Why is being liberal considered bad?

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2004-10-29 12:04pm

Liberal also means "race-mixing, non-Christian fag who supports uppity women". Liberal stopped being an adjective and started being an insult (in this neck of the woods in particular) because they were the ones who pushed for equal rights for minorities and women.

While godless communism and socialism are demonized because they are considered the work of hooknosed Jews out to kill Jesus all over again, liberalism is considered just a watered down or more subtle plot by hooknosed Jews to kill Jesus, permit black men to fornicate with white women, allow women to be insolent, and homosexuals in places other than the hair salons or nailed to a fence.

This sounds ridiculous but it works. Rednecks in the South have been baited into voting against their own economic interests for generations because of this bullshit.

Yarcamos · Post by **Yarcamos** » 2004-10-29 12:43pm

Elfdart wrote:Liberal also means "race-mixing, non-Christian fag who supports uppity women". Liberal stopped being an adjective and started being an insult (in this neck of the woods in particular) because they were the ones who pushed for equal rights for minorities and women.

I'm not sure I've met anyone who denied that liberals were important during the history of this country. Liberal presidents took us through war and succeeded, liberal rights movement leaders changed the way we think, but to say that liberal means "...non-Christian fag..." and other things to that effect is nothing but playing the "boo-hoo" card. As I said before in this thread, it doesn't have to be an insult. Why is it when a liberal is called what he is he gets all defensive? When a conservative is told he's a conservative, he basically says, "Yes I am."

While godless communism and socialism are demonized because they are considered the work of hooknosed Jews out to kill Jesus all over again, liberalism is considered just a watered down or more subtle plot by hooknosed Jews to kill Jesus, permit black men to fornicate with white women, allow women to be insolent, and homosexuals in places other than the hair salons or nailed to a fence.

This is what we would call a strawman fallacy. Here you do nothing but exagerrate and extort the facts. Communism is "demonized" because it takes away the basic rights of people. Can you honestly tell me Communism is a fair government for citizens? Also, last time I checked, not all conservatives and/or Republicans care much about religion. As a citizen of the south, I am well aware that there are many conservatives that could give two shits less about religion.

This sounds ridiculous but it works. Rednecks in the South have been baited into voting against their own economic interests for generations because of this bullshit.

This is ridiculous. Your generalizing for an entire populous. One could say the same thing about New York or California, but instead of rambling about liberal discrimination and distortion, we could substitute the word conservative.

aten_vs_ra · Post by **aten_vs_ra** » 2004-10-29 12:47pm

Elfdart wrote:Liberal also means "race-mixing, non-Christian fag who supports uppity women". Liberal stopped being an adjective and started being an insult (in this neck of the woods in particular) because they were the ones who pushed for equal rights for minorities and women.

While godless communism and socialism are demonized because they are considered the work of hooknosed Jews out to kill Jesus all over again, liberalism is considered just a watered down or more subtle plot by hooknosed Jews to kill Jesus, permit black men to fornicate with white women, allow women to be insolent, and homosexuals in places other than the hair salons or nailed to a fence.

This sounds ridiculous but it works. Rednecks in the South have been baited into voting against their own economic interests for generations because of this bullshit.

You have no fucking idea what it is like to talk to the rest of my brethren in Arkansas. I have a cardiologist who votes conservative, because he's filthy rich. And the trailer trash and poor because marriage is between a man and a woman. Said trailer trash is also always bitching about how bad big governamnet is and complaining her lack of medical insurance. What happened to the nation concerned only about it's wallet? Seriously small towns need to be dragged into big citys kicking and screaming until they learn to stop equating Dems with communism.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-10-29 02:09pm

Jalinth wrote:
BoredShirtless wrote:
theski wrote:I never said he was a extreme Liberal.. Just too liberal for me and Rated near or on the top in the senate...
I'll try again. The issues define whether he is too liberal, not the tally of the votes. Let me give you an example. Five issues:

#Issue 1. Extremely LEFT. John Kerry votes NO.
#Issue 2. Sits in the middle, a little to the left. John Kerry votes YES.
#Issue 3. Sits in the middle, a little to the left. John Kerry votes YES.
#Issue 4. Sits in the middle, a little to the left. John Kerry votes YES.
#Issue 5. Sits in the middle, a little to the left. John Kerry votes YES.

If this where representive of his voting record, he would be classified as a MODERATE.

Once again; look at the ISSUES, not his vote tally.
You have to be very careful with voting records. The US Congress often "log rolls" completely unrelated and often offensive (especially in a fiscal sense) amendments into a larger bill. So some people vote down the bill not for its main target, but for all the unrelated crap that it contains. This is why a line item veto helps.

Look at the recent tax bill. The "main" point - comply with the WTO rulings and avoid EU countervailing sanctions for discriminatory trade rules, made perfect sense. The mechanism isn't great, but was tolerable. But look at all the other crap that was bundled together with it - tax cuts for every special interest group.

A senator/congresscriter could easily vote against that bill because of all the toxic clutter it contains. They'd could be portrayed as "pro-tax" but are really against inefficient tax cuts for special interest groups. Essentially a form of welfare for certain industries.

You certainly can't single out an individual vote and state that 'this guy is Liberal/Conservative' based on that single vote.
However, voting patterns do develop over the course of a Senator's career and it's fair to characterize them as Liberal or Conservative based on their voting patterns.

Americans for Democratic Action, one of the leading liberal lobbying groups, gives him a lifetime score of 92.

Their conservative counterpart, the ACU, gives him a 5

The National Taxpayers Union (conservative), which claims to grade on every vote cast, gives him an F grade

There's a reason why Kerry doesn't talk about his Senate record.

aerius · Post by **aerius** » 2004-10-29 02:30pm

It just is, everyone knows that Liberals are just one step away from being commie greenie whackos, and if you don't think they are you're gay. At least, that's the general idea in the US if you believe the hardcore Republicans.

In any case I'm happily living under a Liberal government in Canada and I really can't be much happier. Now if they'd only hurry up and decriminalize marijuana so I can start growing crops in my backyard.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-10-29 02:37pm

But liberals are traitors.
Even Julius Rosenberg's code name was Liberal*

14 November 1944
Venona Intercept No 1600
GIF Image of message sent from New York to Moscow
This message mentions "LIBERAL" (Julius Rosenberg), "KALIBR" (David Greenglass) and "OSA" (Ruth Greenglass).

*Note for the sarcasm and humor impaired: I don't really believe that all liberals are traitors.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2004-10-29 08:21pm

Col. Crackpot wrote:Patrick, the two major political parties have been pulling this shit on each other for as long as they have been in existance. Is it your opinion that the (leftist) labor movement in the 1930's didn't portray the Republicans as evil robber baron conservatives?, or that in the 1950's McCarthyist Republicans didn't label liberals as commies? Or that the anti war counter culture movement..... Or the Reganites.... THIS IS NOTHING NEW!

Of course it's nothing new. However, while the labour movement may have portrayed Republicans as "evil robber barons", they never called them un-American traitors. McCarthyist Republicans may have pulled the "liberals are commies" shit, but enough liberals stood their ground against them and of course, one, Joseph Welch, helped McCarthy destroy himself. And while the Reaganites may have said "liberals are bad", they never went as far as to say or infer that liberals were actually un-American traitors. What's made the rhetoric doubly effective in the present time has been the liberal side essentially keeping mum or at the most whining "unfair" and slinking off while Hannity or Rush or Coulter launch into another Goebbels-like diatribe, which only became possible —to name one example— because idiots like Dukakis didn't smack down people like Bush or Lee Atwater for shit like the Willie Horton campaign. And the more the liberal side avoid fighting back, the more extreme the propaganda will get. It's the same principle as the schoolyard bully; he has power only as long as the other kids remain afraid of him, and he keeps terrorising them worse and worse, but that power vanishes the moment one of them finally stands up and stomps the little fuck flat.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-10-30 01:39pm

Elfdart wrote:Liberal also means "race-mixing, non-Christian fag who supports uppity women". Liberal stopped being an adjective and started being an insult (in this neck of the woods in particular) because they were the ones who pushed for equal rights for minorities and women.

While godless communism and socialism are demonized because they are considered the work of hooknosed Jews out to kill Jesus all over again, liberalism is considered just a watered down or more subtle plot by hooknosed Jews to kill Jesus, permit black men to fornicate with white women, allow women to be insolent, and homosexuals in places other than the hair salons or nailed to a fence.

This sounds ridiculous but it works. Rednecks in the South have been baited into voting against their own economic interests for generations because of this bullshit.

You know ElfPenis, this really isnt anything but one giant strawman. Frankly, I am a conservative, and liberal means none of these things to me. Perhaps you should consider the little issue of most conservatives not being racist hatfuckers who hate atheists and want women to be pregnant, barefoot in the kitchen. Jesus christ, liberals who act like you are just as bad as the conservative spin doctors you seem to hate sop much.

Post by **Edi** » 2004-10-30 01:55pm

Alyrium Denryle wrote:
Elfdart wrote:Liberal also means "race-mixing, non-Christian fag who supports uppity women". Liberal stopped being an adjective and started being an insult (in this neck of the woods in particular) because they were the ones who pushed for equal rights for minorities and women.

While godless communism and socialism are demonized because they are considered the work of hooknosed Jews out to kill Jesus all over again, liberalism is considered just a watered down or more subtle plot by hooknosed Jews to kill Jesus, permit black men to fornicate with white women, allow women to be insolent, and homosexuals in places other than the hair salons or nailed to a fence.

This sounds ridiculous but it works. Rednecks in the South have been baited into voting against their own economic interests for generations because of this bullshit.
You know ElfPenis, this really isnt anything but one giant strawman. Frankly, I am a conservative, and liberal means none of these things to me. Perhaps you should consider the little issue of most conservatives not being racist hatfuckers who hate atheists and want women to be pregnant, barefoot in the kitchen. Jesus christ, liberals who act like you are just as bad as the conservative spin doctors you seem to hate sop much.

You know Alyrium, reading things in context might help you not look as thick as a brick. Elfdart is describing the view that the people where he lives hold of liberals, not saying that all conservatives think so. There is a segment of the conservative scene, mainly the ignorant rural redneck category that does think this way, so what he says is accurate when taken together with the "Liberal stopped being an adjective and started being an insult (in this neck of the woods in particular) because they were the ones who pushed for equal rights for minorities and women." statement.

I've seen Elfdart acknowledge conservative points (e.g. when talking with RedImperator), he just tends to push things, but if you weren't so quick to take everything personally, you might be able to see the real meaning even when he does use hyperbole. Fuck, if I were to take offense every time somebody like Shep or theski or some others bashed liberals, I'd be spewing nothing but flames.

Context, learn to see it!

Edi

Enigma · Post by **Enigma** » 2004-10-31 01:30am

aerius wrote:It just is, everyone knows that Liberals are just one step away from being commie greenie whackos, and if you don't think they are you're gay. At least, that's the general idea in the US if you believe the hardcore Republicans.

In any case I'm happily living under a Liberal government in Canada and I really can't be much happier. Now if they'd only hurry up and decriminalize marijuana so I can start growing crops in my backyard.

Except here in Canada it is the other way around. Being called a conservative is an insult.

Hey aerius! Here's a billion dollars I got from one of many Liberal pet projects of theirs. *hands him the cash*

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-10-31 01:35am

The problem with the terms "liberal" or "conservative" is that they have several meanings. In the context of a social argument (eg- "conservative social values"), the term "conservative" should be an insult, at least in the present environment. People who declare themselves social conservatives are invariably knuckle-dragging troglodytes. In the context of an economic argument, both terms "conservative" and "liberal" are arguably extreme positions which are unwise. In the context of an engineering discussion, the term "liberal" is generally taken to mean "reckless and stupid" and has something to do with making assumptions that will probably lead to a bridge falling down someday.

White Cat · Post by **White Cat** » 2004-10-31 09:33am

To extreme conservatives, liberals = hippies= socialists/communists = EVIL!!
To extreme liberals, conservatives = rednecks = facists/nazis = EVIL!!

Tune in next time, when White Cat will present more brilliant insights into the workings of the universe.

Durandal wrote:"Conservative" is not an insult, nor does the public view it as one. Liberals do not use it as one. No one has tried to destroy Bush's credibility in the public eye by claiming he has the "most conservative president."

You're right, that never happens.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2004-10-31 05:32pm

White Cat wrote:
Durandal wrote:"Conservative" is not an insult, nor does the public view it as one. Liberals do not use it as one. No one has tried to destroy Bush's credibility in the public eye by claiming he has the "most conservative president."
You're right, that never happens.

Wow...one study on Bush's judicial appointments, in which the context is quite plainly that he's appointed the most conservative group, one book review, and three posts in a liberal blog/message board. As opposed to the official political advertisements paid for by the Republicans touting Kerry as "the most liberal Senator." If that's the best quality argument you can come up with for "most conservative" being an attack on Bush's credibility, then concession accepted.

White Cat · Post by **White Cat** » 2004-11-02 02:39pm

I was responding to post which flatly stated that "Liberals do not use ['conservative'] as an insult," and that "no one" (not just "no official Kerry ads") used it to attack Bush's credibility.

Also, I recall Bush being described as "most consevative President" on the back cover of one of either Franken's or Moore's books.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-11-02 03:07pm

Alyrium Denryle wrote:
Elfdart wrote:Liberal also means "race-mixing, non-Christian fag who supports uppity women". Liberal stopped being an adjective and started being an insult (in this neck of the woods in particular) because they were the ones who pushed for equal rights for minorities and women.

While godless communism and socialism are demonized because they are considered the work of hooknosed Jews out to kill Jesus all over again, liberalism is considered just a watered down or more subtle plot by hooknosed Jews to kill Jesus, permit black men to fornicate with white women, allow women to be insolent, and homosexuals in places other than the hair salons or nailed to a fence.

This sounds ridiculous but it works. Rednecks in the South have been baited into voting against their own economic interests for generations because of this bullshit.
You know ElfPenis, this really isnt anything but one giant strawman. Frankly, I am a conservative, and liberal means none of these things to me. Perhaps you should consider the little issue of most conservatives not being racist hatfuckers who hate atheists and want women to be pregnant, barefoot in the kitchen. Jesus christ, liberals who act like you are just as bad as the conservative spin doctors you seem to hate sop much.

Could you please just try, for once, to stop looking for ways to be offended by something? Honestly, if it's something about gays and liberals, you harp about how you'll be hanging from a tree branch by a short rope in five years because of your sexual orientation, and if it's something about conservatives, you bitch about how you hate being associated with social regressives. Does every Libertarian have this whiny persecution complex?

Isn't it manifestly clear to you that this discussion is focused on "liberal" and "conservative" as they apply to social movements?

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-11-02 03:15pm

But then that's the problem with US politics; it's far too polarised to the extremes. If you're not a liberal, tree hugging hippy, you're a gun toting, Big Oil supporting conservative. Never seems to be much middle-ground.

THEHOOLIGANJEDI · Post by **THEHOOLIGANJEDI** » 2004-11-02 03:40pm

While I agree. I don't get the fact that the word Liberal is like a four letter. (Liberal is a 7 letter word

) What is really the worst of both extremes? I think Conservatism is the worst of the the evils.

Drooling Iguana · Post by **Drooling Iguana** » 2004-11-02 05:30pm

Durandal wrote:Does every Libertarian have this whiny persecution complex?

Yes.

Bugsby · Post by **Bugsby** » 2004-11-02 05:30pm

The problem is that "liberal" and "conservative" are being used to mean a whole bunch of things these days. There is an umbrella of "liberal" that is represented by pretty much the Democratic party platform, and an umbrella of "conservative" that is the Republican party platform. Most people have sentiments that fall under both broad categories, because people are more complex than party affiliation. But oh NO! We can't have that! People can't think for themselves and decide on the issues. That would be a fair and critical perspective, which is damaging to entrenched power structures.

Time for the propaganda machine to get fired up! Both parties start on hot-button topics that are designed to alienate the other side. "You might like social programs, but then you are a godless hippie who wants the terrorists to take over America." "You might like small government, but then you are supporting a dumb chimp who spends his time dumping toxic waste on baby kittens." The parties pick out one aspect of the OTHER party that is most undesirable to a certain demographic, and say that if you vote for the other guy, you are supporting this one horrid practice. This leads to demonization of the other party, and "liberal" and "conservative" become insults. This is by design. If you are allowed to sympathize with the liberals, you might not vote for Bush.

Drooling Iguana · Post by **Drooling Iguana** » 2004-11-02 05:32pm

And American politics is not polarized to the extremes, as there are no extreme left-wingers in America. At least, none that anyone cares about. It's extreme right-wing on one side, centrist on the other.

Yarcamos · Post by **Yarcamos** » 2004-11-02 05:49pm

Drooling Iguana wrote:And American politics is not polarized to the extremes, as there are no extreme left-wingers in America. At least, none that anyone cares about. It's extreme right-wing on one side, centrist on the other.

What the hell? This might qualify you for the bullshit statement of the month. One side is for abortion, the other is against it. One side is strongly in support of the War in Iraq, the other is against it. One side is for stem-cell research, the other is against it. I could go on and on. How when the opposite party takes the opposite view does it make it moderate?

Post by **Beowulf** » 2004-11-02 05:55pm

Yarcamos wrote:
Drooling Iguana wrote:And American politics is not polarized to the extremes, as there are no extreme left-wingers in America. At least, none that anyone cares about. It's extreme right-wing on one side, centrist on the other.
What the hell? This might qualify you for the bullshit statement of the month. One side is for abortion, the other is against it. One side is strongly in support of the War in Iraq, the other is against it. One side is for stem-cell research, the other is against it. I could go on and on. How when the opposite party takes the opposite view does it make it moderate?

When you're all the way out there on the left, everything seems conservative.

Xenophobe3691 · Post by **Xenophobe3691** » 2004-11-02 06:01pm

Yarcamos wrote:What the hell? This might qualify you for the bullshit statement of the month. One side is for abortion, the other is against it. One side is strongly in support of the War in Iraq, the other is against it. One side is for stem-cell research, the other is against it. I could go on and on. How when the opposite party takes the opposite view does it make it moderate?

Simple. Take a look at politics outside this nation. The Democratic Party, by global standards, is center right, and the Republican party far right. And thanks for the black/white fallacy, sir.

Batman · Post by **Batman** » 2004-11-02 06:02pm

Yarcamos wrote:What the hell? This might qualify you for the bullshit statement of the month. One side is for abortion, the other is against it. One side is strongly in support of the War in Iraq, the other is against it. One side is for stem-cell research, the other is against it. I could go on and on. How when the opposite party takes the opposite view does it make it moderate?

Moderate doesn't mean you have no stance on a particular question, you dolt.
Especially not on ones that are binary choices.
It means you're not out on the extreme edge of the politcal spectrum.
By all means tell me what you would consider a 'moderate' stand on the abortion issue.
While one might argue that Americas major parties are not polarized to the extremes (the left is no more communist than the right is fascist) they ARE extremly polarized (you're either for one side or the other).

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-11-03 02:03am

Xenophobe3691 wrote:
Yarcamos wrote:What the hell? This might qualify you for the bullshit statement of the month. One side is for abortion, the other is against it. One side is strongly in support of the War in Iraq, the other is against it. One side is for stem-cell research, the other is against it. I could go on and on. How when the opposite party takes the opposite view does it make it moderate?
Simple. Take a look at politics outside this nation. The Democratic Party, by global standards, is center right, and the Republican party far right. And thanks for the black/white fallacy, sir.

And this has exactly what to do with how Americans define left/right issues since the rest of the world has no voting rights in US elections?

Sure, by the standards of a lot of the world I'm a raving looney who is somewhere to the right of Hitler.

But by US standards, I'm merely one more fiscal conservative who has a strong libertarian streak on social policies in a state that's full of conservative voters.