Post 4749641 - (Why is there so much liberal hate?)

WP Members: > 70,000

New Today: 20
New Yesterday: 29

Why is there so much liberal hate?

Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 7, 8, 9 ... 50, 51, 52 Next
page:

Wrong Planet Autism Forum Index -> Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

noname_ever
Phoenix
Phoenix

Joined: Dec 26, 2011
Posts: 500
Location: Indiana

Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2012 11:56 pm Post subject:

androbot2084 wrote:

I think most conservatives want to be rich.

Most liberals I've met romanticize being poor but want to be supported by others so that they aren't actually poor. They claim it is a moral imperative to support the poor and it just so happens that they are poor (in their mind).

Joker
Sinn Fein
Phoenix

Joined: Mar 20, 2011
Age: 24
Posts: 7593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2012 11:59 pm Post subject:

noname_ever wrote:

androbot2084 wrote:

I think most conservatives want to be rich.

QFT.

techstepgenr8tion
that chatty American
SomeRandomGuy

Joined: Feb 07, 2005
Posts: 14837
Location: A beautiful vector among many

Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:01 am Post subject:

OP: What forums are you seeing this on? Seems very unlike...well.....WP.

Delphiki
Launchie
Phoenix

Joined: Apr 15, 2012
Age: 23
Posts: 1350
Location: My own version of reality

Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:05 am Post subject:

Joker wrote:

Tim_Tex wrote:

My solution to the healthcare debate would be: Wait until we're no longer $20 trillion down the crapper, then implement whatever the hell you want.

Good idea I like the soud of that.

If I may:

aghogday wrote:

Average annual employer sponsored health care premiums for a family in the US doubled from 1998 to the year 2009, to about $12,000 per year, before the health care reform act went into effect. At that point in time they were projected to increase to over $24,000 in the year 2020. The current average for premiums for a family plan is close to $14,000, so the country is still marching steadily toward that 24K+ average in 2020.

_________________
Trolls exist! They steal your socks, but only the left ones. I wonder what is up with that?

androbot2084
Phoenix
Phoenix

Joined: Mar 24, 2011
Posts: 3098

Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:08 am Post subject:

Riches are an illusion . You cant take money with you when you die.

edgewaters
hibernating
Phoenix

Joined: Aug 17, 2006
Age: 40
Posts: 2426
Location: Ontario

Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:09 am Post subject:

noname_ever wrote:

androbot2084 wrote:

I think most conservatives want to be rich.

Marx said:

Quote:

Conservative or Bourgeois Socialism

A part of the bourgeoisie is desirous of redressing social grievances in order to secure the continued existence of bourgeois society.

To this section belong economists, philanthropists, humanitarians, improvers of the condition of the working class, organisers of charity, members of societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals, temperance fanatics, hole-and-corner reformers of every imaginable kind. This form of socialism has, moreover, been worked out into complete systems.

We may cite Proudhon’s Philosophie de la Misère as an example of this form.

The Socialistic bourgeois want all the advantages of modern social conditions without the struggles and dangers necessarily resulting therefrom. They desire the existing state of society, minus its revolutionary and disintegrating elements. They wish for a bourgeoisie without a proletariat. The bourgeoisie naturally conceives the world in which it is supreme to be the best; and bourgeois Socialism develops this comfortable conception into various more or less complete systems. In requiring the proletariat to carry out such a system, and thereby to march straightway into the social New Jerusalem, it but requires in reality, that the proletariat should remain within the bounds of existing society, but should cast away all its hateful ideas concerning the bourgeoisie.

A second, and more practical, but less systematic, form of this Socialism sought to depreciate every revolutionary movement in the eyes of the working class by showing that no mere political reform, but only a change in the material conditions of existence, in economical relations, could be of any advantage to them. By changes in the material conditions of existence, this form of Socialism, however, by no means understands abolition of the bourgeois relations of production, an abolition that can be affected only by a revolution, but administrative reforms, based on the continued existence of these relations; reforms, therefore, that in no respect affect the relations between capital and labour, but, at the best, lessen the cost, and simplify the administrative work, of bourgeois government.

Bourgeois Socialism attains adequate expression when, and only when, it becomes a mere figure of speech.

Free trade: for the benefit of the working class. Protective duties: for the benefit of the working class. Prison Reform: for the benefit of the working class. This is the last word and the only seriously meant word of bourgeois socialism.

It is summed up in the phrase: the bourgeois is a bourgeois — for the benefit of the working class.

I don't know if I agree with his conclusions here or not, but it's an interesting observation.

Tim_Tex
Professor Hineybottom
Phoenix

Joined: Jul 03, 2004
Age: 33
Posts: 41865
Location: Houston, Texas

Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:14 am Post subject:

Joker wrote:

Raptor wrote:

Vigilans wrote:

Joker wrote:

Vigilans wrote:

Raptor wrote:

Liberals can only grasp at straws when it comes to any contemporary example of conservative hate or just re-define it to fit whatever's in vogue.

Is that the best you have tell us something that isn't new. Geez I go both ways don't agree with any of that. Hell I can't stand those people because of them. Every christian gets hated when we don't all agree on the same things.

That was what I found in less than 30 seconds of reading Raptor's challenge of providing a contemporary example of conservative hate. So it is, whether you have seen it or not is irrelevant, the fact is that these are hateful actions happening at this time, perpetrated by conservatives.

Quote:

That was what I found in less than 30 seconds of reading Raptor's challenge of providing a contemporary example of conservative hate.

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

Quote:

So it is, whether you have seen it or not is irrelevant, the fact is that these are hateful actions happening at this time, perpetrated by conservatives.

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.........

Not to mention that only a very small minority of "conservatives" participate in anything like that.

And Fox News condenmeans those actions plus their are conservatives that support same sex marriage that the liberals never talk about.

And what's weird is that the WBC people are actually Democrats (no joke!)
_________________
<<<=== This is not the devil, this is the Red Guy from Cow and Chicken.

Vigilans
Orgasm Donor
Phoenix

Joined: Jun 20, 2008
Age: 24
Posts: 12093
Location: La belle province

Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2012 7:41 am Post subject:

Joker wrote:

noname_ever wrote:

Vigilans wrote:

noname_ever wrote:

There is a lot of liberal hate due to the hate the liberals spew themselves. As much as conservatives are criticized for being intolerant, the liberals do the same things about things they dislike.

Is this the "intolerant of intolerance" device?

No, it's more a selective outrage and using the same tactics. It's like one country crying over another using Machiavellian practices in foreign affairs while the crying country does the same thing.

Vigilans wrote:

noname_ever wrote:

Make a bad decision like having a child too early or before you have any real chance of providing an adequate life, extract from those who have more. They don't need all of it. I mean, "life happened" to those poor souls. It wasn't due to their own poor planning or risk mitigation/avoidance. After all, doesn't every have these problems and live paycheck to paycheck? No, we don't.

The religious Conservative birth paradigm does not support abortion, birth control or contraception. When it comes down to it, the right to life ends at birth. After that point, its all up in the air. Abstinence is not a realistic policy to enforce, it is basically burying one's head in the sand. If the politicians are going to force children on people as an unavoidable consequence of their human nature, is it right they leave them high and dry economically? Ultimately it seems to be a self-defeating, redundant loop

Abortion and BC is legal here and is likely to remain legal due to the political sh** storm and the party in power would likely be voted out for a long time. There is also a personal responsibility component that is over looked. I pay for my recreational activities, why am I paying for yours as well? Part of being an adult is learning to be responsible, think ahead, and take corrective action when needed. I notice much of the lower classes failing to do that (when I observe it now and when I was in poverty).

Vigilans wrote:

noname_ever wrote:

There is a belief that (only) certain groups have a right to avoid being offended. I'm not sure when this right was granted to anyone.

I don't agree with selective outrage either. I don't agree with exercising freedom of speech to make a point that one *can* be rude or offensive, but I do believe it is one's right to do so. Even if it is of poor taste, vainglorious and ignoble

I agree as well. However, the "left" in the USA seems to give a free pass to the poor behavior as if it is justified.

Vigilans wrote:

noname_ever wrote:

There is also the banning of things they don't like at all (i.e., gun control). It's too hard for some people to act civilized and not shoot something besides a target, wild life, or in self defense. Instead of blaming the uncivilized f****, it's easier to ban guns. Also, guns are scary.

I don't have strong opinions on gun control, but we have a pretty good gun culture in Canada. I was against the Long-gun registry because I feel it targeted the wrong people and was not worth that money. It is usually illegally acquired guns that are used to commit crimes. Penalizing legitimate gun owners who either use them for sport or decoration is not the right thing to do. I am pretty liberal when it comes to social policies but I intend to own a gun in the next few years, and possibly get into hunting. Maybe its just Canadian liberals? Wink

I think it's more of an urban liberal thing. Most of the USA has a good gun culture. Certain parts of the country are cesspools and guns make it worse. Look at south Chicago. Guns aren't the real problem. Chicago has very strict gun laws (effectively). The gangs (the bunch of uncivilized f****) killing are. However, it is politically incorrect to blame the poor gang bangers for acting out. Sadly, we can't let them kill each other either.

Other areas of the USA that are poor and have loose gun laws aren't anywhere near as bad as south Chicago.

Also, guns look scary. Especially those made out of black steel and look like rifles.

Vigilans wrote:

noname_ever wrote:

There is also the selective enforcement or hatred directed to certain things but not others. Look at the treatment of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. If you read the books, they're all pretty f**** up. Yet, there is a refusal to call out all of them.

I will call them out *any* major religion if called upon. I am for secularism, and recognize the violent and repressive nature of Islam especially

It isn't politically correct to call out anyone acting poorly in the name of Islam. Call out a Jew or Christian for lesser offenses, but don't dare call out a Muslim acting poorly or you will be called a racist. This is true even if they are acting like uncivilized f**** because they get offended. If I insult Mohammed, the civilized thing to do is to be irritated, not go into a blind rage or sentence someone to death.

That said, many liberals see criticizing Islams as a direct attack on people who are Muslim. The moderates of any religion are usually decent people, but the more zealous practitioners are dangerous when taking the religion literally.

Vigilans wrote:

I think one of the biggest problems with current politics is the mixing of politics with economics. This is unavoidable to an extent, but the way politicians talk about it these days is reminiscent to me of Communist economists in the USSR. Not in that they are far leftist, but in their attempt to cement politics with certain economic ideas. It does not actually have to be this way, and the sooner more people realize this, the better. Economic conservatives will no longer be chained to the corpse that is religious conservatism. For further clarification I consider the Democrats economic conservatives so you don't think I am picking on the GOP exclusively

The USA has essentially a 2 party system. Those who aren't in either faction 100% of the time are forced to choose the lesser of evils. I this election we have the choice of Obama and Obama-light (http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012 shows what I mean). Overall it isn't much of a choice. For me, this election is coming down to Obama pissing me off over how he handled Fast and Furious.

Your wasting your time debating with him.

It looks like noname_ever and I are actually pretty well in agreement on most things, maybe you aught to get back on Hooked on Phonics, your reading comprehension needs serious work. Or better yet, stop wasting everyone else's time with your trolling
_________________
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

Vigilans
Orgasm Donor
Phoenix

Joined: Jun 20, 2008
Age: 24
Posts: 12093
Location: La belle province

Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2012 7:45 am Post subject:

Raptor wrote:

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

That depends on how honest your politics are

Raptor wrote:

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.........

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
_________________
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

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Rasta is about freedom and the living God
Phoenix

Joined: Jun 19, 2008
Posts: 7998
Location: Babylon

Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:31 am Post subject: Re: Why is there so much liberal hate?

JNathanK wrote:

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.

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.

Lord_Gareth
Velociraptor

Joined: Feb 21, 2012
Posts: 440

Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:04 am Post subject:

Vigilans wrote:

Raptor wrote:

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

That depends on how honest your politics are

Raptor wrote:

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.........

Plus there has been violence and continues to be violence - the GSA clubs in high schools hold their Day of Silence for a reason.
_________________
Et in Arcadia ego. - "Even in Arcadia, there am I."

Tim_Tex
Professor Hineybottom
Phoenix

Joined: Jul 03, 2004
Age: 33
Posts: 41865
Location: Houston, Texas

Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:09 am Post subject: Re: Why is there so much liberal hate?

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:

JNathanK wrote:

What does "vetting" mean?
_________________
<<<=== This is not the devil, this is the Red Guy from Cow and Chicken.

Oodain
big chief wulla bamboom alakaway
Phoenix

Joined: Jan 31, 2011
Age: 23
Posts: 5022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:16 am Post subject:

link _________________ //through chaos comes complexity// the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull, woe be to the nose who nears it.

noname_ever
Phoenix
Phoenix

Joined: Dec 26, 2011
Posts: 500
Location: Indiana

Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:13 pm Post subject:

Vigilans wrote:

Raptor wrote:

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

That depends on how honest your politics are

Raptor wrote:

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.........

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.

auntblabby
Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief
Phoenix

Joined: Feb 13, 2010
Posts: 18236
Location: the island of loveable toy humans

Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:58 pm Post subject:

Joker wrote:

Delphiki wrote:

Sorry that this isn't much of a response but I am liberal. I agree with the universal healthcare, and other things. But I have work at 3 and need to get ready

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

but waiting in a line is still better than having NO access to affordable care AT ALL! denial of affordable [primary] care IS DE FACTO rationing! when will people admit this?

Wrong Planet Autism Forum Index -> Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 7, 8, 9 ... 50, 51, 52 Next

Forums ©

Read more Articles on Wrong Planet

Wrong Planet is a Registered Trademark.
Copyright 2004-2013, Wrong Planet, LLC and Alex Plank. Alex does public speaking for Autism.

Advertise on Wrong Planet

Wrong Planet News Wrong Planet Forums