all its boasts, will not be fully free until all its citizens are free’’ (‘‘President Kennedy’s Radio-TV Address,’’ 970). King congratulated Kennedy on his speech, calling it ‘‘one of the most eloquent, profound and unequivocal pleas for justice and the freedom of all men ever made by any president’’ (King, 12 June 1963).

 

[thanatos144]

The Democratic Party has been at the forefront of EVERY civil rights legislation for the last 60 years. The Republican party of Lincoln is dead.

really so Kennedy didn't vote against civil rights? you are full of shit

Welcome to my nightmare

Civil Rights Act of 1964

In an 11 June 1963 speech broadcast live on national television and radio, President John F. Kennedy unveiled plans to pursue a comprehensive civil rights bill in Congress, stating, ‘‘this nation, for all its hopes and all its boasts, will not be fully free until all its citizens are free’’ (‘‘President Kennedy’s Radio-TV Address,’’ 970). King congratulated Kennedy on his speech, calling it ‘‘one of the most eloquent, profound and unequivocal pleas for justice and the freedom of all men ever made by any president’’ (King, 12 June 1963).

now you dishonest is hack tell us about the exact same bill proposed 3 times prior by Republicans voted down all by Democrats one of them being senator John Fitzgerald Kennedy

Welcome to my nightmare

 

[Immanuel]

Do you not know anything of the party you support?

It is easier just to blame the other guy and go on hating and being intolerant. It takes too much effort to examine one's self and make changes.

Immie

The Democratic Party has been at the forefront of EVERY civil rights legislation for the last 60 years. The Republican party of Lincoln is dead.

So, since you can't defend your party, you just change the names and say "nah, nah,nah, we are better than you. We are now the party of Licoln. We are more compassionate. We are smarter. We are more tolerant. We are not as corrupt. Therefore, you need to let us tell you how to live, but it is you who are the authoritarians, not us."

Let me ask you this. What HAS a Democrat done for us in the last 52 years? Can you name one thing that does not equate to "drop 'em and bend over"?

Good lord, do you ever actually read your posts critically?

Imminent

 

[American_Jihad]

So the progressive/liberals buried the thread in "Philosophy" wonder why they didn't move it to Badland. Ah ha, the thread was started by a europeeon/liberal journalist from hellstinki...

 

[Bfgrn]

It is easier just to blame the other guy and go on hating and being intolerant. It takes too much effort to examine one's self and make changes.

Immie

The Democratic Party has been at the forefront of EVERY civil rights legislation for the last 60 years. The Republican party of Lincoln is dead.

So, since you can't defend your party, you just change the names and say "nah, nah,nah, we are better than you. We are now the party of Licoln. We are more compassionate. We are smarter. We are more tolerant. We are not as corrupt. Therefore, you need to let us tell you how to live, but it is you who are the authoritarians, not us."

Let me ask you this. What HAS a Democrat done for us in the last 52 years? Can you name one thing that does not equate to "drop 'em and bend over"?

Good lord, do you ever actually read your posts critically?

Imminent

You know Immie, there are a lot of clueless right wing turds on this board. I never considered you as one of them. But that opinion is changing.

ALL legislation over the last 52 years that has helped people, Democrats have authored. Civil rights, voter rights, women's rights, worker's rights, immigrant's rights, Veteran's benefits, consumer protection, education for ALL.

There is an axiom: two groups of people vote Republican; millionaires and suckers.

Which group do you belong to Immie?

 

[eflatminor]

ALL legislation over the last 52 years that has helped people, Democrats have authored.

As long as you overlook the fact that the rate of poverty is UP over that time period, sure, that helps people working at the welfare office I guess...

 

[Bfgrn]

ALL legislation over the last 52 years that has helped people, Democrats have authored.

As long as you overlook the fact that the rate of poverty is UP over that time period, sure, that helps people working at the welfare office I guess...

Poverty is up because the last 30 years has been the conservative era; a frontal assault on unions, public employees, women's rights, immigrants, the environment, health care, voting rights, food safety, pensions, prenatal care, science, public broadcasting, education the list goes on and on.

And we don't live in a vacuum. What would poverty be without the programs Democrats authored? It would be off the charts.

The War on Poverty was not a handout program. It was based on what conservative's CLAIM to be their core values and beliefs. The 'War on Poverty' was named the Office of Economic Opportunity, because the core principles were opportunity, responsibility, community and empowerment. Yet conservatives have always derided it. WHY?

Because conservatives don't think government should help its citizens. 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.

 

[eflatminor]

ALL legislation over the last 52 years that has helped people, Democrats have authored.

As long as you overlook the fact that the rate of poverty is UP over that time period, sure, that helps people working at the welfare office I guess...

Poverty is up because the last 30 years has been the conservative era

You go with that Sparky. The rest of us will overlook the exponential increase in laws, regulations overall growth of government at federal and states' level....'cuz that's a result of a 'conservative era'...

I suppose Detroit has been run by conservatives for the last 30 years too...

You're so blinded by bias it's impossible to have rational discourse. Good luck with that.

 

[eflatminor]

What would poverty be without the programs Democrats authored? It would be off the charts.

The rate of poverty was headed down, consistently so, for many decades BEFORE welfare spending took off in the late sixties. Once we started redistributing, that downward trend stopped and is now up.

If logic and reason is to have its moment, poverty would have continued its downward trend. There's no reason to believe otherwise. Your meddling did more harm than good. Deal with it.

 

[eflatminor]

Because conservatives don't think government should help its citizens.

Can't speak for modern conservatives, but libertarians will tell you government shouldn't steal from some citizens in a vain and misguided attempt to win political support from a recipient class. Big difference.

The part of government they want to cut is not the military (we have 174 bases around the world),

I'm happy to see a reducing in military bases, spending, and interventionism. Nice try. Fail.

not government subsidies to corporations,

All libertarians would eliminate subsidies to corporations or any special perks to one group at the expense of another. Fail again.

They want to cut the part that helps people. Why?

Because theft is never right and more importantly, you're NOT helping people by keeping them on the dole and enacting laws and regulations that suppress job creation in this country. That's why.

Massive fail, just massive.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Because conservatives don't think government should help its citizens.

Can't speak for modern conservatives, but libertarians will tell you government shouldn't steal from some citizens in a vain and misguided attempt to win political support from a recipient class. Big difference.

The part of government they want to cut is not the military (we have 174 bases around the world),

I'm happy to see a reducing in military bases, spending, and interventionism. Nice try. Fail.

not government subsidies to corporations,

All libertarians would eliminate subsidies to corporations or any special perks to one group at the expense of another. Fail again.

They want to cut the part that helps people. Why?

Because theft is never right and more importantly, you're NOT helping people by keeping them on the dole and enacting laws and regulations that suppress job creation in this country. That's why.

Massive fail, just massive.

The Irony being that Obamacare is the biggest example of corporate welfare in history.

Who promotes corporate welfare? The Obamunists!