Why is there so much liberal hate?

Post Reply New Topic

Your wasting your time debating with him.

That wasn't a challenge but a simple statement that still stands.

I don't see them attacking or killing anyone. Causing hurt feelings isn't worthy of being called hate but, hey, to each his own.........

I mean, every time I keep running into online discussions where someone goes on a diatribe about how liberals are all stupid, evil, lazy, etc, with no grounding in reality whatsoever, and if it weren't for them, we'd be living under some sort of earthly paradise. I'm just wondering how long its gonna be till liberals and conservatives start shooting at each other. I think there is a logical justification for things like moderate social safety netting, minimum wage, public education, etc etc. Before we had all the liberal reforms in America and a strong union presence, workers had no compensation for injuries, people were so poor it was an economic necessity for children in certain social classes to work in factories rather than go to school, there was gross social inequality between races (I'm sorry but the civil rights movement of the 60's was a left leaning cause, not right as Glenn Beck wants to rewrite), and people had to take care of their sick and elderly parents more because they didn't have the pensions, medicaid, and social security we take for granted nowadays. A conservative even told me recently that all the economic responsibility of taking care of one's aging parents should lay on the child. Coming from the perspective that letting big business have full reign over society leads to greater freedom, this doesn't make sense to me, because having to support your elederly parents, as well as your own kids, seems like it would reduce freedom and mobility for the average person, not increase it. In some ways I hope they get everything they want. Its very likely, as neo-liberal economics rule the realm, and the army of corporate lobyists pushing for it will probably get it done. Maybe they'll see its not quite the Utopian realm they invisioned it would be when all forms of democracy are disabled, the unions are no more, the public school a thing of the past, and multi-national corporations have full control over everything and everyone.


There's also a lot of people that are very black and white in their thinking and see liberals and socialists as one in the same. Its really not the case though, as most liberals believe in restrained capitalism, not the complete abolishment of the capital class and turning over the means of production over to workers. They don't believe in a classless society, just in a society that doesn't have gross inequality as seen in countries like Brazil and Indonesia. To liberals, rich people can keep their mansions, its just tax dollars have to be used to keep people from starving to death and killing each other over food. This really isn't a radical idea in my view. I support moderate subsidies to the poor, because I'm int he middle/lower class, and when people start rioting over basic necessities, I'll more likely be one of the people caught in the cross fire than a rich person who can afford to hire a mercenary and live behind a walled of community.

That depends on how honest your politics are



So carrying *hate* signs is not enough, lobbying government to insinuate itself into their personal lives and prevent their happiness; to truly be hateful they need to be violent? It is more than causing hurt feelings, it is preventing an entire demographic of human beings from living their lives in peace (homosexuals), one of the few consistent political ideas associated with the GOP. Most of their rallying causes have been based on interfering with the lives of innocent people. If you do not consider that hate I don't know what you would

People listen to too many conservative media personalities that call everything they dislike "liberal." So now, the only word needed to discredit an idea or person in the minds of some is the label "liberal" The mentality seems to be if I don't like something I'll just spit out the word liberal and that will take care of that. It gets so trite and redundant and annoying when the argument is reduced to calling someone or something "liberal" and that's the best they can come up with. The word is way overused. Use it sometimes, but not as much as they do. It gets to be a facade.

And then there's words like vetting. I get so sick of that word. Fox News started using that word now EVERYONE and their dog uses that word. I want to scream " FIND A NEW WORD ALREADY FFS!! !!" Why is it conservatives have such a limited lexicon and why are they such copycats?

I mean, it used to be NO ONE used the word "vetting." I never heard it from anyone. Then, Sean Hannity used it on his show. Now everyone uses it constantly. I get so sick of hearing it. I want to scream every time someone says "this person needs to be thoroughly vetted." It's like, no, it's your lexicon that needs vetting and replacing.

That depends on how honest your politics are



So carrying *hate* signs is not enough, lobbying government to insinuate itself into their personal lives and prevent their happiness; to truly be hateful they need to be violent? It is more than causing hurt feelings, it is preventing an entire demographic of human beings from living their lives in peace (homosexuals), one of the few consistent political ideas associated with the GOP. Most of their rallying causes have been based on interfering with the lives of innocent people. If you do not consider that hate I don't know what you would

Canada has a universal healthcare system and the wait at the doctors office must be hell.

I mean, every time I keep running into online discussions where someone goes on a diatribe about how liberals are all stupid, evil, lazy, etc, with no grounding in reality whatsoever, and if it weren't for them, we'd be living under some sort of earthly paradise. I'm just wondering how long its gonna be till liberals and conservatives start shooting at each other. I think there is a logical justification for things like moderate social safety netting, minimum wage, public education, etc etc. Before we had all the liberal reforms in America and a strong union presence, workers had no compensation for injuries, people were so poor it was an economic necessity for children in certain social classes to work in factories rather than go to school, there was gross social inequality between races (I'm sorry but the civil rights movement of the 60's was a left leaning cause, not right as Glenn Beck wants to rewrite), and people had to take care of their sick and elderly parents more because they didn't have the pensions, medicaid, and social security we take for granted nowadays. A conservative even told me recently that all the economic responsibility of taking care of one's aging parents should lay on the child. Coming from the perspective that letting big business have full reign over society leads to greater freedom, this doesn't make sense to me, because having to support your elederly parents, as well as your own kids, seems like it would reduce freedom and mobility for the average person, not increase it. In some ways I hope they get everything they want. Its very likely, as neo-liberal economics rule the realm, and the army of corporate lobyists pushing for it will probably get it done. Maybe they'll see its not quite the Utopian realm they invisioned it would be when all forms of democracy are disabled, the unions are no more, the public school a thing of the past, and multi-national corporations have full control over everything and everyone.

There's also a lot of people that are very black and white in their thinking and see liberals and socialists as one in the same. Its really not the case though, as most liberals believe in restrained capitalism, not the complete abolishment of the capital class and turning over the means of production over to workers. They don't believe in a classless society, just in a society that doesn't have gross inequality as seen in countries like Brazil and Indonesia. To liberals, rich people can keep their mansions, its just tax dollars have to be used to keep people from starving to death and killing each other over food. This really isn't a radical idea in my view. I support moderate subsidies to the poor, because I'm int he middle/lower class, and when people start rioting over basic necessities, I'll more likely be one of the people caught in the cross fire than a rich person who can afford to hire a mercenary and live behind a walled of community.

I think most Liberals want to tax only the rich

What does "vetting" mean?

Canda has a universal healthcare system and the wait at the doctors office must be hell.

To be truly hateful, violence should be required. Otherwise you risk "selective hate" using the same mechanic as selective outrage. Compare what spews from WBC, KKK offshoots, and from Al Sharpton's mouth. Why aren't all of them considered hate groups?

Anti-gay sentiments are associated with the GOP, but the Democrats are just as bad (at least the lowly rank and file). If they were as open and accepting as the GOP is claimed not to be, gay marriage would be legal in California. They aren't liberal in all matters, but liberal on most social issues and socially conservative on some.

Joker that is completely speculation on your part. For work (in the us) I had to wait for 2 hours to be able to do a drug test. It ended up taking 5 minutes when it was finally my turn.

Its just a repetition on his part, a few people here parrot that despite it being false