Why is there so much liberal hate?

Page 45 of 49 [ 776 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

19 Jul 2012, 6:57 am

bizboy1 wrote:

Kraichgauer wrote:

For one thing, I'm not about to trust anything put forth by John Stossel or Fox Noise.
For another, history is on my side of the argument. That terrible FDA and those horrendous other regulatory agencies only came into existence because big business couldn't be trusted to put the safety of consumers and workers over profits. And who's going to self-regulate if consumers have nowhere else to go for goods or services?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

I disagree.

So you disagree with how history actually went down? Good luck with that

bizboy1 wrote:

If we have adequate competition then there will be self-regulation. It's only when you have oligopolies like you have now (thanks to government) is where you run into trouble.

I take it you like your pork with extra nematodes. Is it for the protein, or the flavor?

_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do

Lord_Gareth
Velociraptor

Joined: 20 Feb 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 440

19 Jul 2012, 7:49 am

Hey Bizboy - try reading The Jungle, by Upton Sinclair. It's the biggest reason you no longer find wedding rings and human fingers in your sausage today.

_________________
Et in Arcadia ego. - "Even in Arcadia, there am I."

Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

19 Jul 2012, 8:23 am

Bizboy1 wrote:

Quote:

I would love to see the federal government shrink dramatically while the states take on a more prominent role.

To some of the more neurotic types (many to chose from here) states rights/state government automatically means reinstatement of slavery.
:roll:

_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,426
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

19 Jul 2012, 10:51 am

Raptor wrote:

Bizboy1 wrote:

Quote:

I would love to see the federal government shrink dramatically while the states take on a more prominent role.

To some of the more neurotic types (many to chose from here) states rights/state government automatically means reinstatement of slavery.
:roll:

No, but it could mean the rollback of the Voters Rights Act - - which is a plank in the Texas Republican party - - among other things that would step on the rights of Americans not of the right color, who don't worship the right way or to the right deity, or who sleep with the wrong people, etc.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Lord_Gareth
Velociraptor

Joined: 20 Feb 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 440

19 Jul 2012, 11:01 am

We had a system where the states held the majority of the power once. We called it the Articles of Confederation. It blew so much that we wrote the Constitution to replace it. I'm not personally eager to remake that particular mistake.

_________________
Et in Arcadia ego. - "Even in Arcadia, there am I."

Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

19 Jul 2012, 12:51 pm

Lord_Gareth wrote:

"State's Rights" is something regularly parroted by social and economic conservatives. Many of these same ideology parrots also promote historical revisionism favoring the Confederate States of America. You would think that the CSA dying of state's rights (cooperation between the rebel states was quite minimal and often adversarial, with cooperation often withheld purposely to prove that "they don't have to") would influence their decision making, but I guess not.

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,426
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

19 Jul 2012, 1:15 pm

Vigilans wrote:

Lord_Gareth wrote:

I have to wonder, had the Confederacy won, how long would they have lasted till their states started splitting away.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

19 Jul 2012, 1:18 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:

Vigilans wrote:

Lord_Gareth wrote:

I have to wonder, had the Confederacy won, how long would they have lasted till their states started splitting away.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

If you take the drunken, fight prone Confederate congress as example, maybe not so long. But simply put they could never have won the war with their politics the way they were, no more effective than the US would have been in the War of 1812 had they kept the Articles of Confederation

Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

19 Jul 2012, 1:19 pm

Vigilans wrote:

I can't believe Dox would waste his time defending this guy.

I wasn't defending anyone, Vigilans, but rather attacking a line of reasoning that you were extending that I felt was incorrect. I like to *try* and consider opinions in a vacuum on the principle that a good idea is a good idea regardless of where it originated, so I disagreed with your premise that a person's living arrangements automatically disqualified their opinion if the two seemed at odds. I also thought you were engaging in some bad arguing habits, like using undefined terms with unspecified targets, e.g. "talking points", in a way that wasn't doing you any favors. You're actually coming off as pretty hypocritical when you do things like demand someone answer questions while ducking theirs and such, I think you're letting your personal feelings get in the way of your better judgment. Just my opinion, as always.

_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez

Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

19 Jul 2012, 1:39 pm

Dox47 wrote:

Vigilans wrote:

I can't believe Dox would waste his time defending this guy.

Well, that makes it... you and bizboy1 the people who seem to have a problem with what I had to say. Since you are in agreement with him and he was not even capable of paraphrasing my points correctly, I am forced to conclude you also are not correctly interpreting what I wrote. Supporting this is your "automatic disqualifer" statement which was not actually part of anything I argued. Furthermore bizboy1 did not even present a good idea. So we are talking about a bad idea originating from a bad source

Dox47 wrote:

I also thought you were engaging in some bad arguing habits

okay, well good thing I have you to let me know.

Dox47 wrote:

like using undefined terms with unspecified targets, e.g. "talking points", in a way that wasn't doing you any favors. You're actually coming off as pretty hypocritical when you do things like demand someone answer questions while ducking theirs and such, I think you're letting your personal feelings get in the way of your better judgment. Just my opinion, as always.

I actually did specify what the talking points were. Since I quoted them...

What questions did I duck? I was unaware that anyone had asked me anything, other than when bizboy1 attacked me by making insinuations about my personal life. So please show me how I am being a hypocrite.

I think its you who has the personal motivation here. What personal feelings could I have? I am not on welfare, I am not a libertarian, I have never interacted with bizboy1 before...? Please elaborate. Why else would you have gotten involved, if not to fight the battle for a fellow Libertarian who is both argumentatively floundering and quite factually challenged? I feel you are passing over the vast majority of what bizboy1 has actually had to say by virtue of your shared political label. That is not a particularly good or honest "arguing habit"

Last edited by Vigilans on 19 Jul 2012, 1:45 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

19 Jul 2012, 1:43 pm

I was just browsing Salon and found this wonderful lead-in to Aaron Sorkin's entry into their Hack List that answers a lot of the OP's questions about hating liberals. I should note that the author, Alex Pareene, is not just liberal but super-liberal.

Alex Pareene wrote:

Aaron Sorkin is why people hate liberals. He’s a smug, condescending know-it-all who isn’t as smart as he thinks he is. His feints toward open-mindedness are transparently phony, he mistakes his opinion for common sense, and he’s preachy. Sorkin has spent years fueling the delusional self-regard of well-educated liberals. He might be more responsible than anyone else for the anti-democratic “everyone would agree with us if they weren’t all so stupid” attitude of the contemporary progressive movement. And age is not improving him.

http://www.salon.com/2012/07/19/aaron_s ... frivolity/
Bold is mine

It's for sure an outlier situation, most liberals are not like Aaron Sorkin, but the his "type" is the loudest and most visible, and when people who hate "liberals" think of "liberals", that's generally what they're thinking of. Living in a very liberal area, I would have to say that the "everyone would agree with us if they weren't so stupid" part is the one really pervasive element that does seem to be largely present throughout liberal culture, and is certainly one of the things that drives my particular distaste for liberals, which is slightly stronger than my distaste for conservatives. I'd probably dislike them both equally if I'd been raised around both types.

_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez

Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

19 Jul 2012, 1:48 pm

Most of the examples provided of "Why the liberal hate" seem to point to a willingness on the part of anti-liberals to generalize the entirety of liberal politics with whomever happens to be the most convenient visible media figure. Another is that the term "liberal" is pretty much thrown around US politics like an insult despite there not really being liberal politics even occurring

Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

19 Jul 2012, 1:48 pm

I am so uninterested in a fight, Vigilans. If you really think what you're writing, fine, think it, I really don't have the interest or the energy to do the protracted digging, quoting and cross posting to rebut you definitively.

_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez

LKL
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

19 Jul 2012, 2:04 pm

bizboy1 wrote:

I disagree. Those regulations do more harm. Firms have a strong incentive to provide safe products. Otherwise they would go out of business. For instance the FDA kills more people by denying life saving drugs than stopping those that are harmful. You also can't ignore the conflict of interest.

do a search on the history of patent medicines and snake oil.

Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

19 Jul 2012, 2:08 pm

Dox47 wrote:

I am so uninterested in a fight, Vigilans.

I don't like to fight with people I like, so I hope you accept my virtual handshake

Dox47 wrote:

If you really think what you're writing, fine, think it, I really don't have the interest or the energy to do the protracted digging, quoting and cross posting to rebut you definitively.

I don't blame you, that sort of search to support what is really an argument over niceties in the debates of other parties is frankly tedious. If I was not clear with my points then the fault does lie with me for not structuring them to present universal interpretation

Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

19 Jul 2012, 2:14 pm

Vigilans wrote:

Another is that the term "liberal" is pretty much thrown around US politics like an insult despite there not really being liberal politics even occurring

Some of our conservatives have adopted the novel camouflage technique of appending a D after their names, this simple addition seems to fool a hefty portion of the population into ignoring what they do in favor of what they say when election time rolls around. Take the president, for example...

_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez

Page 45 of 49 [ 776 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49 Next

Jump to:

Why is there so much liberal hate? Post Reply New Topic

Why is there so much liberal hate?