Why do people hate Liberals?

[American_Jihad]

25 Reasons To Dislike Liberals​

John Hawkins | May 11, 2013

Is every liberal an immoral, nasty tempered, habitual liar who accuses people of racism for fun and trashes his own country because he thinks it makes him look sophisticated? Of course, not! On the other hand, is that a fairly accurate description of most liberals in politics? Yes, it is. Most of them aren't evil per se, but as Margaret Thatcher said,


"Left-wing zealots have often been prepared to ride roughshod over due process and basic considerations of fairness when they think they can get away with it. For them the ends always seems to justify the means. That is precisely how their predecessors came to create the gulag."
Liberals view themselves as good people because they're liberals. People who are outside of that ugly little bit of circular reasoning don't have such a benign view of their horrible behavior. So, what reason could you have to dislike liberals?

1) Only liberals would be cruel enough to pick on kids running lemonade stands with a permit, children putting on Christmas plays at school and the Boy Scouts.

2) Because the closest thing to Sodom and Gomorrah in the modern world is San Francisco and Berkeley.

3) Whether you're talking about cop killers, terrorists, radical Islamists or dictators, all you have to do is say, "I hate America," and liberals start to sympathize with you.

4) Liberals are actually bothered by people who do love America. On the rare occasion when you do see a liberal waving a flag, look for a camera.


...


23) Because liberals are unable to ever admit they're wrong, they systematically ruin and destroy everything they become involved with and then either point the finger elsewhere or demand even more government involvement to fix the problems they created.

24) Detroit – and, yes, liberals did that.

25) Even "liberal Christians" are generally supportive of other liberals who attack Christianity, which is why "liberal Christians" is in quotes.

25 Reasons To Dislike Liberals - John Hawkins - Page full

 

[thanatos144]

I will give you one reason to hate liberals.................................................. Detroit.

 

[Mr. H.]

I never really "hated" Liberals until I signed up here. I feel that now I understand them more than over before. And to understand a Liberal is... to hate a Liberal.

 

[Immanuel]

I never really "hated" Liberals until I signed up here. I feel that now I understand them more than over before. And to understand a Liberal is... to hate a Liberal.

I don't hate liberals. I don't like politicians. Common everyday liberals are good people even if they are wrong on certain things, but politicians of every ilk are authoritarian pricks who deserve our scorn. It is those kinds of arrogant people that I despise even though Jesus says I should love my neighbor. I pray I can use the excuse when i get to Heaven, that I didn't live next door to any of them; therefore, they were not my neighbors!

Immie

PS YES, I am a sinner!

 

[Mr. H.]

I never really "hated" Liberals until I signed up here. I feel that now I understand them more than over before. And to understand a Liberal is... to hate a Liberal.

I don't hate liberals. I don't like politicians. Common everyday liberals are good people even if they are wrong on certain things, but politicians of every ilk are authoritarian pricks who deserve our scorn. It is those kinds of arrogant people that I despise even though Jesus says I should love my neighbor. I pray I can use the excuse when i get to Heaven, that I didn't live next door to any of them; therefore, they were not my neighbors!

Immie

PS YES, I am a sinner!

So, we are reflections of politicians? We must be since we're the ones that put them in office.

I know and like many politicians. Most of them Conservative of course. I like Jesse Jackson Jr. because I had occasion to conference with him in person. The kid is really fucked up. I could see the self-doubt in his eyes. Yet he's still a damn Liberal idiot.

There's no such thing as an "everyday Liberal". They are Liberals. And they are hell-bent on cutting the rug out from under the very tenets that make this nation what it once was. Before Obama showed up.

Re: Jesus - he done left Chicago, and he's bound for New Orleans.

Regardless of to whom you live next door- lock the door.

 

[Immanuel]

I never really "hated" Liberals until I signed up here. I feel that now I understand them more than over before. And to understand a Liberal is... to hate a Liberal.

I don't hate liberals. I don't like politicians. Common everyday liberals are good people even if they are wrong on certain things, but politicians of every ilk are authoritarian pricks who deserve our scorn. It is those kinds of arrogant people that I despise even though Jesus says I should love my neighbor. I pray I can use the excuse when i get to Heaven, that I didn't live next door to any of them; therefore, they were not my neighbors!

Immie

PS YES, I am a sinner!

So, we are reflections of politicians? We must be since we're the ones that put them in office.

I know and like many politicians. Most of them Conservative of course. I like Jesse Jackson Jr. because I had occasion to conference with him in person. The kid is really fucked up. I could see the self-doubt in his eyes. Yet he's still a damn Liberal idiot.

There's no such thing as an "everyday Liberal". They are Liberals. And they are hell-bent on cutting the rug out from under the very tenets that make this nation what it once was. Before Obama showed up.

Re: Jesus - he done left Chicago, and he's bound for New Orleans.

Regardless of to whom you live next door- lock the door.

I have to disagree. There are some really good people out there who are liberal who love this country too and want the best for it. Then there are politicians... Few (if any) of whom are "conservative" even if they claim to be. Most of those who claim to be are neo-cons who are worse than progressives.

Immie

 

[JimBowie1958]

I don't hate liberals. I don't like politicians. Common everyday liberals are good people even if they are wrong on certain things, but politicians of every ilk are authoritarian pricks who deserve our scorn. It is those kinds of arrogant people that I despise even though Jesus says I should love my neighbor. I pray I can use the excuse when i get to Heaven, that I didn't live next door to any of them; therefore, they were not my neighbors!

Immie

PS YES, I am a sinner!

So, we are reflections of politicians? We must be since we're the ones that put them in office.

I know and like many politicians. Most of them Conservative of course. I like Jesse Jackson Jr. because I had occasion to conference with him in person. The kid is really fucked up. I could see the self-doubt in his eyes. Yet he's still a damn Liberal idiot.

There's no such thing as an "everyday Liberal". They are Liberals. And they are hell-bent on cutting the rug out from under the very tenets that make this nation what it once was. Before Obama showed up.

Re: Jesus - he done left Chicago, and he's bound for New Orleans.

Regardless of to whom you live next door- lock the door.

I have to disagree. There are some really good people out there who are liberal who love this country too and want the best for it. Then there are politicians... Few (if any) of whom are "conservative" even if they claim to be. Most of those who claim to be are neo-cons who are worse than progressives.

Immie

Neo-cons are fascist scum. That being said, classic liberals are not the libtards that we see every day in the media.

The media gets the far left libtards and the neocon fascists to go at each other as better spectator sport, meanwhile they ignore the reasonable classic liberals and cultural conservatives whose philosophies have long established the basis of law and culture in our nation.

 

[Foxfyre]

The neo-cons are not modern American conservatives. The only difference between them and the liberals is what they want to spend the money on, but they all want to spend it. They all look for the federal government to create the nation they think they want. Okay, another diference between the neo-cons and the liberals is that the neo-cons have a much better grasp on how the free market works and the virtues of allowing it to work. Likewise social conservatives look to the federal government to enforce the morality they see as important, and that also removes them from the modern American conservative aka classical liberal category.

As the statist liberals or political class are the most extreme in their zest to control other people and/or punish them if they fail to toe the liberal line, they are the least likable and most offensive. But they all--liberals, neo-cons, social conservatives are all a threat to our liberties when they look to the federal government to achieve their goals.

That does not make them scum in any sense of the word. It only makes them misguided as you cannot have both big government power and liberty. But it is possible to be wrong and still be okay.

The true modern American conservatives are reflected in the Tea Party groups, the 9/12ers, the constitutionalists and that is why those groups are so threatening to liberals and neo-cons alike. And why the liberals and neo-cons, aided and abetted by a surrogate media, do their damndest to diminish, trash, marginalize, and discredit the freedom loving groups.

 

[thanatos144]

Bla blah blah not being oldschool democrat aka libertarian does not make one a neo con

 

[Dragonlady]

Okay, another diference between the neo-cons and the liberals is that the neo-cons have a much better grasp on how the free market works and the virtues of allowing it to work. Likewise social conservatives look to the federal government to enforce the morality they see as important, and that also removes them from the modern American conservative aka classical liberal category.

Liberals have a much better grasp of the freemarket and its consequences than do conservatives. That's why liberals adamently oppose an unfettered free market because it leads to higher prices, lower wages and distributes the wealth of the nation to the wealthy and multinational corporations.

Every country which has engaged in free market practices has seen this happen, and yet American conservatives talk about an unfettered free market as the economic Nirvana. Yeah, we want our country to be just like Chile.

 

[Foxfyre]

Llibertarians, neither big "L" nor little "L" libertarians, have EVER been oldschool democrats or neo-cons. But both old school and modern Democrats and social conservatives and neo-cons all use big government for their respective goals and thereby erode our liberties, choices, options, and opportunities.

 

[Bfgrn]

Okay, another diference between the neo-cons and the liberals is that the neo-cons have a much better grasp on how the free market works and the virtues of allowing it to work. Likewise social conservatives look to the federal government to enforce the morality they see as important, and that also removes them from the modern American conservative aka classical liberal category.

Liberals have a much better grasp of the freemarket and its consequences than do conservatives. That's why liberals adamently oppose an unfettered free market because it leads to higher prices, lower wages and distributes the wealth of the nation to the wealthy and multinational corporations.

Every country which has engaged in free market practices has seen this happen, and yet American conservatives talk about an unfettered free market as the economic Nirvana. Yeah, we want our country to be just like Chile.

The closest twin we have in America today to the communists and Marxists in Russia are the 'Marketists'; conservatives, libertarians and 'free marketeers' who have turned government nonintervention and 'laissez faire' into a religion. It has created 'malaise faire'

Blind Faith

For a country that has prided itself on its resourcefulness, the inability to address our problems suggests something deeper at work. There is something, powerful but insidious, that blinds us to the causes of these problems and undermines our ability to respond. That something is a set of beliefs, comparable to religious beliefs in earlier ages, about the nature of economies and societies. These beliefs imply the impropriety of government intervention either in social contexts (libertarianism) or in economic affairs (laissez faire).

The faithful unquestioningly embrace the credo that the doctrine of nonintervention has generated our most venerated institutions: our democracy, the best possible political system; and our free market economy, the best possible economic system. But despite our devotion to the dogmas that libertarianism and free market economics are the foundation of all that we cherish most deeply, they have failed us and are responsible for our present malaise.

The pieties of libertarianism and free markets sound pretty, but they cannot withstand even a cursory inspection. Libertarianism does not support democracy; taken to an extreme, it entails the law of the jungle. If government never interferes, we could all get away with murder. Alternatively, if the libertarian position is not to be taken to an extreme, where should it stop? What is the difference between no government and minimal government? Attempts to justify libertarianism, even a less than extreme position, have failed. Laissez faire, or free market economics, characterized by minimal or no government intervention, has a history that is long but undistinguished. Just as the negative effects of a high fever do not certify the health benefits of the opposite extreme, hypothermia, the dismal failure of communism, seeking complete government control of the economy, does not certify the economic benefits of the opposite extreme, total economic non-intervention.

It may seem odd, given the parabolic arc of our financial markets and the swelling chorus of paeans to free market economics, but despite the important role of the market, purer free market economies have consistently underperformed well-focused mixed economies. In the latter part of the nineteenth century the mixed economies of Meiji Japan and Bismarck’s Germany clearly outperformed the free market economies of Britain and France. Our own economy grew faster when we abandoned the laissez faire of the 1920s and early 1930s for the proto-socialist policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt. It has become increasingly sluggish as we have moved back to a purer free market. Data of the past few decades show that our GNP and productivity growth have lagged those of our trading partners, who have mixed economies characterized by moderate government intervention.

The persistently mediocre track record of laissez faire casts doubt on the claim that an economy free from government interference invariably maximizes the wealth of society. In fact, there are sound reasons the pure free market must underperform well-focused mixed economies.

But despite laissez faire’s mediocre track record and despite powerful arguments that it cannot possibly provide what it promises, the notion of the unqualified benefit of the free market has become deeply embedded in our mythology. Apologists have exulted in claims that glorify free market mythology at the expense of reality, and also at the expense of society. Free market principles, even though they have failed in economics, have been eagerly applied to sectors ranging from politics to education, where they have contributed to societal dysfunction.

One politically popular myth, that free market economics and government non-intervention provide the basis for true democracy, flies in the face of history.

Kenneth Friedman - Myths Of The Free Market

The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived and dishonest – but the myth – persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
President John F. Kennedy

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay, another diference between the neo-cons and the liberals is that the neo-cons have a much better grasp on how the free market works and the virtues of allowing it to work. Likewise social conservatives look to the federal government to enforce the morality they see as important, and that also removes them from the modern American conservative aka classical liberal category.

Liberals have a much better grasp of the freemarket and its consequences than do conservatives. That's why liberals adamently oppose an unfettered free market because it leads to higher prices, lower wages and distributes the wealth of the nation to the wealthy and multinational corporations.

Every country which has engaged in free market practices has seen this happen, and yet American conservatives talk about an unfettered free market as the economic Nirvana. Yeah, we want our country to be just like Chile.

I know not a single American conservative who has EVER said that the free market needs no regulation at all. However, the Founders intended the Federal Government to secure our rights and enact sufficient laws to prevent us from doing environmental, economic, or physical violence with impunity to each other, but then the Federal Government would leave us alone to live our lives as we chose to do, form whatever sort of societies we wished to have, and the free market would generate unprecedented prosperity and opportunity.

And it worked like a charm until the government started meddling. And now we have a goverment that assumes authority over almost all of our lives--religious, social, economic, and in every other way-- and we have precious little liberty left.

And that is great so far as most of our modern American liberals are concerned. And it grieves the hearts of freedom loving people.

 

[Bfgrn]

Okay, another diference between the neo-cons and the liberals is that the neo-cons have a much better grasp on how the free market works and the virtues of allowing it to work. Likewise social conservatives look to the federal government to enforce the morality they see as important, and that also removes them from the modern American conservative aka classical liberal category.

Liberals have a much better grasp of the freemarket and its consequences than do conservatives. That's why liberals adamently oppose an unfettered free market because it leads to higher prices, lower wages and distributes the wealth of the nation to the wealthy and multinational corporations.

Every country which has engaged in free market practices has seen this happen, and yet American conservatives talk about an unfettered free market as the economic Nirvana. Yeah, we want our country to be just like Chile.

I know not a single American conservative who has EVER said that the free market needs no regulation at all. However, the Founders intended the Federal Government to secure our rights and enact sufficient laws to prevent us from doing environmental, economic, or physical violence with impunity to each other, but then the Federal Government would leave us alone to live our lives as we chose to do, form whatever sort of societies we wished to have, and the free market would generate unprecedented prosperity and opportunity.

And it worked like a charm until the government started meddling. And now we have a goverment that assumes authority over almost all of our lives--religious, social, economic, and in every other way-- and we have precious little liberty left.

And that is great so far as most of our modern American liberals are concerned. And it grieves the hearts of freedom loving people.

Enron. Tell me how government is to blame?

 

[Foxfyre]

Liberals have a much better grasp of the freemarket and its consequences than do conservatives. That's why liberals adamently oppose an unfettered free market because it leads to higher prices, lower wages and distributes the wealth of the nation to the wealthy and multinational corporations.

Every country which has engaged in free market practices has seen this happen, and yet American conservatives talk about an unfettered free market as the economic Nirvana. Yeah, we want our country to be just like Chile.

I know not a single American conservative who has EVER said that the free market needs no regulation at all. However, the Founders intended the Federal Government to secure our rights and enact sufficient laws to prevent us from doing environmental, economic, or physical violence with impunity to each other, but then the Federal Government would leave us alone to live our lives as we chose to do, form whatever sort of societies we wished to have, and the free market would generate unprecedented prosperity and opportunity.

And it worked like a charm until the government started meddling. And now we have a goverment that assumes authority over almost all of our lives--religious, social, economic, and in every other way-- and we have precious little liberty left.

And that is great so far as most of our modern American liberals are concerned. And it grieves the hearts of freedom loving people.

Enron. Tell me how government is to blame?

To answer your question, the LewRockwell folks already did the research and here you go.
The Truth About Enron ?

Now suppose Enron had been held to the same standards as every other business. Suppose the people had ownership and control over their retirement plans. Suppose the government enforced anti trust laws and allowed Enron to sink or swim on its own merits. Do you think as much damage would have been done to innocent people when Enron failed, if it in fact would have failed?

Whenever government presumes to pick winners and losers and/or operates to punish success and reward failure--that is a direct result of the new liberalism--we all eventually suffer the unintended negative consequences. Giving people freedom to achieve as much as they are capable or to fail if that is the way the cookie crumbles is much MUCH better for society as a whole.

 

[Bfgrn]

I know not a single American conservative who has EVER said that the free market needs no regulation at all. However, the Founders intended the Federal Government to secure our rights and enact sufficient laws to prevent us from doing environmental, economic, or physical violence with impunity to each other, but then the Federal Government would leave us alone to live our lives as we chose to do, form whatever sort of societies we wished to have, and the free market would generate unprecedented prosperity and opportunity.

And it worked like a charm until the government started meddling. And now we have a goverment that assumes authority over almost all of our lives--religious, social, economic, and in every other way-- and we have precious little liberty left.

And that is great so far as most of our modern American liberals are concerned. And it grieves the hearts of freedom loving people.

Enron. Tell me how government is to blame?

To answer your question, the LewRockwell folks already did the research and here you go.
The Truth About Enron ?

Now suppose Enron had been held to the same standards as every other business. Suppose the people had ownership and control over their retirement plans. Suppose the government enforced anti trust laws and allowed Enron to sink or swim on its own merits. Do you think as much damage would have been done to innocent people when Enron failed, if it in fact would have failed?

Whenever government presumes to pick winners and losers and/or operates to punish success and reward failure--that is a direct result of the new liberalism--we all eventually suffer the unintended negative consequences. Giving people freedom to achieve as much as they are capable or to fail if that is the way the cookie crumbles is much MUCH better for society as a whole.

It was deregulation of the energy market that opened the door for Enron.

You mentioned our founding fathers earlier. Have you ever looked into how they treated corporations?

Debate and argument over the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Federalist papers has been going on for over 200 years by and between citizens, scholars, theologians and polemics. It is nothing new, and our founder's true intent on many issues has not become any closer to being resolved.

So when we have an example of how those same men applied all those principles, beliefs and ideas to actual governing, it serves as the best example of how they put all those principles, beliefs and ideas to use. Their actions carry the most weight.

Our founding fathers did not subscribe to Adam Smith's 'invisible hand'. They believed in very heavy regulations and restrictions on corporations. They were men who held ethics as the most important attribute. They viewed being paid by the American people for their services as a privilege not a right. And they had no problem closing down any corporation that swindled the people, and holding owners and stockholder personally liable for any harm to the people they caused.

Early laws regulating corporations in America

*Corporations were required to have a clear purpose, to be fulfilled but not exceeded.

*Corporations’ licenses to do business were revocable by the state legislature if they exceeded or did not fulfill their chartered purpose(s).

*The state legislature could revoke a corporation’s charter if it misbehaved.

*The act of incorporation did not relieve corporate management or stockholders/owners of responsibility or liability for corporate acts.

*As a matter of course, corporation officers, directors, or agents couldn’t break the law and avoid punishment by claiming they were “just doing their job” when committing crimes but instead could be held criminally liable for violating the law.

*Directors of the corporation were required to come from among stockholders.

*Corporations had to have their headquarters and meetings in the state where their principal place of business was located.

*Corporation charters were granted for a specific period of time, such as twenty or thirty years (instead of being granted “in perpetuity,” as is now the practice).

*Corporations were prohibited from owning stock in other corporations, to prevent them from extending their power inappropriately.

*Corporations’ real estate holdings were limited to what was necessary to carry out their specific purpose(s).

*Corporations were prohibited from making any political contributions, direct or indirect.

*Corporations were prohibited from making charitable or civic donations outside of their specific purposes.

*State legislatures could set the rates that some monopoly corporations could charge for their products or services.

*All corporation records and documents were open to the legislature or the state attorney general.

The Early Role of Corporations in America

The Legacy of the Founding Parents

Does that sound like a bunch of laissez-faire libertarians?

 

[Foxfyre]

Like I said Bfgn, as a liberal there is something in your DNA or the water you drink or something that makes you incapable of discussing a concept. If all people were held to the same standards of liberty, and the government didn't pick winners or losers, the only regulation we would need is to prevent us, in any form, from doing economic, environmental, or physical violence to each other with impunity. And if the federal government was prevented, as it once was, from taking money and/or privilege from one citizen and providing it for the benefit of another, corporate donations wouldn't matter would they because nobody could benefit themselves without benefitting everybody else.

The concept of liberty is so simple for the modern American conservative, aka classical liberal. And so incomprehensable to the modern American liberal.

 

[numan]

Liberals have a much better grasp of the freemarket and its consequences than do conservatives. That's why liberals adamently oppose an unfettered free market because it leads to higher prices, lower wages and distributes the wealth of the nation to the wealthy and multinational corporations.

Every country which has engaged in free market practices has seen this happen, and yet American conservatives talk about an unfettered free market as the economic Nirvana. Yeah, we want our country to be just like Chile.

I know not a single American conservative who has EVER said that the free market needs no regulation at all. However, the Founders intended the Federal Government to secure our rights and enact sufficient laws to prevent us from doing environmental, economic, or physical violence with impunity to each other, but then the Federal Government would leave us alone to live our lives as we chose to do, form whatever sort of societies we wished to have, and the free market would generate unprecedented prosperity and opportunity.

And it worked like a charm until the government started meddling. And now we have a goverment that assumes authority over almost all of our lives--religious, social, economic, and in every other way-- and we have precious little liberty left.

I think anyone who imagines that, in the 21st century, freedom for the individual can be attained with 18th century ideas and procedures should be considered certifiably insane.

If the words "freedom" and "liberty" are to be anything more than patriotic blither, the archaic, sclerotic US Constitution should be thrown in the wastebasket, and we should do the hard work of framing a system of government that would work in the modern world.

.

 

[dblack]

Liberals have a much better grasp of the freemarket and its consequences than do conservatives. That's why liberals adamently oppose an unfettered free market because it leads to higher prices, lower wages and distributes the wealth of the nation to the wealthy and multinational corporations.

Every country which has engaged in free market practices has seen this happen, and yet American conservatives talk about an unfettered free market as the economic Nirvana. Yeah, we want our country to be just like Chile.

I know not a single American conservative who has EVER said that the free market needs no regulation at all. However, the Founders intended the Federal Government to secure our rights and enact sufficient laws to prevent us from doing environmental, economic, or physical violence with impunity to each other, but then the Federal Government would leave us alone to live our lives as we chose to do, form whatever sort of societies we wished to have, and the free market would generate unprecedented prosperity and opportunity.

And it worked like a charm until the government started meddling. And now we have a goverment that assumes authority over almost all of our lives--religious, social, economic, and in every other way-- and we have precious little liberty left.

I think anyone who imagines that, in the 21st century, freedom for the individual can be attained with 18th century ideas and procedures should be considered certifiably insane.

If the words "freedom" and "liberty" are to be anything more than patriotic blither, the archaic, sclerotic US Constitution should be thrown in the wastebasket, and we should do the hard work of framing a system of government that would work in the modern world.

.

Interesting. And in rewriting the Constitution, should we trust people who use words like liberty and freedom with quotes, and always with an air of disdain?

 

[Bfgrn]

Like I said Bfgn, as a liberal there is something in your DNA or the water you drink or something that makes you incapable of discussing a concept. If all people were held to the same standards of liberty, and the government didn't pick winners or losers, the only regulation we would need is to prevent us, in any form, from doing economic, environmental, or physical violence to each other with impunity. And if the federal government was prevented, as it once was, from taking money and/or privilege from one citizen and providing it for the benefit of another, corporate donations wouldn't matter would they because nobody could benefit themselves without benefitting everybody else.

The concept of liberty is so simple for the modern American conservative, aka classical liberal. And so incomprehensable to the modern American liberal.

I understand what you want. But I am SURE you don't understand how to get there REALISTICALLY. Liberals and progressives have always been dead set against crony capitalism. And the only way to prevent that is through government regulations. Our founding fathers clearly understood that and practiced it.

If they were alive today you would call them the same names you call me.

What caused the Progressive movement

We tried unregulated corporations in America. The closest experiment to total deregulation in this country occurred between the end of the Civil War and the beginning of the 19th century...it was called the Gilded Age; an era where America was as far from our founder's intent of a democratic society and closest to an aristocracy that our founder's were willing to lay down their lives to defeat.

It was opposition to that same Gilded Age that was the genesis of the Progressive movement in this country. When you study history, almost always just cause is behind it.

The only enemies of the Constitution are those who try to wield it as a weapon against the living, by using the words of the dead.
Me