Barely any morals
Has contempt for men and traditional values
Want to kill the unborn
Screws the rules on marriage
Makes races "more equal" than others
Likes socialistic concepts; hate the rich
Believes in peace, yet likes selective wars
Thinks there should be no borders; let the illegals in
Other --- PLEASE EXPLAIN
I'm already gearing up for Finger Vote 2014.
Just for reference, means my post was a giant steaming pile of sarcasm.
I don't really have much to hate about traditional liberals - (e.g., JFK type traditional liberals). I've got issues with Progressives mostly. The differences there is that there are built in assumptions. Progressives believe that man is basically evil, therefore their actions and their businesses must be regulated and managed by a ruling political class. They believe that people are inherently dumb and cannot decide for themselves how to manage their money, how to eat properly, how to act properly. Government and central planning therefore must regulate people to save them from themselves. Government and a political ruling class therefore must overturn individual freedoms and free will because people cannot handle that freedom. People cannot be allowed to eat salt, sugar, fatty foods, smoke, or do destructive things to themselves because life is not about the individual to the Progressive ideology - it's about the "village". What is best for the "group" or "society" over rules the rights of the individual. Lastly, Progressives are all about "feelings" and language is used to manipulate those "feelings". Emotions are key to the Progressive view such that political correctness has sprung out of those feelings, that everything can be "racist" if it flies in the face of the Progressive ideology, or is used as an attack on those who are not in line with the Progressive. It's always about "the children" or to "protect the innocent". It's always about fairness - not to the individual but to specialty groups.
This isn't just with Progressives by the way, politically - these tactics are used by all political types for their own ends because it's effective. I do credit however Progressives because they are masters at it and everyone else just follows because of that effectiveness. It's about power at it's core - not about anything else.
“I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on what’s being proposed here, he’d agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute.” - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.
I thought of one! I dislike that (some) liberals are very, very quick to classify (most) conservatives as heartless snobs who hate the poor without taking time to consider the point we're trying to make. It's totally okay to listen to the opposition. You aren't going to grow warts and watch your boobs or weiner shrivel up and fall off...and I'm pretty sure the world will still spin.
"Hmmm...Can't decide if I want to watch "Four Houses" or give myself an Icy Hot pee hole enema..." - Blake Shelton
Can't dignify this thread any more than I can the one from the other side, and I'm really kind of surprised at the people who are posting herein (as though this thread were somehow logical, and deserved to be considered.)
I hate that Code Pink is associated with us.
- Colonel Paul YinglingNobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.
Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.
All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.