Why do people hate Liberals?

[Pogo]

Actually, what it says right at the top is, and I quote:

>> One of the major problems in American political consciousness today comes from a misrepresentation of the political spectrum. This is partly the result of a deliberate effort to put all of America's enemies (fascists and communists) into the same basket after World War II, and a deliberate effort by the American "Right" to classify everything that they oppose as "Leftist". After World War II the Republican Party was struggling for survival and was in the process of reinventing itself. Part of the political strategy of some Republicans was to portray the Democratic Party of Truman and Franklin D. Roosevelt as "Red," thereby associating "Liberalism" with "Socialism". It was a common tactic during the 1950s to accuse Democrats of being "Communists" or "Communist sympathizers", a tactic that worked well during the McCarthy era and has had a lasting impact on how Americans view politics.

... One of the first things that has to be done in order to properly understand the full spectrum of political ideas is to correct the popular misconception of the term "liberal" in America.

Page ONE, Foxy. Page ONE. At the TOP.

I can't go on with this denialism. I'll leave it there. Exit, stage left...

But neither the article nor you have corrected it when you refuse to see what is the reality in the modern American culture. The fact IS that the modern American liberal--you know you and those guys who describe themselves as liberals--or sometimes the more socially acceptable term of 'progressives'--do NOT embrace the definition of 'liberal' that you or the article has provided.

And that is the truth whether you wish to accept it or not.

And that is why you or any other liberals posting in this thread won't even acknowledge, much less answer my simple question of whether you do or do not agree with the following concepts as the definition of 'liberalism':

◾an ethical emphasis on the individual as a rights-bearer prior to the existence of any state, community, or society,

◾the support of the right of property carried to its economic conclusion, a free-market system,

◾the desire for a limited constitutional government to protect individuals' rights from others and from its own expansion, and

◾the universal (global and ahistorical) applicability of these above convictions.

If you DO agree with them, then you agree that there is no justification or constitutional authority for the federal government to be involved in education, healthcare, welfare, automobile bailouts, income redistribution, contraceptives, abortion, progressive tax code, marriage laws, or any other concepts of that sort. The federal government WOULD have authority to ensure that nobody was denied the ability to choose to participate in society as everybody else does as that would be a matter of recognizing and protecting unalienable rights.

If you don't agree with that then you are a modern American liberal, very different from the defintion you provided.

Yes, I agree with those points, though not necessarily with what you think follows as conclusions (see image below), and no, I've never called myself a "modern American liberal", or for that matter any other label. I am, have been, and will continue to be vehemently anti-label. Labels are intellectual crutches for the intellectually lame.

Suffice to say this entire fallacy can be represented in a single image:

I won't be back until y'all quit buying that guy drinks.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yeah yeah, Pogo. How many grand exits have you made from this thread already? LOL. I disagree that labels are intellectual crutches, however. And you use them too just as the rest of us do who don't want to have to write seven paragraphs describing something everytime we wish to mention a particular ideology or mindset. It is why cities have names instead of being described by their longitude and latitude. It is why automobiles are described as Fords and Chevys because it is so much simpler to identify them that way than having to describe the whole vehicle every time you mention one.

So okay you agree with those concepts which you yourself have described as a laizzez-faire system? So it is safe to assume that you do oppose federal government involvement in education, healthcare, welfare, automobile bailouts, income redistribution, contraceptives, abortion, progressive tax code, marriage laws, or any other concepts of that sort?

 

[Foxfyre]

Out of personal curiosity, how many of those reading in who think of themselves as conservative or libertarian or classical liberal agree with the following:

The 17th century liberal aka classical liberal promoted:

◾an ethical emphasis on the individual as a rights-bearer prior to the existence of any state, community, or society,

◾the support of the right of property carried to its economic conclusion, a free-market system,

◾the desire for a limited constitutional government to protect individuals' rights from others and from its own expansion, and

◾the universal (global and ahistorical) applicability of these above convictions.

If you embrace these concepts, you agree that there is no justification or constitutional authority for the federal government to be involved in education, healthcare, welfare, automobile bailouts, income redistribution, contraceptives, abortion, progressive tax code, marriage laws, or any other concepts of that sort. The federal government WOULD have authority to ensure that nobody was denied the ability to choose to participate in society as everybody else does as that would be a matter of recognizing and protecting unalienable rights.

 

[numan]

A principle based on truth does not change whether it applies in the 18th, 19th, 20th, or 21st centuries.

If unalienable God given rights existed in the 18th Century, it is absurd to think that they do not exist in the 21st century.

If infringement of unalienable rights were detrimental to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in the 18th Century, it is absurd to think that the same would not be the case in the 21st Century.

And what does this tossing around of idle abstractions have to do with the Constitution of the United States -- even assuming that they were anything more than blither?

For me they are not idle abstractions. They are fundamental principles by which we all should measure the policies and regulations that are imposed upon the people.

Well, whatever they are for you, they are just idle abstractions.

They have nothing to do with the way politics and society really function in the United States.
.

 

[peach174]

And what does this tossing around of idle abstractions have to do with the Constitution of the United States -- even assuming that they were anything more than blither?

For me they are not idle abstractions. They are fundamental principles by which we all should measure the policies and regulations that are imposed upon the people.

Well, whatever they are for you, they are just idle abstractions.

They have nothing to do with the way politics and society really function in the United States.
.

That is really some messed up thinking Numan.
It has everything to do with the way we run our Government and Society.

Why don't you want every American to have a right to life, to not be killed for their political or any other opinions, like so many other Governments have done?

Why would you not want all Americans to have the right to Freedom (liberty) from a Government that would give you no freedom?

Without the former two there is no happiness for anyone.
Why would you want everyone in America to be miserable?

 

[Foxfyre]

And what does this tossing around of idle abstractions have to do with the Constitution of the United States -- even assuming that they were anything more than blither?

For me they are not idle abstractions. They are fundamental principles by which we all should measure the policies and regulations that are imposed upon the people.

Well, whatever they are for you, they are just idle abstractions.

They have nothing to do with the way politics and society really function in the United States.
.

Idle abstractions as in Post #1548?

So many people are willing to discuss things in terms of good or bad, virtue or evil, greedy or compassionate, etc. and assign such adjectives to those they reference whether it be a person, entity, group, or demographic.

But few are capable of or willing to discuss a concept and measure their values and policy decisions against that concept.

Do you consider the concepts in Post #1548 just above you there as idle abstractions? Can you answer that question?

I'm a bit disappointed in my fellow modern conservatives/libertarians/classical liberals who so far have produced crickets on that too.

If we can't have the discussion even among those who do understand it, how can we ever hope to educate those who don't?

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

Funny post. If you really want to know, you have to study what liberals are about. I suggest starting with Rules for Radicals, by Alinsky (Obama and Hillary's fav author)

 

[thanatos144]

What you call "modern liberalism" is simply leftism. it is authoritarian and collectivist - the polar opposite of "liberal."

Before you could make such a claim, we'd first have to agree on a definition of 'modern liberalism'. And if this thread has shown, if nothing else, just how difficult that can be.

i can sum it up in one word. Insanity

Liberal philosophies do not work. Since the 1960's, this country has been becoming more and more liberal. Are we in a better place then we were 50 years ago?

He wants you to make a distinction so his liberaltarian values are not seen as they are.... Liberalism that hates taxes...

 

[Bfgrn]

FALSE. Conservatism is the antithesis of any form of liberalism. You are a Marketist, the siamese twin of a Marxist.

Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
James M. Buchanan

Here is one of the patron saints of libertarians...

Why I am Not a Conservative by F. A. Hayek

In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles, his main hope must be that the wise and the good will rule - not merely by example, as we all must wish, but by authority given to them and enforced by them.

When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike.

To live and work successfully with others requires more than faithfulness to one's concrete aims. It requires an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends.

It is for this reason that to the liberal neither moral nor religious ideals are proper objects of coercion, while both conservatives and socialists recognize no such limits.

In the last resort, the conservative position rests on the belief that in any society there are recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others. The liberal, of course, does not deny that there are some superior people - he is not an egalitarian - but he denies that anyone has authority to decide who these superior people are. While the conservative inclines to defend a particular established hierarchy and wishes authority to protect the status of those whom he values, the liberal feels that no respect for established values can justify the resort to privilege or monopoly or any other coercive power of the state in order to shelter such people against the forces of economic change. Though he is fully aware of the important role that cultural and intellectual elites have played in the evolution of civilization, he also believes that these elites have to prove themselves by their capacity to maintain their position under the same rules that apply to all others.

Closely connected with this is the usual attitude of the conservative to democracy. I have made it clear earlier that I do not regard majority rule as an end but merely as a means, or perhaps even as the least evil of those forms of government from which we have to choose. But I believe that the conservatives deceive themselves when they blame the evils of our time on democracy. The chief evil is unlimited government, and nobody is qualified to wield unlimited power. The powers which modern democracy possesses would be even more intolerable in the hands of some small elite.

so if liberals assume people are all equal, why things like affirmative action, entitlements, special assistance given to a limited class of people? If we're all equal why not equal treatment and expectations of everyone? When will you guys start walking the talk?

They can't/won't even define the terms. They just sit there typing out objections to any concept put before them that doesn't fit the model of modern American liberalism that they 'feel' but cannot define.

And you want them to walk and talk at the same time? Just teasing a bit. It is frustrating though to try to have a conversation or discussion with people who reject every definition put before them but refuse to offer one they consider to be more correct.

And even more frustrating to try to have a conversation with people who are incapable of grasping or understanding concepts and only know how to insult, accuse, blame, criticize, and point fingers at real or presumed sins of others, past and present.

I am really getting sick of your bullshit. You deride, belittle, malign, slander, and put down modern liberals in you 'supposed' conversational posts. And when someone does give you a definition of liberalism, you have instant amnesia.

I would say that the definition of social liberalism is a fair description. It is NOT Marxism. It is centrist. Modern liberals have very similar beliefs to what you claim to be your beliefs. But WHERE we disagree is to what degree of government is necessary to ensure our freedoms and liberties.

What is social liberalism?. Also known as Modern liberalism, it is the belief of having social justice included on this ideology. It believes that the legitimate role of the state includes: Unemployment, health care, addressing economic and education. Social liberalism views the good of the community as harmonious with the freedom of all individuals. This ideology parties and ideas tend to be considered centre left or centrist. Centrism also known as centre left is the practice or ideal to promote policies which stands different from the standard political right and political left. This ideal tends to focus on policies such as: Human rights, civil liberties; social and economic liberalism.

 

[numan]

'

Don't get into a snit about the babbling of idiots.

.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Out of personal curiosity, how many of those reading in who think of themselves as conservative or libertarian or classical liberal agree with the following:

The 17th century liberal aka classical liberal promoted:

◾an ethical emphasis on the individual as a rights-bearer prior to the existence of any state, community, or society,

◾the support of the right of property carried to its economic conclusion, a free-market system,

◾the desire for a limited constitutional government to protect individuals' rights from others and from its own expansion, and

◾the universal (global and ahistorical) applicability of these above convictions.

If you embrace these concepts, you agree that there is no justification or constitutional authority for the federal government to be involved in education, healthcare, welfare, automobile bailouts, income redistribution, contraceptives, abortion, progressive tax code, marriage laws, or any other concepts of that sort. The federal government WOULD have authority to ensure that nobody was denied the ability to choose to participate in society as everybody else does as that would be a matter of recognizing and protecting unalienable rights.

While I agree with the principles, we also have a very changed and urbanized society compare to the 18th century. We need an economic safety net to moderate extremist influence and to provide for the general welfare, which Congress put into law as it is authorized to do in the preamble.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, 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."

 

[American_Jihad]

Detroit and the Bankruptcy of Liberalism​

Rich Tucker
July 22, 2013

Detroit is a showcase for the liberal agenda — and now it is bankrupt. More than 50 years of control by big-government liberals and union bosses have left a once-great American city crippled and deteriorating.

...

Even as Detroit struggles, its state, Michigan, has taken a positive step. In December, it passed a right-to-work law, becoming the 24th state to do so. That will introduce competition and make the state a more attractive place for people to do business, and for employees as well.

“Workers in right-to-work states enjoy higher wage growth and, when cost of living is factored into the equation, better compensation than their counterparts in forced unionism states,” notes Vincent Vernuccio of the Mackinac Center. And by reducing the power of public-sector unions, the move should help the state and local governments reduce the pension promises that eventually dragged Detroit down.

F. Scott Fitzgerald said there are no second acts in life, but Americans of all stripes — blue and red — should hope he was wrong. In order for Detroit to succeed again, however, its leaders must realize why they city has failed.




Detroit Bankruptcy: The Failure of Liberalism

 

[Foxfyre]

Out of personal curiosity, how many of those reading in who think of themselves as conservative or libertarian or classical liberal agree with the following:

The 17th century liberal aka classical liberal promoted:

◾an ethical emphasis on the individual as a rights-bearer prior to the existence of any state, community, or society,

◾the support of the right of property carried to its economic conclusion, a free-market system,

◾the desire for a limited constitutional government to protect individuals' rights from others and from its own expansion, and

◾the universal (global and ahistorical) applicability of these above convictions.

If you embrace these concepts, you agree that there is no justification or constitutional authority for the federal government to be involved in education, healthcare, welfare, automobile bailouts, income redistribution, contraceptives, abortion, progressive tax code, marriage laws, or any other concepts of that sort. The federal government WOULD have authority to ensure that nobody was denied the ability to choose to participate in society as everybody else does as that would be a matter of recognizing and protecting unalienable rights.

While I agree with the principles, we also have a very changed and urbanized society compare to the 18th century. We need an economic safety net to moderate extremist influence and to provide for the general welfare, which Congress put into law as it is authorized to do in the preamble.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, 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."

A comprehensive reading of the Founding documents however, and the Founders left a wealth of their intentions behind in those documents, show that they, to a man, were of the opinion that the general welfare was policy that promoted liberty and made it possible for people to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all regardless of political leanings or socioeconomic status. General welfare referred to all citizens and not any entity, group, demographic, or individual.

In other words, that remains one of the most fundamental principles they intended the Constitution to protect: a person's property was his unalienable right to have and hold and it must be inviolate. The Federal government had no authority whatsoever to take a person's property to use for its own benefit or for any other person, group, entity, or demographic.

Whatever did not benefit all was not the prerogative of the federal government to do.. For example, post roads that allowed the mail to be delivered to all the citizens, regardless of their rank or circumstances, was a prerogative of the federal government. A road or bridge for the benefit of one city or county or state was not.

 

[Bfgrn]

FALSE. Conservatism is the antithesis of any form of liberalism. You are a Marketist, the siamese twin of a Marxist.

Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
James M. Buchanan

Here is one of the patron saints of libertarians...

Why I am Not a Conservative by F. A. Hayek

In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles, his main hope must be that the wise and the good will rule - not merely by example, as we all must wish, but by authority given to them and enforced by them.

When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike.

To live and work successfully with others requires more than faithfulness to one's concrete aims. It requires an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends.

It is for this reason that to the liberal neither moral nor religious ideals are proper objects of coercion, while both conservatives and socialists recognize no such limits.

In the last resort, the conservative position rests on the belief that in any society there are recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others. The liberal, of course, does not deny that there are some superior people - he is not an egalitarian - but he denies that anyone has authority to decide who these superior people are. While the conservative inclines to defend a particular established hierarchy and wishes authority to protect the status of those whom he values, the liberal feels that no respect for established values can justify the resort to privilege or monopoly or any other coercive power of the state in order to shelter such people against the forces of economic change. Though he is fully aware of the important role that cultural and intellectual elites have played in the evolution of civilization, he also believes that these elites have to prove themselves by their capacity to maintain their position under the same rules that apply to all others.

Closely connected with this is the usual attitude of the conservative to democracy. I have made it clear earlier that I do not regard majority rule as an end but merely as a means, or perhaps even as the least evil of those forms of government from which we have to choose. But I believe that the conservatives deceive themselves when they blame the evils of our time on democracy. The chief evil is unlimited government, and nobody is qualified to wield unlimited power. The powers which modern democracy possesses would be even more intolerable in the hands of some small elite.

so if liberals assume people are all equal, why things like affirmative action, entitlements, special assistance given to a limited class of people? If we're all equal why not equal treatment and expectations of everyone? When will you guys start walking the talk?

Because those are Leftist concepts, not Liberal ones.

That's why I keep saying, stop calling your Ford a Chevy and then wondering why the Chevy dealer doesn't have the parts.

I disagree. What is falsely labeled 'entitlements' is liberal. It is based on being compassionate, human, and pragmatic.

What is generally referred to as the 'welfare state' is a construct of advanced capitalist economies.

When Otto Von Bismarck instituted compulsory health insurance in Prussia in 1883. That created a sudden panic on the left. Karl Marx had died weeks before, so the socialist leader August Bebel consulted his friend Friedrich Engels, who insisted that socialists should vote against it, as they did. The first welfare state on earth was created against socialist opposition.

The Forgotten Churchill - The man who stared down Hitler also helped create the modern welfare state

 

[JimBowie1958]

Out of personal curiosity, how many of those reading in who think of themselves as conservative or libertarian or classical liberal agree with the following:

The 17th century liberal aka classical liberal promoted:

◾an ethical emphasis on the individual as a rights-bearer prior to the existence of any state, community, or society,

◾the support of the right of property carried to its economic conclusion, a free-market system,

◾the desire for a limited constitutional government to protect individuals' rights from others and from its own expansion, and

◾the universal (global and ahistorical) applicability of these above convictions.

If you embrace these concepts, you agree that there is no justification or constitutional authority for the federal government to be involved in education, healthcare, welfare, automobile bailouts, income redistribution, contraceptives, abortion, progressive tax code, marriage laws, or any other concepts of that sort. The federal government WOULD have authority to ensure that nobody was denied the ability to choose to participate in society as everybody else does as that would be a matter of recognizing and protecting unalienable rights.

While I agree with the principles, we also have a very changed and urbanized society compare to the 18th century. We need an economic safety net to moderate extremist influence and to provide for the general welfare, which Congress put into law as it is authorized to do in the preamble.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, 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."

A comprehensive reading of the Founding documents however, and the Founders left a wealth of their intentions behind in those documents, show that they, to a man, were of the opinion that the general welfare was policy that promoted liberty and made it possible for people to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all regardless of political leanings or socioeconomic status. General welfare referred to all citizens and not any entity, group, demographic, or individual.

In other words, that remains one of the most fundamental principles they intended the Constitution to protect: a person's property was his unalienable right to have and hold and it must be inviolate. The Federal government had no authority whatsoever to take a person's property to use for its own benefit or for any other person, group, entity, or demographic.

Whatever did not benefit all was not the prerogative of the federal government to do.. For example, post roads that allowed the mail to be delivered to all the citizens, regardless of their rank or circumstances, was a prerogative of the federal government. A road or bridge for the benefit of one city or county or state was not.

I agree that in the late 1700s all a person needed was the freedom to go out on the frontier and carve a place for oneself.

In 2013 AD, it is not something one can do on a large permanent scale without risking a lot of jail time. Our social bonds have frayed to the point that few feel any need to care for their fellow citizens, not realizing that that care also has a selfish component.

Welfare is good for those who pay for it because it stabilizes society and greatly inhibits the spread of disease by keeping the poor healthier but a poor who historically have been malnourished and a plague super-highway due to suppressed immune systems.

Also, a healthier poor demographic group can still buy products if they have some discretionary money available and that helps with unemployment.

What is wrong now is primarily due to graft, corruption and pork funding that gets slipped into almost every bill. Another threat to all of us is the $85 BILLION each month that the Fed gives to banks in the guise of buying worthless toxic mortgage securities.

 

[JimBowie1958]

so if liberals assume people are all equal, why things like affirmative action, entitlements, special assistance given to a limited class of people? If we're all equal why not equal treatment and expectations of everyone? When will you guys start walking the talk?

Because those are Leftist concepts, not Liberal ones.

That's why I keep saying, stop calling your Ford a Chevy and then wondering why the Chevy dealer doesn't have the parts.

I disagree. What is falsely labeled 'entitlements' is liberal. It is based on being compassionate, human, and pragmatic.

What is generally referred to as the 'welfare state' is a construct of advanced capitalist economies.

When Otto Von Bismarck instituted compulsory health insurance in Prussia in 1883. That created a sudden panic on the left. Karl Marx had died weeks before, so the socialist leader August Bebel consulted his friend Friedrich Engels, who insisted that socialists should vote against it, as they did. The first welfare state on earth was created against socialist opposition.

The Forgotten Churchill - The man who stared down Hitler also helped create the modern welfare state

Another forgotten historical tid-bit. Socialism started with Christian communes in the 1700s, but the movement gradually got hijacked by secularists when they saw how popular it was becoming. It was the secularists who shifted socialism from a direct local community structure to a national one in order to steal from it.

 

[sitarro]

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.

Wilson? Woodrow "the racist" Wilson? JFK would be a Republican today. Clinton had both halves of Congress forcing him to sign the right bills, FDR? Who cares about FDR, why not bring up LBJ, another clueless figure head for war?

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Wilson? Woodrow "the racist" Wilson? JFK would be a Republican today. Clinton had both halves of Congress forcing him to sign the right bills, FDR? Who cares about FDR, why not bring up LBJ, another clueless figure head for war?

JFK would vomit over todays Republicans

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

Wilson? Woodrow "the racist" Wilson? JFK would be a Republican today. Clinton had both halves of Congress forcing him to sign the right bills, FDR? Who cares about FDR, why not bring up LBJ, another clueless figure head for war?

JFK would vomit over todays Republicans

Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country. Yeah that statement is only for the rich republicans. For the democrats that has been replaced with tell us what your country can do for you, belly up to the trough for free money, the drinks are on the house!

 

[rightwinger]

Wilson? Woodrow "the racist" Wilson? JFK would be a Republican today. Clinton had both halves of Congress forcing him to sign the right bills, FDR? Who cares about FDR, why not bring up LBJ, another clueless figure head for war?

JFK would vomit over todays Republicans

Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country. Yeah that statement is only for the rich republicans. For the democrats that has been replaced with tell us what your country can do for you, belly up to the trough for free money, the drinks are on the house!

It continues to amaze me how conservatives misrepresent that statement to meet their twisted agenda. "Ask not what your country can do for you" was not a condemnation of social programs but a call for public service. It was used to help launch the Peace Corps

In fact, in his same Inaugural address, JFK spoke of a public obligation to help the poor