Why is there so much liberal hate?

Post Reply New Topic

It would have to be proven, I would think, that there was hate (however you want to legally define that) as a motivator.

Scenario: If I were to be assaulted by a person of color then the crime should only be the act of the assault itself.
The fact that the assailant may have had issues with people of the Anglo-Saxon persuasion should be irrelevant since everyone is entitled to their thoughts and emotions.
Having anger issues does not automatically translate to action and action is not necessarily driven by anger issues.
It's a muddy issue best left out of legal proceedings for the overall good of the legal system.

BTW: I don't even know or care to know who Bill Mahler is.

Bill Maher is a leftist, agnostic comedian who has made a career out of satirizing politics, social issues, and religion. He especially enjoys getting a rise out of people, made the movie Religilous, and donated a million dollars to Barack Obama's reelection.
And no, I don't agree with him a hundred percent of the time. Hardly; he's gotten me steaming mad at him more than once.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Thanks for telling me anyways, I guess.

Steaming mad, especially over something like a comedian, isn't good for one's health or general well being...

Probably not. But we Aspies - I've noticed - tend to take things too personally.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

We do? Have you done a carefully constructed poll or sample to establish that conclusion?

ruveyn

This is coming from a guy who has repeatedly generalized the majority of the posters in this thread in a condescending manner, has not presented a single argument that is not either highly rhetorical or based on a straw man, and to top it all off, speaks of welfare recipients as if they are worthless parasites while simultaneously living off of the generosity of family who were termed- by him- as "having no choice" but to do so.



You keep insinuating that the "liberals" should further their education in economics so they can understand it at the "same level you do". What else does it mean than "I am smarter than you guys"?



I only see jargon coming from your end with the copypasta talking points, anecdotes and rhetoric you have relied upon to demonstrate your points



A difference? What? Between what and what? This is not a very well constructed sentence. I have yet to see you reference or apply any microeconomic or macroeconomic theory or formulas to the claims you have made

I enjoy smart-ass satirists as much as the next person. Bill M. I can do without. He is not the smartest smart-ass I have seen. Dennis Miller, on the other hand, is very smart and very funny. The first requirement for being a smart-ass is to be smart.

ruveyn

You need to realize that there is actually very little being done in your country considered "liberal". The democrats are certainly not liberal by the rest of the world's standards. I mean most of the past 20-30 years of your state's history has taken place under Republican administrations, if you are going to blame liberal policies for problems within your state I don't know what to tell you. Your two main parties amount to Conservative (Democrat) & Reactionary Conservative (Republican). Trying to blame liberals does not really make much sense, because it has been a seriously long time since a real "liberal" administration has existed in the US. You're right about politicians being careerists before they are public servants, but you are mistaken in assuming it is only liberal politicians who are like this. It doesn't matter the ideology, politicians are politicians. Check the statements they make from one year to the next and it becomes clear they are almost universally unscrupulous and opportunistic. Look at Mitt Romney

Me personally, I strongly prefer comedians that leave their politics off of the stage.
If I want political comedy all I have to do is listen to campaign speeches.

I have a tendency to, and I couldn't help but notice others on WP seem to have the same problem as me. No poll - - just an observation.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Casual observations are not a good basis for coming to conclusions about a significant population.

Proper sampling works (assuming the question can be quantified). Hearsay and casual observation do not work.

ruveyn

Again, I don't know where you're getting your material. I never hinted that welfare recipients resemble in any form parasites. I think you just revealed your true intent in this forum: to spread your misinformation and hatred towards fiscal conservatives. You, sir, have not provided anything useful to the thread, other than your nitpicking. Give me an example where you think I use the Strawman fallacy. Your accusations don't scare me. And my personal affairs are non of your business. But I'll entertain you anyways. We all rely on some form of government. Whether one goes to a public school, uses roads, uses public services or uses a public good, one is constantly being forced to use public goods. Same thing goes for family. Most children are raised from birth to adulthood (18 in most cases). Parent's, by law, are supposed to raise their children with a standard as determined by society. After 18, they are not legally responsible and aren't obligated to do anything. Anything else is charity. But for public goods, we are forced to pay for them. So when you compare my view's on public goods and my parent's charity, we see your argument falls apart. You are comparing two unlike structures that aren't logically equivalent. The same thing applies for the redistribution of wealth and taxation. The government forces individuals to give up their earnings to support such a system. Such a system is not voluntary. So to compare me as a welfare recipient is not only logically incorrect, it's also hilarious. There are many other differences that I don't feel like pointing out. But that should be enough to give you something to think about.

It seems to me that you enjoy nitpicking others posts while not providing any meaningful content. I never said that I had no other choice. I am freely able to do what I want. I could work, I could go back to school, I could move, etc. (Perhaps unlike you?). But why are your posts about my personal business? Does it make me a hypocrite that I live with my parents? Certainly not, but it shows how you lack argumentative style.

And what do you do? Are you envious that you have a sh***y job/life? You also rely on the government in some way. You also were raised by somebody else. You were always coddled to. In fact, I'm sure you are coddled more than me because you live in Canada. Question: Do you rely on public assistance like welfare?

Last edited by bizboy1 on 15 Jul 2012, 7:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Well, I'm not exactly running a scientific experiment on the subject.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Indeed. That is why you should precede your conclusions with humble phrases such as "I thin,..." or "I guess..." or "I have a hunch that...."

That way you make it clear you are expressing an opinion rather than the result of a statistically valid poll.

ruveyn

Well then, let's just say that it's my opinion.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

One does not need to say something literally to infer meaning, bizboy1



I don't hate anybody. What misinformation am I spreading? When I actually see a fiscal conservative I will be happy. What passes for "fiscal conservatism" in your country and mine is an absolute joke



Your entire argument where you equate liberal government aims with communism? The entirety of your arguments opposed to welfare, where you make serious assumptions about beneficiaries and use these assumptions as justification for your pet theories? Your rhetoric-heavy posts about "your earnings and rights" and those who "want what you have?"



If you don't want your personal affairs to become part of a discussion, don't use them to support your points. Then we wouldn't be having this discussion, and you would not look silly espousing one thing on an internet forum while admitting to doing another in your actual life



you are forcing your parents to give up their earnings to support you (a far greater percentage of their earnings than would be going to you or others if using government welfare, I might add) and somehow you are better than those who seek government financial intervention? You're right, your parents do not have a legal obligation to support you, but emotionally they likely consider it a duty, one that you seem to happily take advantage of.



I tend to target people who insult my sensibilities with generalizations and willingness to go on and on without actually providing solid argumentation. I have participated elsewhere in this thread, your entry is pretty recent, and almost all you have provided is jargon- aka- lack of meaningful content.



You said *they* have no other choice. The way you have described it, it sounds like you are holding them hostage. That you *can* bootstrap yourself into independence but choose not to, while criticizing those who attempt to get there with help from the government is ridiculous and it really does make you a hypocrite. Sorry.



I have a good, happy, life, I am getting a good education, and I have a good job, so your insinuations about my character are wrong and offensive. Since you don't know anything about my life, talking about how I was "coddled" seems to be pretty- frankly- stupid of you. In fact, I have had to work for everything I have, pay my own bills, buy my own food, have lived on my own, and not once have I ever gone on welfare. If anyone seems coddled here, it is you, and you have basically admitted to this with the disclosure of your living status. Your viewpoints are fairly typical of sheltered individuals with black and white thinking.