Why are "Liberal" and "Democrat" hurled as insults?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nice Thread

To keep it on topic/gun related......"take what you want, just leave the guns"

1. Holly et al. If you shoot, and you are friendly/tolerant, you're a friend of mine. I do not care about politics when I am shooting, just like I don't care about race/religion/creed/etc when we are shooting. Why? because we have something in common, we have an opening to discuss our differences and similarities. And if you enjoy a good beer or whiskey after a day at the range, all the better.

2. +1 to Rich [/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

Everyday there are news stories about how we are going to be "safer" with some new "bigger Government" idea about homeland defense etc.

3. I personally choose to vote along 2nd amendment rights...because if they can say the 2nd amendment is not an individual right, they can go after other individual rights.

4. please don't categorize me as liberal or conservative or anything else, I am a free thinker, I choose to be informed on both sides of an issue and will make my own choice and beliefs.

MarkTT I think you hit it on the head, both parties are for big government, they just differ on how to get there, and distribute the money....One will create jobs through big G, the other will redistribute taxes through big G.

armd_rt_wingr....Well if those old North Koreans get frisky I am here to send a few rounds their way....As for the ol "illegals" well if a few more people did their own work around the house, maybe they wouldn't be a problem, but on the other hand, if you're hear to work...cool, but not everyone who comes to the states is here to work (at least not in the usual sense).
 
Like refusing to offer intelligent design NEXT to evolution and letting students judge for themselves because evolution is just a theory?
Click to expand...

The theory of evolution is not "just a theory." It's a scientific theory.

A theory in scientific parlance does not mean the same as "theory" in common usage. A theory in science is "a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations made that is predictive, logical, testable, and has never been falsified." It does not mean it's a hunch, a guess, or something that someone made up in a minute while standing in the shower.
 
I think one of the biggest barriers we have to defeating the gun control mindset is the Conservative habit of insisting that only Republicans want guns. This falacy becomes a self fulfilling prophecy where anyone who doesn't feel like a Republican (I certainly don't, most days) presumes that they don't want any part of any "Republican" platform item.

Firearms don't need to be a partisan issue. When firearm proponents stop using the 'us and them' language in relation to party, it will allow for more Democrats to drop the issue, or even vote the other way.

I can't believe some of you excuse the Republicans for the '89 import ban.


Rich and Marko,
I don't know why you and other mods tolerate the language used against liberals on YOUR forum. "Democrap" is a highly insulting term used in 220 threads. How does such pejoritive language aimed at nearly half of Americans (and therefore, many TFLers) fail to be a "personal attack"? If you guys don't feel that your website is anti-Democrat/liberal, shouldn't you demand members act like it?
 
From the party of tolerance and acceptance...

I think the majority of you are selfish, spiteful, intolerant, hateful cowards.
Click to expand...

And yet Holly asks, why are "Liberal" and "Democrat" hurled as insults?
The fact that you heard something for 40 years at the dinner table doesn't make it true, especially when it is demonstrable false. Look at the Carter years, and look at the Reagan years, and tell me working people weren't better off under Reagan. In the Soviet Union, people were told similar lies for 70 years... they weren't true either.

Unfortunately, we now have 2 parties for big, intrusive government. I don't care what you label it, big, intrusive government is the problem, not the solution.
 
Mark TT - I have re-thought my earlier post. I don't really want to get into a rat-fight about grammar. If what you say is clear, even if misspelt and inelegant, I can live with it. Unfortunately what you have had to say is complete rubbish and not worth any sort of reply at all.
 
Last edited:
I found both of your posts pointless.

onto

• preposition variant form of on to (see ON).

— USAGE The preposition onto written as one word (instead of on to) is widely used, but is still not wholly accepted as part of standard British English. It is also important to note the distinction between the preposition onto or on to and the use of the adverb on followed by the preposition to: she climbed on to (or onto) the roof but let’s go on to (not onto) the next point.
-from AskOxford.com
 
I don't know why you and other mods tolerate the language used against liberals on YOUR forum. "Democrap" is a highly insulting term used in 220 threads. How does such pejoritive language aimed at nearly half of Americans (and therefore, many TFLers) fail to be a "personal attack"? If you guys don't feel that your website is anti-Democrat/liberal, shouldn't you demand members act like it?
Click to expand...

Handy, +1.

Holly, anymore, I stay away from the Legal and Political forum in large part because of this type of behavior. It's not that I'm thin-skinned, but rather that I don't like wasting my time discussing issues with people who absolutely refuse to disengage from juvenile namecalling and who continually substitute what I like to call the "rhetorical drive-by" for an actual argument. I have enough to worry about in my life than to expend any effort on responding to people who seem intent on viewing me as their sworn enemy. It's not that I think I'm some brilliant person (which I most certainly am not), that somehow this is beneath me, or even that I haven't done some of this myself, it's just that after 'getting into it' here as a liberal gun-owner for a while I decided my time and political activism energies were better spent elsewhere than in debating a few individuals possessed of a particularly nasty rhetorical style about whether or not I should be shot for my apparent treason (OK, slight exaggeration, but you get the idea, otherwise you wouldn't be asking the question). Basically, I'm not a masochist ... I like to enjoy my time here.

Good luck. Don't worry, not everybody uses 'liberal' and 'Democrat' as derogatory terms. However, the ones that don't ... tend not to get into it too much on this board.

And now, I fade away from L&P ... back to lurking.
 
Nobody’s reading my link (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=177135 ) so I’ll give you the short form.

Essentially, somebody tried to float the idea that Democrats were no more trying to ban guns than Republicans, and that therefore we should not refuse to vote Democrat for because of a perceived Democrat anti-gun platform. As you can probably imagine, this was resoundingly proven wrong. The crushing response was Bartholomew Roberts’ post (#18):

If you still have all of your guns, it is certainly not because of Democrats.

Let's take a look at federal gun control legislation, shall we?

1934 National Firearms Act - proposed by Democrat, signed by Democratic President.

1968 Gun Control Act - proposed by Democrat, signed by Democratic President

1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act - proposed by Republican, the one gun control provision added (closing the NFA registry to civilians) is added by a Democrat controlled House

1994 Brady Law - proposed by Democrat, signed by a Democratic President

1994 Assault Weapons Ban - proposed by a Democrat, signed by a Democratic President

Let's look at some of the past bills supported by recent Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry:

Kerry co-sponsored S.1431 - the bill expanding the ban on semi-auto weapons to include guns such as the Remington 1187 he was photographed with on the campaign trail.

Kerry voted twice to kill the CMP. If he doesn't trust you with 1903 bolt-actions and Garands, what does he trust you with?

Kerry voted in March 2004 to extend the existing semi-auto ban.

When Kerry mentor and top Democrat Ted Kennedy stood up in february 2004 to introduce his bill saying:

"Another rifle caliber, the 30.30 caliber, was responsible for penetrating three officers' armor and killing them in 1993, 1996, and 2002. This ammunition is also capable of puncturing light-armored vehicles, ballistic or armored glass, armored limousines, even a 600-pound safe with 600 pounds of safe armor plating.

It is outrageous and unconscionable that such ammunition continues to be sold in the United States of America." (Page S1634 of the Congressional Record, February 26, 2004)

John Kerry voted YES to ban .30-30 and other centerfire rifle ammo as armor-piercing.

Of course, all of that is from 2004 - shall we look at current gun control legislation sponsored by Democrats in Congress to see what they have planned for us in the future? Shall we look to Democrat controlled New Orleans in the wake of Katrina for an answer? Should we look to the new wave of weapons banned in California every year?

Better yet, in the interests of brevity, why don't you just list for us all the pro-gun legislation introduced by Democrats this year?

We have all read the same Dem strategy paper advanced by Americans For Gun Safety that basically tries to repackage the old Democratic gun control agenda as a "gun safety issue" while at the same time being less openly hostile to gun owners (I.e. "I support the Second Amendment; but you should still be registered, licensed and tracked like sex offenders when you are allowed to own guns at all"). The Dems need a REAL pro-gun strategy if they want pro-gun votes.
Click to expand...
 
1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act - proposed by Republican, the one gun control provision added (closing the NFA registry to civilians) is added by a Democrat controlled House
Click to expand...
And passed by a Republican controlled Senate.
 
Like refusing to offer intelligent design NEXT to evolution and letting students judge for themselves because evolution is just a theory?
Click to expand...

Ha! That's a funny one. While we're at it, why don't we offer the students a globe and the theory that the earth is flat, and let them pick? Why don't we offer them Gravity vs. Intelligent Falling in Physics class, and let them decide? Why don't have biology teachers talk about reproduction and the idea that a stork delivers babies? Why don't we let them view an earth-centric solar system and a heliocentric one, and let them judge which is right?

That's a good one. :rolleyes:

Anyway...on topic: as a liberal, I stay outta these threads for the most part because it tends to be a long list of conservatives espousing their ideas of what it means to be a liberal--and they're usually way off--and suggesting that they know better than YOU do what your core values and beliefs are. Which, in the end...isn't very productive.
 
Fiscally, my most traumatic time was under Bill Clinton, and the last 6 years of George Bush have been a roll in the frigging green.
Click to expand...
Tell it to the thousands of industrial workers who have been laid off and whos jobs have been sent offshore or the seniors and veterans whos bennefits have been cut during the gwb term. If you are "rolling in the green" under gwb you must be in the oil business, some military support industry or an alien transporter----or maybe flipping burgers at the local arches.
 
"Intelligent design" isn't a scientific theory. It is a theological theory that is dishonestly being offered as science.
 
One last thought - I think that adherents of both parties have forgotten the adage about catching flies with honey vs. vinegar. The 'gun debate' in the US seems to have polarized into camps of "You're talking away my rights, you Demosocialist numbnut!" vs. "You're killing my children, you Republicofascist idiot!" with few if any people seeking any real sort of political comprimise; it's become a battle between ideologues rather than a discourse between pragmatists. Naturally, this is not limited to guns, but applies to a good many other issues currently at the fore these days. Most Americans are in the middle on most issues these days, or possibly slightly right of middle; either way, that vast middle probably wants comprimise and safety above all else (and too much, sometimes), so any solution will have to be characterized by those two factors/characteristics. I generalize, but to this casual observer it seems that way.

Just a thought ...
 
"Democrap" is a highly insulting term used in 220 threads. How does such pejoritive language aimed at nearly half of Americans (and therefore, many TFLers) fail to be a "personal attack"?
Click to expand...
A personal attack is a direct attack on character of a TFL Member. A direct personal attack on a politician or a "group" might be cause for action by Staff; but then we'd be no better than the average public high school....The motto, "Insult No Group" is a wonderful goal; unfortunately, one cannot enforce it without:
a) Injecting personal values into the enforcement
b) Demanding the same politically correct pablum that we can watch on the Tube daily.
c) Ending all attempts at passionate debate.

As someone who is neither Liberal, Conservative, Democrat or Republican, my own positions are often attacked by broad brush. I live with it.

To those who feel the Republicans are the only hope for the Second Amendment: don't look now, but they're stealing away with the Fourth. Any man or woman who is passionate only about the Second, while willing to allow "reasonable exceptions" to any of the other Nine is unfortunately not a Civil Libertarian; he's simply an individual with an out-of-balance attachment to guns vs Civil Liberties.

For them, were Gun Rights not embodied in the Bill of Rights, that document would have no more value than to the "Liberals" they decry. I see this daily with Conservative attacks on the Fourth Amendment. Nobody cares. That's a sad thought.
Rich
 
Rich,

I certainly won't disagree with some of Holly's points.

But the fact remains that even today, with the groundswell changes that have gone on in the parties over the years, the Democrats are still far and away representative of things that I'm not, or which I abhore. In that weight and balance of things, the Republicans come out far better, so I'm still a Republican.

Big government? That's a canard by both parties. Neither party has an interest in, or even the ability to, shrink government to any substantial degree.

It's a pipe dream. I recognized that 20 some years ago when Reagan made such good time with it.
 
"a liberal is someone who doesn't seek to impose their morals on someone else and expects the same"


WHAT?????

I missed that in your original message, Holly.

That's a particularly fine fantasy that you have going there.

Politically correct speech. Gay marriage. Abortion. Affirmative Action. Welfare.

The Democrats have "morals based" positions on those, and many other subjects that they continually force on Americans. It's truly sad that they've brain washed so many Americans into believing that these really aren't morals based positions.

To hear many in the Democratic party, it's the moral obligation of every working American to pay roughly their entire wage to support a large segment of the population that has decided that lifelong dependence on welfare is much better than trying to find a job.

As Lyndon Johnson first envisioned it as a part of the Great Society, welfare was to be a helping hand in time of trouble. Democrats in his own party over time effectively stripped out many of the provisions that would have made bettering oneself possible. In essence, the Democrats used the morality play of "we have to help these people in perpetutity" to create a new slave society.
 
I am amazed at how some of the "gwb regardless-radical right" group takes every opportunity to group the democrates but shy away from doing the same with the republicans. They are undoubtedly the worst group this country has ever had for formenting division of the people in the quest to further their own agenda. As I recall that icon of the right, the "girlie" movie star gov of california has supported some anti gun legislation and If a california voter goes in the booth and pulls the party leaver he is voting for him again. In my own opinion any one who votes a straight party ticket should not even be allowed to vote at all-should take that option off the ballot.
This same radical group repeatedly bashes the "liberal" news media and if not for the media gwb would not have been re-elected. It was the news media that run the anti Kerry stuff that certainly accounted for enough votes for W to win. Perhaps they are just paranoid about the whole deal!
The facts are that the democratic party of today is no more the Democratic party of our ancestors than is the republican party of today the Republican party of our ancestors.
As the late George Wallace of Alabama use to say, "put all the pointed heads in washington, democrates and republicans, in a sack and shake um up and you got a sack full of it."
 
Mark,

"Are you republican folk unable to objectively look at your own party? Im thinking alot of you havent the slightest clue what theyre up to. "

And you're claiming a monopoly on pure objectivity when viewing the Democratic, or even Republican, parties?

I believe that a number of people here have stated that they don't agree with everything that the Republican party does. I've also alluded to that in my messages. I think that that very clearly indicates the ability to objectively look at the Republican party.



"Your republican party of today is not the republican party of yesterday."

And you think the Democratic party of today is anything like what it was 10, 20, 30, 40, or 50 years ago? What are you smoking, and where can I get some? I'd love to see through those glasses.


"I think the majority of you are selfish, spiteful, intolerant, hateful cowards."

Nice collective personal attack.

In what way do you think we're selfish, spiteful, intolerant, and hateful?

Would it be in the same way that many of the Democrats, who preach tolerance, pull out all of the stops in describing those on the other side of the aisle who disagree with them?

I love how the Democratic definition of tolerance is "you will accept my views lockstep, if you don't, you're intollerant."

Likewise, I love how the Democratic definition of being unselfish seems to revolve around "give all of your earnings to the government so that it can be redistributed to drug addicts and people who would rather get a free ride than working. If you don't, you're selfish."

Thanks, I may be my brother's keeper in a Judeo-Christian sense (a concept that the Democrats abhore), but I'm certainly not my brother's free meal ticket for life. (a concept that the Democrats absolutely love).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top