Why do people hate Liberals?

[rightwinger]

Total crap

You think there wasn't waste in the 60s and it is related to liberals?

There has always been waste, and always been corruption.

But as Obama guides us from first world to third world, what were minor anomalies transition to the defining features of this regime.

We have Eric ******* Holder - a level of corruption not previously imagined for this nation or any nation outside of a Central African dictatorship.

Give us the numbers.....America wants to know

I heard it on talk radio is not a source

 

[Foxfyre]

The thread should rooted in philosophy, but most seem to want to continue to pollute the discussion with the same-old hackneyed bullshit terms, hanging on to them for dear life rather than dare to ever question them. Then they wonder why they get nowhere.

"Why do people hate liberals"? Because the man in the box tells them to. What the man in the box doesn't tell them is what 'liberal' means. That would be too much like understanding, and understanding is definitely not the objective of the man in the box. His objective is getting you to engage you in the Two Minutes Hate. You're not supposed to ask "why". Ignorance is Strength.

Actually you have a point though again the statement that anybody hates liberals is in itself hyperbole of the worst kind and is simply not true. I don't think there is a single person here whether we identify ourselves as conservative or classical liberal or libertarian -- all mostly synonymous in modern American vernacular -- not one of us hates liberals aka leftists aka statists aka political class. also all mostly synonymous in modern American vernacular..

We hate the 'liberalism' they promote and try to force on the rest of us.

What we should be hating is the dishonesty of the statists, leftists, political class identifying themselves as 'liberal' and thereby appropriating and corrupting yet another perfectly good word that once represented something quite different than it does now.

Give me a break....

Conservatives don't try to "force" their ideology on the rest of us?

The way it works is you run on your ideology. You win, the will of the people supports your position. What is happening is conservatives are forcing their ideology on the rest of us even though they are the minority

For sure some who demand respect for their view of what society should be do describe themselves as conservative. But they are not conservative in modern American vernacular and understanding if they look to the federal government to create that society.

Rightwing in modern American vernacular includes less powerful and centralized government and authority and includes modern American conservatives, libertarians, classical liberals, Tea Partiers, 9/12ers, constitutionalists, any and all which could be synonymous with each other.

Leftwing in modern American vernacular pushes for more centralized government size, scope, and control and includes modern American liberals, statists, progressives, political class, any and all which could be synonymous with each other.

 

[Uncensored2008]

This discussion does not belong in Philosophy. i.e. 'The study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence.'

"The aim of philosophy, abstractly formulated, is to understand how things in the broadest possible sense of the term hang together in the broadest possible sense of the term." Wilfrid Sellars

Instead of complaining, why don't YOU explain what you think modern liberalism encompasses?

What are the major attributes?

 

[Foxfyre]

Historical amnesia...

Jackie Kennedy was hounded by conservatives for her extravagant spending in refurbishing the White House

Harry Truman had the White House completely gutted and rebuilt from the inside out

Imagine the outrage if the Obamas did that......they can't even take a freaking vacation

The Obama vacations, private parties, and other extravagant expenditures couples with the outrageous 'conferences' and other events staged by people under Obama's 'leadership' most likely cost the taxpayer more than the White House renovations done by the Trumans and Kennedys combined. And in the 1950's and 1960's, Congress CARED what the people thought about them spending money and made every effort to at least appear responsible. In those days obsolete programs and projects were ended. Now they are just labeled with a new mission and given bigger budgets.

But to correct history that some of our members insist on mangling for purposes of political expediency:

"In 1961, when John and Jackie Kennedy moved into the White House, they found that the Truman-era decor and furnishings used modern fabrics or were casual reproductions of period pieces. These items had been acquired quickly as funds dried up in 1952, and, many felt, didn't befit the heritage of the home of the president of the United States. Jackie Kennedy's upbringing and education gave her a deep appreciation for fine art and authentic period pieces, so she looked for ways—on the White House's limited budget—to not merely redecorate but to restore the White House to a grander, more authentic period look appropriate to its role in American life."
Kennedy Renovation - White House Museum

History will show that Jackie used mostly donated expertise and private donated funds for much of the project.

Truman had his ups and downs with Congress re funding for White House structural projects but ultimately. . . "the main body of the mansion was found to be structurally unsound. Floors no longer merely creaked; they swayed. The president's bathtub was sinking into the floor. A leg of Margaret's piano broke through the floor in what is today the Private Dining Room. Engineers did a thorough examination and found plaster in a corner of the East Room sagging as much as 18 inches. Wooden beams had been weakened by cutting and drilling for plumbing and wiring over 150 years, and the addition of the steel roof and full third floor in 1927 added weight the building could no longer handle. They declared the whole house to be in imminent danger of collapse."

Congress then had no choice but authorizing the funding to do the necessary reconstruction.
Truman Reconstruction - White House Museum

Please show where Obamas extravagant vacations, parties and expenditures outpace previous administrations or shut the **** up

When George W. Bush and Laura Bush went on vacation, it was usually a 'working vacation' because they were entertaining foreign leaders or they had staff with them working on various government business. And I think except for one trip to their family place in Kennebunkport, all their 'vacations' were at Camp David at their Crawford Ranch and were working vacations.

Compare that to the Obama vacation trips to Hawaii and Europe and Africa and Martha's Vineyard plus one I think home to Chicago and Obama has also had Camp David time.

No President is actually off the clock whatever they are doing, however, though Obama seems far more detached from his job than any other president in my memory and there isn't much suggestion that many, if any, of his vacations are working vacations. If I hear Jay Carney say one more time that the President found out about something in his administration the same way the rest of us did--in the media--I think I will scream.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Historical amnesia...

Jackie Kennedy was hounded by conservatives for her extravagant spending in refurbishing the White House

Harry Truman had the White House completely gutted and rebuilt from the inside out

Imagine the outrage if the Obamas did that......they can't even take a freaking vacation

The Obama's take hundred million dollar vacations every couple of weeks, as you know.

But beyond the fact that they are poor stewards of the public's money, what actions by the Obama regime designate it to be "liberal?" Is it the merging of federal and corporate power structure, where government agencies are collection agents of corporations, which themselves are extensions of the regime, that makes the Obama administration "liberal?" Is it the use of the IRS to attack political enemies that makes them "liberal?" Is it the extrajudicial killing of American citizens on an enemies list that makes them "liberal?"

Exactly what is it that makes the left in this nation, "liberal?"

 

[thanatos144]

Do you want to know why people hate liberals???

This is why. Hell even rock stars are pissed about this.

David Draiman Blasts Rolling Stone: 'I Condemn This Worthless Piece Of S--t F--king Rag of a Magazine' | News @ Ultimate-Guitar.Com

"How far the mighty have fallen," Draiman started, "I used to dream of making the cover of Rolling Stone magazine, as it used to be the ultimate statement of legitimacy for an aspiring musician and it meant that you had really made it. Over the past 5 years, Rolling Stone has become less and less about music, and has become more and more about bullshit pop-culture nonsense. Even though many of us may not care for it, we were able to live with it ... until this.

"You... dare... to... put... the... image... of... the... Boston... bomber... on... the... f--king... cover... of... your... magazine!!!!???? Are you out of your ultra-liberal, sympathetic-to-a-fault f--king minds???

 

[Uncensored2008]

The thread should rooted in philosophy, but most seem to want to continue to pollute the discussion with the same-old hackneyed bullshit terms, hanging on to them for dear life rather than dare to ever question them. Then they wonder why they get nowhere.

"Why do people hate liberals"? Because the man in the box tells them to. What the man in the box doesn't tell them is what 'liberal' means. That would be too much like understanding, and understanding is definitely not the objective of the man in the box. His objective is getting you to engage you in the Two Minutes Hate. You're not supposed to ask "why". Ignorance is Strength.

What box?

Since the press is merely an extension of the democratic party, what "man in a box" would tell people to "hate" liberals?

Look, I mostly agree with your definition of liberal - given which, the dichotomy in this nation is more of a contrast between the liberals in the GOP and Libertarian parties, and the leftists of the DNC.

 

[Foxfyre]

Historical amnesia...

Jackie Kennedy was hounded by conservatives for her extravagant spending in refurbishing the White House

Harry Truman had the White House completely gutted and rebuilt from the inside out

Imagine the outrage if the Obamas did that......they can't even take a freaking vacation

The Obama's take hundred million dollar vacations every couple of weeks, as you know.

But beyond the fact that they are poor stewards of the public's money, what actions by the Obama regime designate it to be "liberal?" Is it the merging of federal and corporate power structure, where government agencies are collection agents of corporations, which themselves are extensions of the regime, that makes the Obama administration "liberal?" Is it the use of the IRS to attack political enemies that makes them "liberal?" Is it the extrajudicial killing of American citizens on an enemies list that makes them "liberal?"

Exactly what is it that makes the left in this nation, "liberal?"

Exactly! They aren't liberal. Here I've been arguing that the way Americans have redefined the terms of conservatism and liberalism be recognized and acknowledged while Pogo has been telling me I can't do that. And perhaps he is right.

Instead we should be loudly protesting that the left presumes to refer to themselves as 'liberals' or 'progressives' when in fact they are mostly a wierd combination of Marxism, Socialism, and Facism in the role they would assign to the federal government.

We need a whole new word to describe them and then we classical liberals can reclaim 'liberal' as it was defined in the 17th Century.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Give us the numbers.....America wants to know

I heard it on talk radio is not a source

Numbers of what?

You want to obfuscate for your shameful party. But the fact that Eric Holder remains in office, despite the dozens of known felonies by him, from selling guns to Mexican drug lords, to complicity in election fraud by refusing to prosecute NBPP members who intimidate voters. In conjunction with the Soros group or MediaMatters, the racist criminal Holder forced differing civil service exams be used depending on race to provide black applicants an advantage.

Holder is openly corrupt.

 

[dblack]

Historical amnesia...

Jackie Kennedy was hounded by conservatives for her extravagant spending in refurbishing the White House

Harry Truman had the White House completely gutted and rebuilt from the inside out

Imagine the outrage if the Obamas did that......they can't even take a freaking vacation

The Obama's take hundred million dollar vacations every couple of weeks, as you know.

But beyond the fact that they are poor stewards of the public's money, what actions by the Obama regime designate it to be "liberal?" Is it the merging of federal and corporate power structure, where government agencies are collection agents of corporations, which themselves are extensions of the regime, that makes the Obama administration "liberal?" Is it the use of the IRS to attack political enemies that makes them "liberal?" Is it the extrajudicial killing of American citizens on an enemies list that makes them "liberal?"

Exactly what is it that makes the left in this nation, "liberal?"

Exactly! They aren't liberal. Here I've been arguing that the way Americans have redefined the terms of conservatism and liberalism be recognized and acknowledged while Pogo has been telling me I can't do that. And perhaps he is right.

Instead we should be loudly protesting that the left presumes to refer to themselves as 'liberals' or 'progressives' when in fact they are mostly a wierd combination of Marxism, Socialism, and Facism in the role they would assign to the federal government.

We need a whole new word to describe them and then we classical liberals can reclaim 'liberal' as it was defined in the 17th Century.

The problem comes in trying to push competing political ideologies into 'sides' along one dimension. The Nolan chart does a much better job of mapping the different ideologies of current parties and leaders, but all such mappings are artificial at best.

The latest split over the NSA spying (witnessed most measurably in the recent vote on Justin Amash's amendment) shows a more meaningful divide - in my view - between authoritarians and libertarians in both parties.

 

[Foxfyre]

The Obama's take hundred million dollar vacations every couple of weeks, as you know.

But beyond the fact that they are poor stewards of the public's money, what actions by the Obama regime designate it to be "liberal?" Is it the merging of federal and corporate power structure, where government agencies are collection agents of corporations, which themselves are extensions of the regime, that makes the Obama administration "liberal?" Is it the use of the IRS to attack political enemies that makes them "liberal?" Is it the extrajudicial killing of American citizens on an enemies list that makes them "liberal?"

Exactly what is it that makes the left in this nation, "liberal?"

Exactly! They aren't liberal. Here I've been arguing that the way Americans have redefined the terms of conservatism and liberalism be recognized and acknowledged while Pogo has been telling me I can't do that. And perhaps he is right.

Instead we should be loudly protesting that the left presumes to refer to themselves as 'liberals' or 'progressives' when in fact they are mostly a wierd combination of Marxism, Socialism, and Facism in the role they would assign to the federal government.

We need a whole new word to describe them and then we classical liberals can reclaim 'liberal' as it was defined in the 17th Century.

The problem comes in trying to push competing political ideologies into 'sides' along one dimension. The Nolan chart does a much better job of mapping the different ideologies of current parties and leaders, but all such mappings are artificial at best.

The latest split over the NSA spying (witnessed most measurably in the recent vote on Justin Amash's amendment) shows a more meaningful divide - in my view - between authoritarians and libertarians in both parties.

I have to object here. The Nolan chart is useless in mapping American ideologies. Look at it:

Can you look at a George Zimmerman, the debates over gun control, the ruthless application of political correctness, the demands that the haves support the have nots to a greater extent, the demands that private corporations, say insurance companies, include contraceptives in their coverage at no additional cost to the policy holder, etc. and say that the liberal/statist is for more personal or economic freedom?

Now libertarians and conservatives, as I define those terms in America in modern times, definitely are for both more personal and economic freedom.

And this one gets it wrong almost as badly:

 

[dblack]

Exactly! They aren't liberal. Here I've been arguing that the way Americans have redefined the terms of conservatism and liberalism be recognized and acknowledged while Pogo has been telling me I can't do that. And perhaps he is right.

Instead we should be loudly protesting that the left presumes to refer to themselves as 'liberals' or 'progressives' when in fact they are mostly a wierd combination of Marxism, Socialism, and Facism in the role they would assign to the federal government.

We need a whole new word to describe them and then we classical liberals can reclaim 'liberal' as it was defined in the 17th Century.

The problem comes in trying to push competing political ideologies into 'sides' along one dimension. The Nolan chart does a much better job of mapping the different ideologies of current parties and leaders, but all such mappings are artificial at best.

The latest split over the NSA spying (witnessed most measurably in the recent vote on Justin Amash's amendment) shows a more meaningful divide - in my view - between authoritarians and libertarians in both parties.

I have to object here. The Nolan chart is useless in mapping American ideologies. Look at it:

Can you look at a George Zimmerman, the debates over gun control, the ruthless application of political correctness, the demands that the haves support the have nots to a greater extent, the demands that private corporations, say insurance companies, include contraceptives in their coverage at no additional cost to the policy holder, etc. and say that the liberal/statist is for more personal or economic freedom?

Now libertarians and conservatives, as I define those terms in America in modern times, definitely are for both more personal and economic freedom.

And this one gets it wrong almost as badly:

Both of those seem far less wrong than the utter ambiguity of six different custom definitions of 'liberal' and 'conservative'. If we're just arguing over who gets to control definitions, I'll bow out. That's an important debate, but not very interesting. I'd rather look at just what different groups and agendas represent in terms of ideology.

 

[RKMBrown]

Exactly! They aren't liberal. Here I've been arguing that the way Americans have redefined the terms of conservatism and liberalism be recognized and acknowledged while Pogo has been telling me I can't do that. And perhaps he is right.

Instead we should be loudly protesting that the left presumes to refer to themselves as 'liberals' or 'progressives' when in fact they are mostly a wierd combination of Marxism, Socialism, and Facism in the role they would assign to the federal government.

We need a whole new word to describe them and then we classical liberals can reclaim 'liberal' as it was defined in the 17th Century.

The problem comes in trying to push competing political ideologies into 'sides' along one dimension. The Nolan chart does a much better job of mapping the different ideologies of current parties and leaders, but all such mappings are artificial at best.

The latest split over the NSA spying (witnessed most measurably in the recent vote on Justin Amash's amendment) shows a more meaningful divide - in my view - between authoritarians and libertarians in both parties.

I have to object here. The Nolan chart is useless in mapping American ideologies. Look at it:

Can you look at a George Zimmerman, the debates over gun control, the ruthless application of political correctness, the demands that the haves support the have nots to a greater extent, the demands that private corporations, say insurance companies, include contraceptives in their coverage at no additional cost to the policy holder, etc. and say that the liberal/statist is for more personal or economic freedom?

Now libertarians and conservatives, as I define those terms in America in modern times, definitely are for both more personal and economic freedom.

And this one gets it wrong almost as badly:

Huh?
Just because you are an authoritarian does not mean that chart is wrong. Though I would disagree that Newt is a libertarian thinker. He's for lower taxes but he's also for bigger government, government power over the people, and is a war hawk.

 

[Spoonman]

 

[dblack]

You do remember the ending of that little story, no?

 

[thanatos144]

The problem comes in trying to push competing political ideologies into 'sides' along one dimension. The Nolan chart does a much better job of mapping the different ideologies of current parties and leaders, but all such mappings are artificial at best.

The latest split over the NSA spying (witnessed most measurably in the recent vote on Justin Amash's amendment) shows a more meaningful divide - in my view - between authoritarians and libertarians in both parties.

I have to object here. The Nolan chart is useless in mapping American ideologies. Look at it:

Can you look at a George Zimmerman, the debates over gun control, the ruthless application of political correctness, the demands that the haves support the have nots to a greater extent, the demands that private corporations, say insurance companies, include contraceptives in their coverage at no additional cost to the policy holder, etc. and say that the liberal/statist is for more personal or economic freedom?

Now libertarians and conservatives, as I define those terms in America in modern times, definitely are for both more personal and economic freedom.

And this one gets it wrong almost as badly:

Huh?
Just because you are an authoritarian does not mean that chart is wrong. Though I would disagree that Newt is a libertarian thinker. He's for lower taxes but he's also for bigger government, government power over the people, and is a war hawk.

To not bend over and kiss terrorists ass like Obama and Paul does not make one a war hawk.

 

[thanatos144]

By the way these charts are stupid.... If you need a chart to validate your ideology then you have problems with what you believe in.

 

[Spoonman]

You do remember the ending of that little story, no?

trillions in debt? 11 states with more people on welfare then working? high unemployment? domestic spying? total dissatisfaction with government? Rising costs? High Gas prices? Crumbling infrastructure?

Exactly which ending were you looking for?

 

[Foxfyre]

The problem comes in trying to push competing political ideologies into 'sides' along one dimension. The Nolan chart does a much better job of mapping the different ideologies of current parties and leaders, but all such mappings are artificial at best.

The latest split over the NSA spying (witnessed most measurably in the recent vote on Justin Amash's amendment) shows a more meaningful divide - in my view - between authoritarians and libertarians in both parties.

I have to object here. The Nolan chart is useless in mapping American ideologies. Look at it:

Can you look at a George Zimmerman, the debates over gun control, the ruthless application of political correctness, the demands that the haves support the have nots to a greater extent, the demands that private corporations, say insurance companies, include contraceptives in their coverage at no additional cost to the policy holder, etc. and say that the liberal/statist is for more personal or economic freedom?

Now libertarians and conservatives, as I define those terms in America in modern times, definitely are for both more personal and economic freedom.

And this one gets it wrong almost as badly:

Huh?
Just because you are an authoritarian does not mean that chart is wrong. Though I would disagree that Newt is a libertarian thinker. He's for lower taxes but he's also for bigger government, government power over the people, and is a war hawk.

I am about as far from an authoritarian re big government as it gets short of anarchy.

However because I support the concept of social contract, and you would deny me what I consider to be an unalienable right in that regard, you would be the authoritarian in the Libertarian (big "L") view that you hold on that.

 

[RKMBrown]

To not bend over and kiss terrorists ass like Obama and Paul does not make one a war hawk.

What terrorists? Osama was a CIA Agent. All we needed to do was put a friggin lock on the airplane cockpits. DUH. We did not need to spend trillions of dollars fighting a war on "that which we fear." We are chasing ghosts in the deserts of the middle east. I've seen no evidence that Newt is of the belief of small government and using our military primarily to defend our boarders. Newt appears to me to have bought into the Neo-Con vision of colonialism. Obama got elected based in part on his stating he would end it. He left it there and made it worse, I can only surmise, because he has no balls.