Liberals are bigots and have a history of racism

#51
#51
RespectTradition said:
Is it inherently wrong to be a bigot? Using your definition, it would appear that virtually all of us are bigots, and me doubly so. Liberals condemn conservatives = bigotry. Conservatives condemn liberals = bigotry. Me condemns 'em both = double bigot.

Are liberals more hypocritical about it? Yes and no. They like to pretend that they are openminded, unless it means opening their mind to someone who is religious (among other things). Conservatives are more open about their bigotry. For example, most tend to be very anti-homosexual. Their hypocrisy stems from claiming to be christian (for the most part) and then hatin' on people. (I am not saying it is wrong to hate homosexuality, but it is wrong to hate homosexuals.)
Click to expand...

I find that that the openmindedness of a liberal is usually confined to sexual behavior and drug use, other than that not much tolerance exists up their, even though they claim otherwise.
 
#53
#53
MUR73 said:
I find that that the openmindedness of a liberal is usually confined to sexual behavior and drug use, other than that not much tolerance exists up their, even though they claim otherwise.
Click to expand...

Still, that seems to be more tolerance than that of a conservative. :whistling:
 
#54
#54
OrangeEmpire said:
should be equally vile
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I stopped saying it a while back, because it's something I don't want my son calling his friends. I agree it shouldn't be said at all, but you can't pretend that there isn't a difference.
 
#55
#55
Since I read this thread, I've been really nice to all my rich, white family members and friends. Hell, I've even been cool to NEOCON. Thanks for making me see the err of my ways and that the over-privileged have feelings, also.
 
#56
#56
Sorry, but rich people are sometimes the biggest *******s. I did a hood repair on this commercial real estate salesman's Yukon Denali last week. I called him on Friday to try to get him to contact the insurance company so he could come pick it up because the insurance was paying for it. He asks me the total owed for repair. It was like $900, which usually isn't chump change to anyone. His response, verbatim, was, "Ha! Do you know who I am? I'm not worried about a silly $900." No, dude, I DO NOT know who you are and could care less. He comes into the shop, complains to the manager that I was hassling him over a $900 bill. Manager flips out on him because he heard the entire conversation on speaker phone. I took his Visa Black Card to the cashier, ran it, gave him his keys, and told him to have a merry day. No thank you, no nothing even though we rushed to finish it before the weekend.

Crap like that used to happen all the time when I worked at the hardware store. Worse yet, the rich people were always the ones that wanted me to fix their crap for free there. And they never said thank you.

/rant
 
#58
#58
VolsByNature said:
I stopped saying it a while back, because it's something I don't want my son calling his friends. I agree it shouldn't be said at all, but you can't pretend that there isn't a difference.
Click to expand...

Dont pretend any thing, u can want it to be different, but it is vile to say or accept it
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#59
#59
BelAirVol said:
Yes, really.

YOu must not know too many people or you are embellishing.
Click to expand...
LOL@U... if you only knew what you were talking about. I have lived across the country after having grown up in the south. It is uniformly my experience whether in Seattle, Chicago, or Lick Log that the biggest racists (regardless of color) are those who believe gov't should provide programs for them. The least racism regardless of color has uniformly been among those who believed people should be free and responsible for themselves.

Or it could be you have interpreted racism in your own way?
Click to expand...
What other way than to say blacks and whites shouldn't "mix" because they are "different"? That races should be treated differently because of the color of their skin... rather than the content of their character?
Do you have friends that are liberal? Do you really understand the term?
Click to expand...
Yes... and probably far better than you do. Liberal was adopted when the "Progressive" label took an image hit before and during WWII. Progressive is more accurate and is making a comeback.

"Liberal" in classic world politics is more akin to what we consider "libertarian". American liberalism is a statist model descendent of 19th century rationalism. It is built around the notion that gov't can, and should, engineer "equitable" outcomes. At the core, it is the antithesis of the ideals of the founders. It is premised on "group" rights and a class system rather than individual rights defying any type of permanent class system.

Its influence was so pervasive during the 20th century that we are completely desensitized to terms like "middle class", "working class", "political class", etc. Those terms are an affront to the ideal of individual sovereignty found in the literal reading of the USC.
It seems you often generalize as anything liberal. I see "typical liberal", "the left thinks", "liberals think this", etc, far too often for you to have a real grasp or understanding of the true demographics regarding liberals, conservatives, democrats and republicans.
Click to expand...

We all make generalizations. You've done it even as you protest it. I am basing my comments on what prominent liberals have said as well as the stated or even published positions of the Dem party or notable left wing groups.

"Liberal" or more accurately "Progressive" is probably much broader than you realize... and I use it in a fairly broad way.

Bryan was an early Progressive. He obviously disagreed on the direction that Sanger, Wilson, and other Progressives of the day wanted to go. However they agreed on the fundamental principle that an elite class had the wisdom and responsibility to use gov't power to achieve a "good" end for society.

I ALWAYS go back to that premise when making these generalizations you object to.
 
Last edited:
#61
#61
VOLatile said:
BelAirVol said:
VOLatile said:
IN MY EXPERIENCE, they exist on both sides in equal amounts.

Also, I think I remember NEOCON saying he doesn't socialize with libtards.[/QUOTE]



Socialize, as in, make friends and hangout with. Pretty sure I know where most of my friends stand in terms of politics. Most of them are Republican, BTW. I think he also said he would never knowingly hire a liberal for any job of importance.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Your memory is correct on both counts.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
#62
#62
PoochPunt3rdDown said:
What have you done to help rich, white people today?
Click to expand...

went to work, did my job, didn't cause any problems that would reflect poorly on either me or my employer. When the rich people, whether they're black or white, that sign my check are happy, I'm happy.

btw, you suck at this class warfare game, using trite expressions that you picked up from some nimrod at Democrat Underground doesn't score points around here.
 
#65
#65
MG1968 said:
went to work, did my job, didn't cause any problems that would reflect poorly on either me or my employer. When the rich people, whether they're black or white, that sign my check are happy, I'm happy.

btw, you suck at this class warfare game, using trite expressions that you picked up from some nimrod at Democrat Underground doesn't score points around here.
Click to expand...

You're trying to score in the Politics Forum? I bet gsvol is a frequenter of airport bathrooms.
 
#72
#72
MG1968 said:
went to work, did my job, didn't cause any problems that would reflect poorly on either me or my employer. When the rich people, whether they're black or white, that sign my check are happy, I'm happy.

btw, you suck at this class warfare game, using trite expressions that you picked up from some nimrod at Democrat Underground doesn't score points around here.
Click to expand...

+10
 
#73
#73
sjt18 said:
LOL@U... if you only knew what you were talking about. I have lived across the country after having grown up in the south. It is uniformly my experience whether in Seattle, Chicago, or Lick Log that the biggest racists (regardless of color) are those who believe gov't should provide programs for them. The least racism regardless of color has uniformly been among those who believed people should be free and responsible for themselves.

What other way than to say blacks and whites shouldn't "mix" because they are "different"? That races should be treated differently because of the color of their skin... rather than the content of their character? Yes... and probably far better than you do. Liberal was adopted when the "Progressive" label took an image hit before and during WWII. Progressive is more accurate and is making a comeback.

"Liberal" in classic world politics is more akin to what we consider "libertarian". American liberalism is a statist model descendent of 19th century rationalism. It is built around the notion that gov't can, and should, engineer "equitable" outcomes. At the core, it is the antithesis of the ideals of the founders. It is premised on "group" rights and a class system rather than individual rights defying any type of permanent class system.

Its influence was so pervasive during the 20th century that we are completely desensitized to terms like "middle class", "working class", "political class", etc. Those terms are an affront to the ideal of individual sovereignty found in the literal reading of the USC.

We all make generalizations. You've done it even as you protest it. I am basing my comments on what prominent liberals have said as well as the stated or even published positions of the Dem party or notable left wing groups.

"Liberal" or more accurately "Progressive" is probably much broader than you realize... and I use it in a fairly broad way.

Bryan was an early Progressive. He obviously disagreed on the direction that Sanger, Wilson, and other Progressives of the day wanted to go. However they agreed on the fundamental principle that an elite class had the wisdom and responsibility to use gov't power to achieve a "good" end for society.

I ALWAYS go back to that premise when making these generalizations you object to.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the post. I see you do have a handle on the meaning of liberalism. Many conservatives(just like liberals do) will use the term liberal out of context when the more appropriate label would be progressive or secular progressive.
 
#74
#74
BelAirVol said:
Thanks for the post. I see you do have a handle on the meaning of liberalism. Many conservatives(just like liberals do) will use the term liberal out of context when the more appropriate label would be progressive or secular progressive.
Click to expand...

I think Bush confused many people. That's why some labeled him a "big gov't conservative". He ran as a conservative (another cross-defined term in US politics) but his policies were progressive across the board. Bryan would have been proud of "faith based initiatives" (I preached against that in my fundamental Baptist church btw). The ONLY thing he did that was remotely "conservative" were the tax cuts.

He and the establishment GOP while in power were just as "progressive" and big gov't as Dems... they just took a different tack. Very similar to the differences between Bryan and other early progressives or Wilson/Hoover/FDR. Progressives disagree over what gov't should do... not that it should do something.
 
#75
#75
Another though comes to mind.

I think the basic difference is the view on the nature of man. I believe that man is depraved. That he is capable of making a morally good choice but his first/natural impulse is "selfish" or in Christian vernacular "sin". Because of this, all concentrations of power without adequate and numerous checks and balances are dangerous not only to rights and liberties... but to life itself. This view also requires that man have freedom with responsibility... and that responsibility MUST include painful consequences for bad choices. Temporary pain or the suffering of the few is actually necessary to prevent widespread suffering and to promote general happiness. It is the threat of pain/loss that disciplines man according to natural law to do "good". It makes it "economical" to be good and uneconomical to be bad.

I am a Christian but if I weren't I believe I would see value in religion like the minority of our founders who were deists or agnostics (the vast majority were practicing Christians). Christianity is particularly well equipped to short cut some of the "pain" with its teachings about respecting others and loving your neighbor... as well as moral disciplines.



Progressives range a bit but basically come to the conclusion that man is "good"... sort of. At least some men are good and smart enough to help/make others "good". Society can therefore "evolve" through education, conditioning, and environment. This evolution it is thought can be moved along by social engineering and indoctrination. Therefore, gov't must be large with pervasive influence into every sector of life and thinking. Control has to be centralized... economic and information especially. (Think about the Great Society initiatives... how many were premised on the notion that if the environment of the poor was changed... they would change too? Prisons become rehabilitation centers. The resistance to school privatization is pretty big too. You cannot engineer people who aren't beholden to you for basic instruction.)

The whole notion is that freedom is bad if pain comes with it. However, their schemes work against the natural law that the founders cited so often. They never admit that social programs won't work because they're fundamentally flawed and at variance with human nature... they only don't work because the right formula has not been found.

Progressives rightly associate freedom with pain but wrongly believe that the reduction of freedom lessens societal pain... it only insures that it is broad and long lasting.

This is why... I might make the generalization at one point or another about one topic or another that liberalism simply doesn't work. If you start from the wrong premise it is impossible to consistently come up with correct answers.
 
Last edited:
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top