Why are conservatives hated more than liberals?

Post Reply New Topic

This thread's presumption is so wrong I don't no where to begin. Lets see, it's been an insult to call someone a "liberal" in America for decades, there's a very small percentage of self-identified "liberals" in America even though most Americans support policies that Rightwing organizations lable "liberal", and "conservative values" are often equated with hardwork, diligence, and love for ones family (despite evidence of higher divorce among conservatives, at least religious ones ). Very few politicians use the term "conservative" derisively, the last time I saw that was in the 2004 Canadian Federal election leaders debate where Jack Layton said there was a "choice other than corruption or conservatism", but there's pratically no US precendents of politicians ever badmouthing the ideology of conservatism (at best, some may claim today's self-described conservatives aren't "really" conservative, whatever the hell that means).

In terms of "hate with Judeo-Christiandom", that is at most localized to a small portion of the educated professional class and is nowhere near enough of an influence to explain the "hate" conservatives supposedly get. In terms of "hate with capitalism", you have no historical perspective whatsoever if you can seriously make this claim. Even under the pressure of the Red Scare and McCarthyism, there were Communist Parties in the USA that gained more support than they do today as well as socialist parties. The NDP in Canada still described itself as "socialist" in two decades ago and proponents of capitalism were a lot more willing to stress the pertinence of full employment and stabilizing government conventions rather than the infallible wisedom of free markets. Unions were legitimate and key players in the political establishment several decades ago. Now the talk is of free markets, how government or ACORN supposedly caused the housing bubble, how bad it is that a politician is "attached to unions" (while there's less talk, proportional to its monetary influence, of corporate conflicts of interest), and how fairly moderate social democrats like myself are "far left".

Strictly speaking, that doesn't explain anything at all because "liberal has taken on a difference meaning" was true in 1930 through to the 1970s, yet only in the 1980s did this "new meaning" have as bad a rap as it does now. Furthermore, the whole "classical liberals are completely different from reform liberals" is rather overblown, given that some classical liberals like J.S. Mill had some pretty progressive opinions when it came to social welfare.

Let's see, you

• Regularly quote people out of context.
• Gave the wrong impression to LKL that David Letterman was an actual rapist.
• Fail to address or even read the points of your critics/
• Have mischaracterized my views as being that disabled adults are non-persons because I said unborn fetuses weren't persons.

The CON-Aritst label pretty much holds for much of the American Right, given most points they come up with tend to be bunk, they've edited tapes/lied profusely about ACORN, and Andrew Breitbart's lies have cost one Shirley Sherrod her job. The subtext of race-baiting in the conservative movement in America, including the fact that many influential conservative organizations fought sanctions or outright supported the Apartheid South African regime, really is quite a bit of just cause to detest the movement.

I usually don't say this but - I tried reading that several times and still completely missed where you were going with that.

On this forum, not being diplomatic is almost certainly just a sign of being on the spectrum.

Diplomacy is largely a technique of using hypocrisy to butter someone up for advantage. When issues such as truth and good sense are at stake being brusque is a form of honesty.

Actually dishonest slimeballs tends to hold true as to characterizations of the left.

You are blaming me for:

• Quoting people out of context, when in all honesty I'm quoting people in whole paragraphs, as a matter of fact I've caught several people here I think I can include you in that statement, particularly when it concerns Glenn Beck, in fact some people here continued to do it after I called them on it. I believe an appropriate term is called lieing.
• LKL should have bothered to do some research, Google keywords: David Letterman, Sarah Palin, daughter. I didn't misrepresent anything, in all honesty I had no idea LKL had no clue what I was talking about.
• Maybe cause some of your "points" are so outrageous they don't even deserve to be dignified with a response. Some of the comments directed towards me have been flat out smears, or things I've already addressed.
• Accusing me of misrepresenting what you are saying, when you quite honestly need to word things better.

Actually, you are either misinformed or flat out lieing. Andrew Breitbart released the tape just as he received it, fact of the matter is he attempted to get the full tape and wasn't able to so he released what he had as is.


Again you are either ill-informed or flat out lieing. If what you were saying was true, Herman Cain wouldn't be receiving the level of support that he is from the Tea Party. Herman Cain is African American, yet you and the leftwing driveby media equate the Tea Party to the KKK, looks to me like you are the one being dishonest.

Well also, it is innaccurate to call a Liberal a Liberal... as none of them adhere to the values of Liberalism. Read to them what the definition of a Liberal is and they will shriek calling the caricature you've just described as a free-market Neo-Con. Presidentially speaking, JFK was perhaps the last true Liberal.

There is a higher percentage of divorce rate amongst the religious because the religious marry more then the non-religious. The few non-religious who do decide to marry tend to stay together longer, but it's not like we're comparing equals.

The conservative tradition, which started in the South, has always been one of small government, free-trade, free-market economics, a state that stays out of your bedroom and out of the business of marriage, and practices isolationism as foreign policy because conservatives understood that a large foreign policy requires a large activist government.

This tradition is only survived by some of it's economic principles, and it's antipathy towards large government. It has adopted the early democrats interventionism(Jefferson, Washington, Hamilton, and Adams), keeps the spirit of antipathy towards government in the form of progressive tax-cuts as a selling point, while expanding its military budget and social spending (all the while letting our trade deficit grow at alarming rates). It has also adopted this new "social-conservatism" that was largely a cultural reaction to the 60's and 70's. In the late 19th century it was largely Democrats who were the most isolationist and in the first half of the 20th century up until after Vietnam(like Robert Taft), it was the Republicans who were isolationists. Now, it is back to the Democrats and the Republicans are now the interventionists carrying on the Jefferson, Lincoln, JFK idealism that have come before them.

The Cold War changed the conservative traditional position on isolationism and we conservatives all united in resisting the soviet union, and resisting the spread of communism everywhere. This cold war ended and the identity of the conservative movement has become divided, with many like Bill Buckley, Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul, and even George Will (who, though he supported Iraq war, has acknowledged that some of his positions, including those in the 80's on our policies in latin America) who argue Bush and the Neo-Con's ambitions are a violation of the conservative tradition of isolationism

Incorrect on several counts. The South has never stood, on principle, against trade restrictions, only those against its direct economic interests. As to small government, they are, and always have been, happy to receive agricultural subsidies. I have no idea where you obtained the delusion that conservatives ever promoted "a state that stays out of your bedroom and out of the business of marriage." Before gay marriage was an issue, they opposed interracial marriage and "miscegenation."


Putting the four of those in the same ideological group is a sign of a very garbled understanding of American history. Jefferson and Hamilton were bitter enemies. Washington, Hamilton, and Adams were all identified with the Federalists, not the Democratic-Republicans (yes, I know Washington was not formally a member of any party, but he was in practice a Federalist).

Derping so hard. <.< A conservative will try to privatize the profits and socialize the costs. -points at BP-

Perhaps also because it is a good deal easier to find real examples of the worst conservative stereotypes. And the worst parts of conservatism are often the most prominent; there are far-left wingnuts out there, but they are much, much more marginalized than their right-wing counterparts.

FWIW, my impression was not that Inuyasha said that Letterman was a rapist but that some unnamed baseball player was a rapist.

There is, of course, this, if it in fact be true as postulated that liberals are less hated than conservatives [does that imply they are LIKED better?] by people who are neither:

Stop me if this has already been suggested, I freely admit I have not been following this:

As a general rule, conservatives to not claim to be wanting to help people, telling them "this won't hurt a bit and it is for your own good."

Of course, that would apply only if the uncommitted masses were uncritical enough to believe it.

Okay, I apologize for jumping the gun there.

It's not the reader's job to do research to support your claims. I wasn't the only one on that thread who thought that you were claiming that Palin's daughter had actually been raped, and that the media were ignoring it simply because it was Palin's daughter. Note how quickly you backtracked after we asked for more information.

While all politics is messy and fraught with dishonesty, the multi-millionaire dollar antics of the drive by rightwing media takes the cake!



Some of the time, but not all the time.



Okay, I'll admit the part of the problem was LKL's lack of familiarity with the Bozo Palin Manufactroversy.



If anyone smears, its you and your proclivity for claiming pro-choicers like me thing "disabled people aren't people". Regardless, very seldom do you actually address your opponents points, usually you just grossly misread them and construct a strawman. For instance, there was that time you accused me of "support[ing] a bunch of fanatics who want to commit genocide" when I argued that the Palestinian people have rights too that should be recognized in peace negotiations.



I'm sorry, but only someone with a severe reading disorder or severe intellectual dishonest would think "fetuses are not people" equal "disabled adults are not people" and then accuse me of PERSONALLY claiming your cousin was a nonperson.



Okay, so because the lackey that sent him the tape edited it without telling him, Breitbart is above critique?



There are few racists on earth who don't acknowledge one or two "good coloured folks". And let's just look at the type of minority Tea Partisans are salivating over:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TawnKN3_kiM&feature=channel_video_title[/youtube]

Last edited by Master_Pedant on 29 May 2011, 11:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.