A quick read that may or may not provoke some discussion:
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/dennisprager/2006/04/04/192342.html
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/dennisprager/2006/04/04/192342.html
-
Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/
Who hates the other more - liberals or conservatives?
- Thread starter XeVfTEUtaAqJHTqq
- Start date
jdwilson44
New member
I would have to agree with that article - I think he missed on major thing though - I personally believe that the reason why liberals are so violent and rabid when it comes to "conservative" ideas is that they know deep down that their (liberal) position just doesn't make any sense. It's sort of the same thing as when you try to tell a child something and they cover their ears and go "nah nah nah nah I cant hear you"
The same effect can be seen if you look at the "liberal" vs "conservative" goverments that we had in the 20th century that killed so many people. The "liberal" goverments like the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Cambodia all killed their own people - most often under the guise of saying they were non believers so they needed to be rooted out. The "conservative" goverments - like Nazi Germany tend to kill 'outsiders' or those they feel are outsiders. The Jews killed by the Nazis were not killed because they did not believe in Nazism - they were killed because they were viewed as outsiders and not real Germans (among other excuses).
This is over simplistic I know but it shows where the liberal mindset can lead you.
The same effect can be seen if you look at the "liberal" vs "conservative" goverments that we had in the 20th century that killed so many people. The "liberal" goverments like the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Cambodia all killed their own people - most often under the guise of saying they were non believers so they needed to be rooted out. The "conservative" goverments - like Nazi Germany tend to kill 'outsiders' or those they feel are outsiders. The Jews killed by the Nazis were not killed because they did not believe in Nazism - they were killed because they were viewed as outsiders and not real Germans (among other excuses).
This is over simplistic I know but it shows where the liberal mindset can lead you.
PB, That's a good read and reflects what I've noticed. I usually stay out of political discussions because so many here are so much more well read on the issues than I am that I'd get my butt kicked in a debate. I'm a long time union member but consider myself a mild conservative. I work with many liberals and the hatred/bitterness is unbelievable. Every conversation has to turn into a tirade against the Republicans. Everything is Bush's fault. If a meteor struck the earth somehow it would be Bush's fault. I wonder how much the pendulum will swing to where the conservatives are the bitter ones if the liberals capture the white house next time? Somehow, I don't think the conservative side will be as loud.
As far as whose cars get damaged, there's no way I'm parking in my lot with a Bush sticker on my vehicle because I don't want it keyed, wipers torn off, or the tires slashed. Hutch
As far as whose cars get damaged, there's no way I'm parking in my lot with a Bush sticker on my vehicle because I don't want it keyed, wipers torn off, or the tires slashed. Hutch
I think most people need to come to terms with the fact that it is impossible to categorize everyone into only a handfull of political parties. I believe that the United States is a 298,443,609 party system, and the world is a 6,507,676,041 party system.
It's just not possible to divide everyone down the middle and say the half of the left are Dems and the half on the Right are Republicans.
It's just not possible to divide everyone down the middle and say the half of the left are Dems and the half on the Right are Republicans.
No I'll disagree with you. Liberals in general are very angry and generally HATE conservatives to the core.beds said:
During the election cycles you can see the hatred. People who are liberals often spoke of moving to Canada "IF" GWB was elected. That was long before any war. Liberals simply hate conservatives. That may be a sweeping broad stroke comment, but it generally holds true.
Hell, I'm a conservative who doesn't believe we should have invaded Iraq, but that doesn't mean I hate anyone because we invaded.
Dave . . . I think you make a valid point, that it is not often easy to categorize people because most people have some beliefs that fall on both sides of the conservative/liberal debate. But I think the article was referring to the hard core liberals and the hard core conservatives.
B_Skurka said:
Well, I'll grant you that I am speaking as a total outsider and that was just an unsubstantiated statement that I made. I recall the news saying that the Republican GWB outcome was almost a foregone conclusion based on the electoral districts. It would be frustrating to be "against" something as divisive as an un-provoked war and feel that you couldn't do anything about it. Do you think that the hatred would be so passionate if there was no Iraq conflict?
DaveNay said:
I can do it! Of course, no one will agree with me but I know I will be right and that's all that matters to me.
jdwilson44
New member
Hutchman said:
I think you are right about the conservative side not being as loud - but back during the Clinton administration you could find plenty of "conservatives" who were pretty adamant about their hatred of the Clintons and the goverment. A lot of this hatred was well deserved ( in my opinion ) because of incidents under Clinton like Waco and the Randy Weaver thing (plus a lot of other similar incidents that did not get as much mention). To me the big difference between conservative hatred of liberals and liberal hatred of conservatives is that in general conservatives do not trust the goverment and hate the goverment in general, and those that use the goverment for their own agendas in particular. Liberals tend to think goverment is good - and hate and persecute those individuals who do not agree and will not go along.
jdwilson44
New member
beds said:
The hatred was already very passionate before the war was even started. Like Bob said - there were liberals running all over the place screaming about moving to Canada if George Bush got elected. There were a number of Hollywood stars talking about leaving the country if George Bush won - Alec Baldwin comes to mind as one person who was very loudly claiming he would move it GW got in. (Last I heard Alec is still living in this country).
Like Bob I also was against the war and still am against the war. It should also be noted that George Bush is not considered a "real" conservative by those are - hence the "neoconservative" term that is applied to many in the Bush administration. Many people in the "neoconservative" camp were liberals in their previous lives. Do some searcing on google for neoconservatism and you will come up with some good reading material to keep you busy.
jdwilson44 said:
Well, those Hollywood types tend to be very dramatic. I still enjoy Alec Baldwin and he's welcome to come up north as far as I'm concerned - does a good job on the Thomas the Tank Engine series that my daughter and I watch!
He probably took a look at our tax rate and gave it a second thought.
Well while I am conservative, I am not really too read up on some of this, but I do follow the news. So I will just say what I feel. I think Liberals (the far left now mind you) definitely hate more or at least are more vocal; and I think that the "foolish and immature'" statement from the article is a bit accurate and probably causal. In fact liberals hate in large groups and are quick to protest. They react in an almost rioting frenzied crowd mode. This tendency to be easily wipped into furry, and protest nearly anything, comes from their immature and foolish character, their myopic vision of reality and their lack of any true internal direction. They are in reality for nothing, but quick to declare opposition to darn near anything. They make darn good followers; and are used as such by the more intelligent among them.I am not sure I can recall the last large scale conservative demonstration. By in large convervatives, which in my opinion arer more individualistic and have more leadership characteristics, are too busy working toward their goals, to really gvie a damn. We just dont need the attention.
jdwilson44
New member
beds said:Well, those Hollywood types tend to be very dramatic. I still enjoy Alec Baldwin and he's welcome to come up north as far as I'm concerned - does a good job on the Thomas the Tank Engine series that my daughter and I watch!
He probably took a look at our tax rate and gave it a second thought.
I don't particularly mind him as an actor - I liked him a lot better though before he started opening his mouth and commenting on politics. Personally I think he must have a screw loose somewhere to leave Kim Basinger but that is just me....
jdwilson44
New member
Glink said:
I think that is why Lenin used to refer to them as "useful idiots".
Lately I have been doing a lot of reading about second amendment rights and gun ownership - I came across a site that has a number of letters from people previously opposed to gun ownership for one reason or another. I thought the letter below was very interesting because the woman basically admits that she had psychological issues that prevented her from seeing the logic of being able to defend one's self:
http://keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=3401
(which sort of backs up your point of liberals being immature with mental issues)
JimR
Charter Member
The wife and I, both moderate conservatives, visited our old time friends recently in Vermont whom are fanatic liberals. The wife was constantly trying to get the best of me by talking about GW, the war and anything else that she could think of. After finally realizing that I was not going to give in to her, she hushed up. That was when I said only a few words about Bill Clinton which put her into a 10 minute fanatical tantrum. I loved every minute of it. My wife yelled at me later for it. The next day she laughed and said it was the funniest thing she had ever seen.
Last edited:
Bob, I've taken that poll before and always end up in the Libertarian area, with leanings toward the conservative side. Heck I've even donated to the Libertarians but have yet to vote for one. This may be the year for me to do it, but I'm actually hoping that Ron Paul runs in the Republican Primary.
But all that said, I think going back to the original post, there is a general "spite" and "hate" that the hardcore liberals often espouse in their speech. I very rarely see/hear that type of speech coming from conservatives. It is common on street corners, in coffee shops and on National TV. I hear it in my lunchroom when some of the employees talk, the comments are usually about what they are entitled to, what "Conservatives" are taking away from them, and what they are owed from the government, their employer, society, etc. The "Liberals" do a very good job of dividing people into special interest groups and showing these little groups how their big-government programs will help them, and speak as if only the conservatives would be "reasonable" then these programs would work perfectly and the lives of everyone would be so much better.
I never hear the Libertarians speak in terms of spite, or class warfare. Occasionally I hear conservatives speak this way, but it is usually in response to liberals (at least that is my opinion).
Most of the speeches I hear from liberals during campaigns seem to promise to take from someone to give to someone else (divide the classes), promise entitlements (I can do better for you than you can do for yourself), guarantee equal treatment (promoting a psychology of "victimology") and then they wrap it up by blaming the evils that have been imposed on the masses by a society that was set free by too little regulation. To me that is hate speech.
Then I don't understand why you haven't voted Libertarian. It's not that 'don't wanna waste my vote' crap, is it? Everything Ron Paul has done in politics has been in support of liberty and the U.S. Constitution, so Libertarians will continue to support him no matter what party he claims to belong.
Democrats seem to me to be more outwardly emotional than Republicans. But I believe they both express hate toward each other, just in different ways. You see the 'spite' and 'hate' from the Democrats and I see the 'righteousness' and 'contempt' from the Republicans. Republicans seem to believe that they are morally right about everything and democrats are therefore wrong about everything. Republicans routinely belittle Democrats, just like a bully on the playground. I'm sure this frustrates the heck out of them and causes some of their vitreous outbursts.
All we (Libertarians) want is freedom for all of you to do, think, and just live as you please so long as you harm no one else or their property. We can't have ours till you have yours. But it seems that you don't even want that for yourselves. Some day, when everyone has finally had enough of the 'two-party system' (rolls off my tongue like battery acid)...well, I guess that's about as close as I can get to 'hate' and "...spite, or class warfare".
Karl Marx said it better, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". I actually have no problem with that when the 'from' and 'to' are voluntary, but when state-enforced it is just communism/socialism.
I'm not sure if I've expressed myself very well here or even made complete sentences. I just finished a 16hr drive, it's 2AM, and I have been driving like this all week.
Bob to directly answer your question about why I have not voted for a Libertarian, simply put we don't have them running at the local level in my state. Occasionally we have them run for a state office, but not always. I would definitely cast a vote of principle for a Libertarian in a local election, I would consider it in a state election. This is the second election cycle where I will be giving it serious consideration at the national level. I wanted to in the last Presidential election but figured GBW would be better than Kerry and the race was too close to vote on principle. As it turned out, in my state, I could have voted on principle.
As for what you wrote about Karl Marx, and his creed, I also believe in generous voluntary charity and have been known to practice what I preach.
As for the Libertarian Party, I see a lot of undercurrents of Libertarianism running through a lot of members here, it might make for some enlightening conversations as the election nears to have a real Libertarian among us, educating us. The religious right irritates me, despite my strong religious beliefs. The lunatic left is too irrational to even consider serious, but they grow in ranks based on the class warfare practiced by the liberal wing of the party.
As for what you wrote about Karl Marx, and his creed, I also believe in generous voluntary charity and have been known to practice what I preach.
As for the Libertarian Party, I see a lot of undercurrents of Libertarianism running through a lot of members here, it might make for some enlightening conversations as the election nears to have a real Libertarian among us, educating us. The religious right irritates me, despite my strong religious beliefs. The lunatic left is too irrational to even consider serious, but they grow in ranks based on the class warfare practiced by the liberal wing of the party.
Man, I write goofy when I'm tired.
B_Skurka,
On your last post, I'm with you on most of it. But, when you decided to vote GWB to make sure Kerry didn't win, I think you may have sacrificed your principles to show your 'hate' for the Democrat. And, ultimately, wasted your vote. As far as no Libertarians to vote for at the local level, what about you? Content to just sit back and keep pushing the 'R' or the 'D' button?
Meanwhile, found the following on another thread. Do you not see this as hatred expressed in another way? It is exactly the kind of belittling I spoke of. So, when you hear a Republican acting innocent and saying that only Democrats spew hate, think about how you would feel if others were constantly attacking your manhood and value to society.
B_Skurka,
On your last post, I'm with you on most of it. But, when you decided to vote GWB to make sure Kerry didn't win, I think you may have sacrificed your principles to show your 'hate' for the Democrat. And, ultimately, wasted your vote. As far as no Libertarians to vote for at the local level, what about you? Content to just sit back and keep pushing the 'R' or the 'D' button?
Meanwhile, found the following on another thread. Do you not see this as hatred expressed in another way? It is exactly the kind of belittling I spoke of. So, when you hear a Republican acting innocent and saying that only Democrats spew hate, think about how you would feel if others were constantly attacking your manhood and value to society.
Well...you do know that if it weren't for a little dude named Ross, it's very possible (likely probable) we would have never had Clinton in office. So, some people voted on their principles (as confused as they may have been) and voted for the third party candidate. In that case it assured Clinton a win where he very likely would never have won. If you recall, Clinton had tons and tons of baggage when he was first elected president. Once in office, he proved that a zebra doesn't often change their stripes.
:string: :liar: 
:liar: :liar: :liar:
Bob, I have to agree with Dargo on Ross Perot.
As for Republicans being innocent, I never pretended to portray that, in fact I've written many times that both sides are guilty. However, the title of the thread is who hates more. I think the liberal wing of the Dems show far more obvious hatred.
As for me running, no thanks. And because I voted for GWB does not show hatred to Kerry, it shows that I made a choice that I believed was the better choice for the nation and for myself.
As for Republicans being innocent, I never pretended to portray that, in fact I've written many times that both sides are guilty. However, the title of the thread is who hates more. I think the liberal wing of the Dems show far more obvious hatred.
As for me running, no thanks. And because I voted for GWB does not show hatred to Kerry, it shows that I made a choice that I believed was the better choice for the nation and for myself.
elsmitro
floppy member
I don’t understand why people still think that no WMDs were found. It was almost a year ago we were told our troops found “approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent.” Well, now that I think about it… I don’t here much fan fare over it, but I do still here the occasional clown trying to fool us into thinking it didn’t happen.
Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq
Sarin, Mustard Gas Discovered Separately in Iraq
On WMD's, I don't mean to sound cocky, but if you gave me about 4 years, virtually unlimited funds, and tens of thousands of people who would do exactly as I said or die, I guarantee you that I could have hidden all traces of WMD's. I have no proof, but I seem to lean towards believing that Sadam did in fact have WMD's up until about a month prior to our invasion. Sadam may have been a lot of things, but flat stupid wasn't one of them.
I seem to agree more lately with some moderate liberals on the war. I have no desire to keep sending billions of dollars over to Iraq to "save" people who will never accept who we are, what we stand for, or even believe we should exist. I can't say that I'm necessarily a cut and run type of person, but more of "cut them loose" type of person. I strongly feel that we should say to hell with public opinion (we have indeed already lost that battle), and use the power we have available. When attacked, respond in 10 fold of power. I'm sorry to say that war is ugly. People die. It's not pretty. But, the objective of a war is to win; destroy more of the opposition's "stuff" than they destroy of ours, and to kill more of the enemy than they kill of ours. Obviously that is over simplified, but I think you get the idea. Right now we are asking our brave men and women in uniform to be human targets for insurgents (read - TERRORISTS) and we are also giving them a plethora of rules of how they can respond. If I were in charge of the war, I feel it could be won within a month and when we were finished, Iran would want nothing to do with us. But, to the relief of many, I am not in charge of the war. Therefore, I will simply say that we need to give our military the money, tools, and authority to finish this war the way they can, or bring them home. That is where I seem to agree with many of the more moderate liberals.
I seem to agree more lately with some moderate liberals on the war. I have no desire to keep sending billions of dollars over to Iraq to "save" people who will never accept who we are, what we stand for, or even believe we should exist. I can't say that I'm necessarily a cut and run type of person, but more of "cut them loose" type of person. I strongly feel that we should say to hell with public opinion (we have indeed already lost that battle), and use the power we have available. When attacked, respond in 10 fold of power. I'm sorry to say that war is ugly. People die. It's not pretty. But, the objective of a war is to win; destroy more of the opposition's "stuff" than they destroy of ours, and to kill more of the enemy than they kill of ours. Obviously that is over simplified, but I think you get the idea. Right now we are asking our brave men and women in uniform to be human targets for insurgents (read - TERRORISTS) and we are also giving them a plethora of rules of how they can respond. If I were in charge of the war, I feel it could be won within a month and when we were finished, Iran would want nothing to do with us. But, to the relief of many, I am not in charge of the war. Therefore, I will simply say that we need to give our military the money, tools, and authority to finish this war the way they can, or bring them home. That is where I seem to agree with many of the more moderate liberals.