Hate Between Conservatives & Liberals

[uscitizen]

How else would those like Beck and Rush make millions.
The sheep are bing used for whos purposes? Not their own.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

My own personal defintion of conservative differs from yours. I find my self more "conservative" in nature but do not identify with the "conservative" definition of the republican party, considering it is not "conservative" by it's nature.

I think our definitions of "conservative" and "liberal" have evolved into what we view politically rather than by what the actual words mean.

I guess it's possible that I'm not quite sure what the actual words mean. In my own mind, a liberal should also want less government involvement in their lives, considering one of the defintions of liberal is to not be bound by authoritarianism...(not saying our government is authoritarian, however, too much government involvement eventually leads to this).

You are allowing and accepting conservative's definition of liberalism. Liberals don't want government intrusion into people's lives, but they believe our founders created government to prevent other entities from intruding into our lives. The most likely attempts to steal your nest egg, your money or your home come in your mailbox or on your TV every day, these entities are not our government.

Possibly so, personally, I'm neither a fan of republicans nor democrats. They're both power hungry parties who are not a reflection of, nor "represent", the marjority of our society.

Absolutes.

How convenient.

​

 

[mdn2000]

Why is their so much hate between conservatives and liberals?

Petulant children squabbling about things they don't really understand.

Most people become partisans because they're too fearful to become anything other than team players.

I think that is backwards, most people become Independents because they are too fearful to take a positon in which they will be critisized.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Yeah the hate is confusing to me seeing as how both sides essentially vote for all the same principles.

Both parties aren't going to do anything significant to welfare or social security.

Both parties were in favor of the War in Iraq, both were then in favor of getting out and both were in favor of escalating the War in Afghanistan.

Both are in favor of big spending bills whether it be TAARP or the stimulus.

Both aren't overly concerned about big spending or the national debt.

Both don't want marijuana legalized or gays to get married in terms of social issues.

MORE Absolutes.

These are supposed to make you sound like you KNOW what you're talkin'-about, right?

​

 

[dilloduck]

My question is:

Why is their so much hate between conservatives and liberals?

Aside from the jackass idea that all conseratives are republicans and all liberals are democrats, why is there so much hate between the two on these threads?
I see numerous posts where people are attacking people simply by the assumption that they are conservative or liberals...(myself included.) I am guilty of similar accusations, however, I try not to attack someone strictly because they are either one. Sometimes a poster may make a retarded post, and then someone will post something about them just being a "stupid liberal", or a "consevative wingnut."

I understand that these two ideas (cons. and lib.) are conflicting by nature, however, why can we not just just accept that the two things are not only a cultural difference, but a personal preference...a right given to all of us by our constitution. I see too much in this country where one side wants to strip the other side of all their rights. I have no problem with debating issues rationally, but there's also this little thing called "classical conditioning." Most of us grew up believing certain things, and most of us still believe what we've believed for a long time. There are exceptions and small things that may change, but most of us believe what we belive not only because it may be the law, or true, but also because it's our personal preference. It's what makes us feel more comfortable. I meet people all the time who have different views, but we cant talk abou them rationally without hating each other.

Maybe I'm just venting here, but it seems like you can hardly post anything on these threads without having someone call you a conservative wingnut or a liberal wingnut. The generalizations are not only ignorant, but immature. I'm not intending this post to be an olive branch, but rather a discussion about WHY there is so much hate between the two views. Anyway, this will probably be a bust thread, but I thought it would be nice to get everyone's thoughts on this.

There's nothing complicated about finding someone to blame for your woes. I guess we're lucky it's a fairly even split or we'd be killing each other.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Why is their so much hate between conservatives and liberals?

Petulant children squabbling about things they don't really understand.

Most people become partisans because they're too fearful to become anything other than team players.

I think that is backwards, most people become Independents because they are too fearful to take a positon in which they will be critisized.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.....and, people who pack-up.....like a lynch-mob, or a pack o' jackals.....are much-less fearful, huh?

​

independent: a (1) : not subject to control by others : self-governing (2) : not affiliated with a larger controlling unit

MORE​

You'd be better-served NOT assuming your own definitions.​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

My question is:

Why is their so much hate between conservatives and liberals?

Aside from the jackass idea that all conseratives are republicans and all liberals are democrats, why is there so much hate between the two on these threads?
I see numerous posts where people are attacking people simply by the assumption that they are conservative or liberals...(myself included.) I am guilty of similar accusations, however, I try not to attack someone strictly because they are either one. Sometimes a poster may make a retarded post, and then someone will post something about them just being a "stupid liberal", or a "consevative wingnut."

I understand that these two ideas (cons. and lib.) are conflicting by nature, however, why can we not just just accept that the two things are not only a cultural difference, but a personal preference...a right given to all of us by our constitution. I see too much in this country where one side wants to strip the other side of all their rights. I have no problem with debating issues rationally, but there's also this little thing called "classical conditioning." Most of us grew up believing certain things, and most of us still believe what we've believed for a long time. There are exceptions and small things that may change, but most of us believe what we belive not only because it may be the law, or true, but also because it's our personal preference. It's what makes us feel more comfortable. I meet people all the time who have different views, but we cant talk abou them rationally without hating each other.

Maybe I'm just venting here, but it seems like you can hardly post anything on these threads without having someone call you a conservative wingnut or a liberal wingnut. The generalizations are not only ignorant, but immature. I'm not intending this post to be an olive branch, but rather a discussion about WHY there is so much hate between the two views. Anyway, this will probably be a bust thread, but I thought it would be nice to get everyone's thoughts on this.

There's nothing complicated about finding someone to blame for your woes.

.....If someone would prefer wasting (their) time, doing so.

Seems kind o' counter-productive, to me.​

 

[Dr.Drock]

Yeah the hate is confusing to me seeing as how both sides essentially vote for all the same principles.

Both parties aren't going to do anything significant to welfare or social security.

Both parties were in favor of the War in Iraq, both were then in favor of getting out and both were in favor of escalating the War in Afghanistan.

Both are in favor of big spending bills whether it be TAARP or the stimulus.

Both aren't overly concerned about big spending or the national debt.

Both don't want marijuana legalized or gays to get married in terms of social issues.

MORE Absolutes.

These are supposed to make you sound like you KNOW what you're talkin'-about, right?

​

I'm not claiming to be smarter than thou or anything, but those are facts according to numbers and budgets, it's not opinion.

There's been a lot of p-r work done to create an image for these parties. The Republican party tries to paint themselves as the more religious, patriotic, pro-soldier group. The Democratic party tries to paint themselves as the smarter, high brow, more open armed to different races and people of different sexual orientation. The reason why these p-r campaigns have so much effort put into them is because the facts prove this is all b-s, hence the need for the p-r.

 

[BrianH]

Yeah the hate is confusing to me seeing as how both sides essentially vote for all the same principles.

Both parties aren't going to do anything significant to welfare or social security.

Both parties were in favor of the War in Iraq, both were then in favor of getting out and both were in favor of escalating the War in Afghanistan.

Both are in favor of big spending bills whether it be TAARP or the stimulus.

Both aren't overly concerned about big spending or the national debt.

Both don't want marijuana legalized or gays to get married in terms of social issues.

MORE Absolutes.

These are supposed to make you sound like you KNOW what you're talkin'-about, right?

​

I'm not claiming to be smarter than thou or anything, but those are facts according to numbers and budgets, it's not opinion.

There's been a lot of p-r work done to create an image for these parties. The Republican party tries to paint themselves as the more religious, patriotic, pro-soldier group. The Democratic party tries to paint themselves as the smarter, high brow, more open armed to different races and people of different sexual orientation. The reason why these p-r campaigns have so much effort put into them is because the facts prove this is all b-s, hence the need for the p-r.

 

[Bfgrn]

My own personal defintion of conservative differs from yours. I find my self more "conservative" in nature but do not identify with the "conservative" definition of the republican party, considering it is not "conservative" by it's nature.

I think our definitions of "conservative" and "liberal" have evolved into what we view politically rather than by what the actual words mean.

I guess it's possible that I'm not quite sure what the actual words mean. In my own mind, a liberal should also want less government involvement in their lives, considering one of the defintions of liberal is to not be bound by authoritarianism...(not saying our government is authoritarian, however, too much government involvement eventually leads to this).

You are allowing and accepting conservative's definition of liberalism. Liberals don't want government intrusion into people's lives, but they believe our founders created government to prevent other entities from intruding into our lives. The most likely attempts to steal your nest egg, your money or your home come in your mailbox or on your TV every day, these entities are not our government.

Possibly so, personally, I'm neither a fan of republicans nor democrats. They're both power hungry parties who are not a reflection of, nor "represent", the marjority of our society. It seems to me that more liberals (associated with the Democratic party) start more government programs than the other. I'm not saying that either party is better or worse, however, it seems the democratic party does not represent "liberal" when it starts more programs to regulate what you do. I.E. Gun rights, social security, etc...

Both parties are responsible for the use of government, the difference is how and why. Democrats have been the authors and supporters of every major piece of legislation that has given freedom or security to some group of Americans...civil rights, Social Security, Medicare, even the latest GI Bill.

I've been around since Harry Truman was in the White House. I've lived through the liberal era that started with the New Deal and ended with the Great Society and the conservative era that started with Nixon & Reagan through today.

Democrats are accused of creating a 'Nanny State'...but Republicans HAVE built a 'Nanny State' that Stalin would be proud of.

 

[Iowa10000]

I have to take this post with a grain of salt. I do not hate republicans, but I do believe that most of the distrust comes from people who lie the most and are unable or unwilling to see the other side of things.
MY UP BRINGING WAS CONSERVATIVE.
But throughout my life I have dealt with mostly people who have spent most of their life’s in attempt to get from one month to the next without losing their homes, having their kids go hungry or being able to pay their bills. These people have been totally dependant on the American businesses keeping the factories open for them to have a job that allows them the ability to do the things that a family does.
None of these people are making huge sums of money or are they receiving benefits that would make them seem unusual in system of life. They work hard and they help in any way they can with what the people of need, all the way from schools to soup kitchens.

But then comes the truth, before any high taxes or unfair treatment of corps ever happened, these very same people who used those workers to line their pockets with large wealth and enormous ownership saw a way to turn even a larger profit and make more wealth. They turned their backs on these people who for ages did little more than go to work and have a few dollars to make being alive tolerable for them and their families.
And all the time this use of the population went on, the need for more and more people in the govt to do the things that were needed and were desired grew.
Then all of a sudden with 50,000 factories gone, and millions of jobs gone these very same people who sent these jobs overseas to cheap no benefit workers, figured out that they could also outsource anything from call centers to engineering.

So what is America left with, people living off doing things for other people yet not producing anything of value out of their labors.

Now here comes the problem, it's when people who have enough as their side of life hasn't change, it's when those who still benefit from all the jobs being sent overseas somehow blame those who were only doing one thing in life, trying to survive and be productive.

Well yes I have made it compared to most of the people I have know and been around, but I was one of the lucky ones, as I had something to fall back on, a loving family and the fact that I came out of Vietnam in one piece and was able to further my education while still holding on to what I had.

The point I am making is that all those people who have and are suffering are not there because of something they chose to do or become but because the country let them down, their neighbors who saw a way to get themselves more, The owners of business, the bosses of corps, mid management that was told to improve profits sold the American people out and only one real group of people gained from it the rich. Now even though they have way more than they can spend, more than they need, they still clamor more for themselves by taking more from those who has little to give.

The Rich didn't go from owning 50% of everything in 1992 to owning 68% of everything in 2009 because they got the short end. Upper management didn't go from earning 35 times what the average guy who worked for them to 200 times because they did something that merited it. No the greed at the top is the problem with America and it will be the thing that destroys America

 

[Dr.Drock]

You are allowing and accepting conservative's definition of liberalism. Liberals don't want government intrusion into people's lives, but they believe our founders created government to prevent other entities from intruding into our lives. The most likely attempts to steal your nest egg, your money or your home come in your mailbox or on your TV every day, these entities are not our government.

Possibly so, personally, I'm neither a fan of republicans nor democrats. They're both power hungry parties who are not a reflection of, nor "represent", the marjority of our society. It seems to me that more liberals (associated with the Democratic party) start more government programs than the other. I'm not saying that either party is better or worse, however, it seems the democratic party does not represent "liberal" when it starts more programs to regulate what you do. I.E. Gun rights, social security, etc...

Both parties are responsible for the use of government, the difference is how and why. Democrats have been the authors and supporters of every major piece of legislation that has given freedom or security to some group of Americans...civil rights, Social Security, Medicare, even the latest GI Bill.

I've been around since Harry Truman was in the White House. I've lived through the liberal era that started with the New Deal and ended with the Great Society and the conservative era that started with Nixon & Reagan through today.

Democrats are accused of creating a 'Nanny State'...but Republicans HAVE built a 'Nanny State' that Stalin would be proud of.

So you're disgusted by the War on Drugs, yet hold zero accountability to the Democrats who have held office in the last 40 years since it's began and been increased annually?

Such is politics in America

 

[jgarden]

South CarolinaThe battle between Bush and McCain for South Carolina has entered American political lore as one of the nastiest, dirtiest, and most brutal ever. On the one hand, Bush switched his label for himself from "compassionate conservative" to "reformer with results", as part of trying to co-opt McCain's popular message of reform. On the other hand, a variety of business and interest groups that McCain had challenged in the past now pounded him with negative ads.

The day that a new poll showed McCain five points ahead in the state, Bush allied himself on stage with a marginal and controversial veterans activist named J. Thomas Burch, who accused McCain of having "abandoned the veterans" on POW/MIA and Agent Orange issues: "He came home from Vietnam and forgot us." Incensed, McCain ran ads accusing Bush of lying and comparing the governor to Bill Clinton, which Bush complained was "about as low a blow as you can give in a Republican primary."

An unidentified party began a semi-underground smear campaign against McCain, delivered by push polls, faxes, e-mails, flyers, audience plants, and the like. These claimed most famously that he had fathered a black child out of wedlock (the McCains' dark-skinned daughter Bridget was adopted from Bangladesh; this misrepresentation was thought to be an especially effective slur in a Deep South state where race was still central), but also that his wife Cindy was a drug addict, that he was a homosexual, and that he was a "Manchurian Candidate" traitor or mentally unstable from his North Vietnam POW days.

The Bush campaign strongly denied any involvement with these attacks; Bush said he would fire anyone who ran defamatory push polls. During a break in a debate, Bush put his hand on McCain's arm and reiterated that he had no involvement in the attacks; McCain replied, "Don't give me that shit. And take your hands off me."

Bush mobilized the state's evangelical voters, and leading conservative broadcaster Rush Limbaugh entered the fray supporting Bush and going on at length about how McCain was a favorite of liberal Democrats.

Polls swung in Bush's favor; by not accepting federal matching funds for his campaign, Bush was not limited in how much money he could spend on advertisements, while McCain was near his limit .....

McCain lost South Carolina on February 19, with 42 percent of the vote against Bush's 53 percent, allowing Bush to regain the momentum .....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain_presidential_campaign,_2000

The "mother" of all hate campaigns wasn't between LIBERALS and CONSERVATIVES, but within the GOP itself - during the 2000 REPUBLICAN PRIMARY in SOUTH CAROLINA.

Bush had lost to McCain in the New Hampshire Primary and efforts by his campaign to regain the momentum in South Carolina has "entered American political lore as one of the nastiest, dirtiest, and most brutal ever!"

Ironically, McCain hired some of the same political "hitmen" that Bush had used against him, in his 2008 Presidential Campaign against Obama!

- Charlie Condon, the former South Carolina State Attorney General - in 2000 Condon helped spread the rumor that the McCain's adopted daughter Bridget was the product of a liason between John McCain and a black prostitute

- Tucker Eskew responsible for the "push-poll phone calls" from Voter/Consumer Research, a company hired by he Bush campaign, that anonymously "misrepresented" McCain's record to SC voters. Eskew has been been referred to as a member-in-good-standing of the conservative "dark side."

- McCain hired Feather, Hodges, Larson & Synhorst [FLS], the came "robocall" firm that Eskew used in 2000

 

[Bfgrn]

Possibly so, personally, I'm neither a fan of republicans nor democrats. They're both power hungry parties who are not a reflection of, nor "represent", the marjority of our society. It seems to me that more liberals (associated with the Democratic party) start more government programs than the other. I'm not saying that either party is better or worse, however, it seems the democratic party does not represent "liberal" when it starts more programs to regulate what you do. I.E. Gun rights, social security, etc...

Both parties are responsible for the use of government, the difference is how and why. Democrats have been the authors and supporters of every major piece of legislation that has given freedom or security to some group of Americans...civil rights, Social Security, Medicare, even the latest GI Bill.

I've been around since Harry Truman was in the White House. I've lived through the liberal era that started with the New Deal and ended with the Great Society and the conservative era that started with Nixon & Reagan through today.

Democrats are accused of creating a 'Nanny State'...but Republicans HAVE built a 'Nanny State' that Stalin would be proud of.

So you're disgusted by the War on Drugs, yet hold zero accountability to the Democrats who have held office in the last 40 years since it's began and been increased annually?

Such is politics in America

Zero accountability doesn't exist. Democrats have contributed or have been too afraid to address the American gulag state. But...the right claims to be 'tough on crime' when they are really tough on freedom and liberty. Republicans and the right believe the only way to solve our problems is through punishment. And if that doesn't work, the punishment is just not severe enough. I suggest you research the 1994 Crimes Bill and how Republicans and the right demonized the most constructive part of that bill.

In the early to mid 90's Congress crafted a crimes bill. The original funding framework called for equal thirds of the money to go to 1) police enforcement 2) prisons 3) crime prevention

The crime prevention part of the bill would go toward education, job training, community engagement by law enforcement, child-centered activities (money for arts and crafts, dance programs, recreational activities, nutrition training, and so forth), assorted inner city youth activity programs, urban parks and recreation, schools (money is to be used "to improve the academic and social development of youths by instituting a collaborative structure that trains and coordinates efforts of social workers, teachers, and principles."), youth development for such activities as "providing youth with life skills" , drug treatment programs in prisons. and facilities like community centers.

Statistics showed that the majority of youth crimes are committed after school lets out and before dinner time. It is not difficult to see what is missing during that time period, adult supervision. So the idea was to provide a safe and supervised facility where these kids could go.

It was during this period that Newt Gingrich and the 'Contract with America' Republicans took over Congress.

The 'Contract with America' Republicans attacked and demonized this part of the bill. They even labeled it by selecting one small part of the bill and added a racial slur, They called the prevention part of the bill paying for 'midnight basketball'

The real irony of that debate; Police Chiefs from around the country ascended on Washington to lobby Congress FOR the prevention provisions, because they knew that the best way to help law enforcement was not more police or more punishment, it was through education, training and community activism.

 

[Montrovant]

As has been stated, I think it's mostly about having someone to blame. It may not reach the level of hatred in most cases, but it certainly can get pretty harsh.

We need more viable political parties just so people have more choices about who to blame!