Why do people hate Liberals?

[Uncensored2008]

Go down the list of the Libertarian Party 2012 platform. On issue after issue it assumes that the federal government is the agent to demand liberty and if we elect Bob Barr, he'll make it happen. That is as wrong as the GOP or Democratic Party assuming the federal government is the agent to promise or accomplish much of anything.

Foxy, I love you dearly, but this is absurd.

Barr listed the areas where he would WITHDRAW the federal government from, restoring liberty by placing issues back in the hands of the many states and restoring Constitutional adherence.

The classical liberal sees the federal government as having Constitutional Authority to secure our rights, implement just enough regulation to facilitate us operating as one nation, and then leave us alone to form whatever sort of societies we wish to have, however we wish to do that.

Okay.

The Libertarian Party philosophy pretty much opposes that concept as it would have all people being required to have a society that the Libertarians (large L) want to have. Which is why the Libertarian Party mostly opposes those communities who want to regulate guns or allow a creche on the courthouse lawn or put crosses on the graves of fallen warriors or ban drugs. Liberty must include the ability to be 'narrow minded' and/or organize a religious or restrictive society as much as a society in which every person decides for himself/herself and there is little or no law at all. Unless we are free to organize the society we want to live in--whether we think that is good or bad-- there is no liberty at all. You still have a despot or monarch or dictator or totalitarianism dictating who and what we are and how we are required to live.

This nation has a Constitution. You're right that under Libertarian ideals, a community could not vote to have slavery, or outlaw Christianity, or prohibit the right of the people to keep and bear arms. We long ago found that certain elements are needed for communities to be legitimate within the framework of this nation. Respect of the Bill of Rights is foremost of these.

 

[bedowin62]

well for starters there is nothing liberal about liberals; with the exception of the way the liberally blow trillions of other people's money just to fail.

 

[Bumberclyde]

Why do people hate Liberals?

The stick jammed way up their arses that Libs don't have.

 

[Foxfyre]

Go down the list of the Libertarian Party 2012 platform. On issue after issue it assumes that the federal government is the agent to demand liberty and if we elect Bob Barr, he'll make it happen. That is as wrong as the GOP or Democratic Party assuming the federal government is the agent to promise or accomplish much of anything.

Foxy, I love you dearly, but this is absurd.

Barr listed the areas where he would WITHDRAW the federal government from, restoring liberty by placing issues back in the hands of the many states and restoring Constitutional adherence.

The classical liberal sees the federal government as having Constitutional Authority to secure our rights, implement just enough regulation to facilitate us operating as one nation, and then leave us alone to form whatever sort of societies we wish to have, however we wish to do that.

Okay.

The Libertarian Party philosophy pretty much opposes that concept as it would have all people being required to have a society that the Libertarians (large L) want to have. Which is why the Libertarian Party mostly opposes those communities who want to regulate guns or allow a creche on the courthouse lawn or put crosses on the graves of fallen warriors or ban drugs. Liberty must include the ability to be 'narrow minded' and/or organize a religious or restrictive society as much as a society in which every person decides for himself/herself and there is little or no law at all. Unless we are free to organize the society we want to live in--whether we think that is good or bad-- there is no liberty at all. You still have a despot or monarch or dictator or totalitarianism dictating who and what we are and how we are required to live.

This nation has a Constitution. You're right that under Libertarian ideals, a community could not vote to have slavery, or outlaw Christianity, or prohibit the right of the people to keep and bear arms. We long ago found that certain elements are needed for communities to be legitimate within the framework of this nation. Respect of the Bill of Rights is foremost of these.

I'm not saying Bob Barr would be a terrible President, Uncensored, but unless you start at the state and local level to establish principles and goals, the President is going to be pretty ineffective to accomplish much change because he won't have a Congress that will share his goals. And Barr doesn't have a really good track record on his personal convictions either. He was strongly pro-life as a Republican in the 1990's, a strong advocate against drug legalization, and one of the architects of the Defense of Marriage Act. And now that he is a Libertarian, he has reversed all those positions?

Whenever you have somebody who appears to compromise their values for political expediency, that does not give me a great deal of confidence in how strongly they are committed to what they preach. Yes, anybody can change their mind on this issue or that issue, and I will accept that. But when it is such an abrupt flipflop in so many critical issues just to conform to a party platform, I just shake my head, throw up my hands, and walk away. That is what Obama did and that is why I have essentially no respect for him.

And speaking of being absurd, my examples of what liberty looks like did not include re-establishing slavery or outlawing Christianity or anything like that. You are rarely guilty of hyperbole and non sequitur, but that was a huge overreach. And I love you too.

 

[rdean]

Why do people hate Liberals?

Republicans are assuming it is they who are "people".

 

[Uncensored2008]

I'm not saying Bob Barr would be a terrible President, Uncensored, but unless you start at the state and local level to establish principles and goals, the President is going to be pretty ineffective to accomplish much change because he won't have a Congress that will share his goals. And Barr doesn't have a really good track record on his personal convictions either. He was strongly pro-life as a Republican in the 1990's, a strong advocate against drug legalization, and one of the architects of the Defense of Marriage Act. And now that he is a Libertarian, he has reversed all those positions?

Whenever you have somebody who appears to compromise their values for political expediency, that does not give me a great deal of confidence in how strongly they are committed to what they preach. Yes, anybody can change their mind on this issue or that issue, and I will accept that. But when it is such an abrupt flipflop in so many critical issues just to conform to a party platform, I just shake my head, throw up my hands, and walk away. That is what Obama did and that is why I have essentially no respect for him.

I'm not a fan of Barr. I've never trusted him for exactly the reasons you list.

I'm anti-abortion and view it as the only rational Libertarian position. But Barr flip flopping is worrisome.

And speaking of being absurd, my examples of what liberty looks like did not include re-establishing slavery or outlawing Christianity or anything like that. You are rarely guilty of hyperbole and non sequitur, but that was a huge overreach. And I love you too.

My response is to;

the Libertarian Party mostly opposes those communities who want to regulate guns

Since this violates the United States Constitution, it is right that the LPUSA should oppose it, as should the other parties.

I wasn't accusing your of seeking to establish slavery, I was simply pointing out that denying civil rights is not an area of state or community discretion.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Why do people hate Liberals?

Republicans are assuming it is they who are "people".

Well, no one is going to make the mistake of assuming you are a "people," drone.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm not saying Bob Barr would be a terrible President, Uncensored, but unless you start at the state and local level to establish principles and goals, the President is going to be pretty ineffective to accomplish much change because he won't have a Congress that will share his goals. And Barr doesn't have a really good track record on his personal convictions either. He was strongly pro-life as a Republican in the 1990's, a strong advocate against drug legalization, and one of the architects of the Defense of Marriage Act. And now that he is a Libertarian, he has reversed all those positions?

Whenever you have somebody who appears to compromise their values for political expediency, that does not give me a great deal of confidence in how strongly they are committed to what they preach. Yes, anybody can change their mind on this issue or that issue, and I will accept that. But when it is such an abrupt flipflop in so many critical issues just to conform to a party platform, I just shake my head, throw up my hands, and walk away. That is what Obama did and that is why I have essentially no respect for him.

I'm not a fan of Barr. I've never trusted him for exactly the reasons you list.

I'm anti-abortion and view it as the only rational Libertarian position. But Barr flip flopping is worrisome.

And speaking of being absurd, my examples of what liberty looks like did not include re-establishing slavery or outlawing Christianity or anything like that. You are rarely guilty of hyperbole and non sequitur, but that was a huge overreach. And I love you too.

My response is to;

the Libertarian Party mostly opposes those communities who want to regulate guns

Since this violates the United States Constitution, it is right that the LPUSA should oppose it, as should the other parties.

I wasn't accusing your of seeking to establish slavery, I was simply pointing out that denying civil rights is not an area of state or community discretion.

But reasonable regulation of guns by a local community is not a violation of civil rights in my opinion. And if a local community does not want guns on the street or in the schools or in the bars or in the courthouse, imposing rules about discharging a weapon in certain areas, etc. etc. etc., it should have the right to form the sort of society it wishes to have short of violating somebody else's unalienable rights. The Constitution, in my opinion, puts the unalienable right of the people to have the society they want ahead of the right to use guns any way they want.

The same Constitution would prohibit denying the people the right to own and keep guns on their own property.

Some Libertarians, however, characterize ANY restrictions on guns as violating everybody's rights. And that is how modern American liberals navigate.

Just as some liberals characterize our wishing to eliminate UNNECESSARY regulation as our desire to eliminate ALL regulation - or - they characterize our desire to utilize honest science and real criteria in issues of environment and/or climate change as our willingness to pollute all air, water, and soil and/or putting profits ahead of the common good, yadda yadda.

 

[Uncensored2008]

But reasonable regulation of guns by a local community is not a violation of civil rights in my opinion. And if a local community does not want guns on the street or in the schools or in the bars or in the courthouse, imposing rules about discharging a weapon in certain areas, etc. etc. etc., it should have the right to form the sort of society it wishes to have short of violating somebody else's unalienable rights. The Constitution, in my opinion, puts the unalienable right of the people to have the society they want ahead of the right to use guns any way they want.

The same Constitution would prohibit denying the people the right to own and keep guns on their own property.

Some Libertarians, however, characterize ANY restrictions on guns as violating everybody's rights. And that is how modern American liberals navigate.

Just as some liberals characterize our wishing to eliminate UNNECESSARY regulation as our desire to eliminate ALL regulation - or - they characterize our desire to utilize honest science and real criteria in issues of environment and/or climate change as our willingness to pollute all air, water, and soil and/or putting profits ahead of the common good, yadda yadda.

The thing is, the Constitution affirms the right to bear arm, as well as keep them.

 

[Foxfyre]

But reasonable regulation of guns by a local community is not a violation of civil rights in my opinion. And if a local community does not want guns on the street or in the schools or in the bars or in the courthouse, imposing rules about discharging a weapon in certain areas, etc. etc. etc., it should have the right to form the sort of society it wishes to have short of violating somebody else's unalienable rights. The Constitution, in my opinion, puts the unalienable right of the people to have the society they want ahead of the right to use guns any way they want.

The same Constitution would prohibit denying the people the right to own and keep guns on their own property.

Some Libertarians, however, characterize ANY restrictions on guns as violating everybody's rights. And that is how modern American liberals navigate.

Just as some liberals characterize our wishing to eliminate UNNECESSARY regulation as our desire to eliminate ALL regulation - or - they characterize our desire to utilize honest science and real criteria in issues of environment and/or climate change as our willingness to pollute all air, water, and soil and/or putting profits ahead of the common good, yadda yadda.

The thing is, the Constitution affirms the right to bear arm, as well as keep them.

But it does not affirm the right for you to bear them in my private space nor me in yours if either of us should object.

 

[Uncensored2008]

But it does not affirm the right for you to bear them in my private space nor me in yours if either of us should object.

True, private property is free to make their own rules.

 

[Foxfyre]

But it does not affirm the right for you to bear them in my private space nor me in yours if either of us should object.

True, private property is free to make their own rules.

And so should a society have the ability to make its own rules for how they want their shared life together to be conducted. That means make rules for the society they live in as a community and not rules for everybody else outside that community. That is the part of true liberty that Libertarians (Big "L") usually don't quite get. And why they get a lot of push back from me.

 

[Uncensored2008]

And so should a society have the ability to make its own rules for how they want their shared life together to be conducted.

Only within the confines of the Constitution.

We get right back to the notion of a community deciding slavery is just hunky dory for them.

The freedom to swing your arm ends at the tip of my nose. (Murray Rothbard.) A community simply cannot pass laws that infringe the rights of others. A city has no more authority to deny a law abiding citizen the right to carry a weapon, than they do to declare that redheads shall be placed in bondage to labor for the benefit of non-redheads.

That means make rules for the society they live in as a community and not rules for everybody else outside that community. That is the part of true liberty that Libertarians (Big "L") usually don't quite get. And why they get a lot of push back from me.

Again, respect for the rights of the minority is the foundational principle of this nation, and why we codified a bill of rights.

 

[Foxfyre]

And so should a society have the ability to make its own rules for how they want their shared life together to be conducted.

Only within the confines of the Constitution.

We get right back to the notion of a community deciding slavery is just hunky dory for them.

The freedom to swing your arm ends at the tip of my nose. (Murray Rothbard.) A community simply cannot pass laws that infringe the rights of others. A city has no more authority to deny a law abiding citizen the right to carry a weapon, than they do to declare that redheads shall be placed in bondage to labor for the benefit of non-redheads.

That means make rules for the society they live in as a community and not rules for everybody else outside that community. That is the part of true liberty that Libertarians (Big "L") usually don't quite get. And why they get a lot of push back from me.

Again, respect for the rights of the minority is the foundational principle of this nation, and why we codified a bill of rights.

Slavery violates the unalienable rights of persons. That cannot be anybody's choice under the Constitution. Throughout this discussion, I have qualified my argument to include that 'so long as nobody's unalienable rights are violated or threatened'. So again, if a community wants to have that crech on the courthouse lawn or doesn't want it on the courthouse lawn or wants a gun free community in public places or wants to allow all citizens to carry a gun at all times, it should be their right to have the community they want. They are violating nobody's rights and no matter how foolish or silly or ill advised it looks to others, liberty must allow them to be who they are and do it just like they want to do it. Short of violating the rights of others, liberty must allow people to be wrong as well as right.

 

[Bfgrn]

But it does not affirm the right for you to bear them in my private space nor me in yours if either of us should object.

True, private property is free to make their own rules.

Not according to the NRA. If you park your car on my property, the NRA says it is none of my business that a loaded gun is sitting in your glove box waiting for any thief to use against me, my family and my workers.

 

[TemplarKormac]

But it does not affirm the right for you to bear them in my private space nor me in yours if either of us should object.

True, private property is free to make their own rules.

Not according to the NRA. If you park your car on my property, the NRA says it is none of my business that a loaded gun is sitting in your glove box waiting for any thief to use against me, my family and my workers.

Your penchant for hyperbole knows no limit does it? If you park your car illegally on my driveway or at my place of business, I have the right to ask you to leave, by force if necessary. I have the constitutional right to my property, meaning that the NRA hasn't a thing to do with it. Seriously.

 

[Bfgrn]

True, private property is free to make their own rules.

Not according to the NRA. If you park your car on my property, the NRA says it is none of my business that a loaded gun is sitting in your glove box waiting for any thief to use against me, my family and my workers.

Your penchant for hyperbole knows no limit does it? If you park your car illegally on my driveway or at my place of business, I have the right to ask you to leave, by force if necessary. I have the constitutional right to my property, meaning that the NRA hasn't a thing to do with it. Seriously.

There is no sin except stupidity.
Oscar Wilde

On the Perils of Single-Issue Politics | Cato @ Liberty

It seems that the NRA has launched a $75,000 ad campaign against state Rep. Debra Maggart, a long-time NRA member and avid gun-owner who a year ago had an “A+” rating from the NRA. Her sin? She and several other Tennessee Republican officials opposed a bill that would have allowed employees to keep guns in their cars while parked in their private employers’ parking lots.

The NRA’s Chris Cox, who’s spearheading this political vendetta and, in the process, is supporting Maggart’s tea-party backed opponent, invokes both “our First Amendment right to assemble to petition our government” and, of course, the Second Amendment, seemingly oblivious to the fact that neither is relevant here. In fact, the issue could not be simpler: individuals, including employers, have a right to determine the conditions on which others may enter their property.

The Second Amendment prevents the government, not private parties, from infringing your right to keep and bear arms. If a private party can ban you from his property for any reason, good or bad, he can do so for carrying a gun. So too with the First Amendment: it limits what governments, not private parties, may do; government may not violate your rights of assembly and petition, none of which is happening here.

As so often happens, here again we see how single-issue politics, in the name of liberty, ends up undermining liberty. The tea party should know better.

 

[American_Jihad]

Rutgers rage against Rice -- why do liberals have so much hate for black conservatives?​

By Juan Williams
March 09, 2014

Have you heard the news?

Condoleezza Rice lacks “moral authority.” She fails to meet the standards of “exemplary citizenship” and she does not have what it takes to “inspire” graduating college seniors.

That crazy thinking comes from the New Brunswick Faculty Council of Rutgers University. They voted last week to ask university leadership to cancel Rice’s invitation to be this year’s Commencement Speaker and receive an honorary degree.

How is the public served by muzzling one of the most thoughtful, accomplished and respected political voices of her time just because she happens to be a Republican?

Yes, apparently the first African-American woman to serve as National Security Adviser and the nation’s Secretary of State doesn’t have what it takes to be honored by Rutgers.

Rice holds a Ph.D. in political science. She has taught college for decades. She was Provost of Stanford University. She worked her way up from a working-class family in the segregated South to the highest echelon of world power and politics.

But according to the Rutgers faculty council, all of that is negated by her service in President George W. Bush’s administration.

...

Rutgers rage against Rice -- why do liberals have so much hate for black conservatives? | Fox News

 

[American_Jihad]

...
Dr. Rossiter says the liberal agenda preys on weakness and feelings of inferiority in the population by:

•creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization;

•satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation;

•augmenting primitive feelings of envy;

•rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government.

“The roots of liberalism – and its associated madness – can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal mind,” he says. “When the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary victims, rages against imaginary villains and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious.”


Read more at Veteran psychiatrist calls liberals mentally ill

 

[FlemishMaster]

Hate is such an unproductive emotion.