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
No I'll disagree with you. Liberals in general are very angry and generally HATE conservatives to the core.beds said:I don't think they'd be nearly as angry if there were WMD's found, or any substantial reason for taking your country to war.
B_Skurka said:No I'll disagree with you. Liberals in general are very angry and generally HATE conservatives to the core.
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.
DaveNay said: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.
Hutchman said: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
beds said:Do you think that the hatred would be so passionate if there was no Iraq conflict?
B_Skurka said:YES, the hatred existed long before Iraq and has nothing to do with Iraq. Recall the Reagan era!?!
beds 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?
jdwilson44 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).
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.
Glink said: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.
Glink said: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.
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.
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.
Other men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting learned to live off the conservatives by showing up for the nightly B-B-Q's and doing the sewing, fetching and hair dressing. This was the beginning of the Liberal movement. Some of these liberal men eventually evolved into women. The rest became known as 'girliemen.'
Some noteworthy liberal achievements include the domestication of cats, the invention of group therapy and group hugs and the concept of Democratic voting to decide how to divide the meat and beer that conservatives provided.
Over the years conservatives came to be symbolized by the largest, most powerful land animal on earth, the elephant. Liberals are symbolized by the jackass.
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.
I don't think they'd be nearly as angry if there were WMD's found, or any substantial reason for taking your country to war.