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

[Mike Irwin]

"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."

You know, no one ever said that A) life was going to be easy, or B) you were guaranteed a job for life. No where in the Constitution does it say that every American is guaranteed a $100,000+ a year job with cradle to grave benefits and health care.

Life can be harsh. Promises made can be promises broken. I feel for people who have lost their jobs, or who have had promises that were made to them broken. I've been in that situation before. But you know what? This is the United States, where it's far easier to reinvent oneself than virtually anywhere else on the face of the earth.


Take a look at how many industrial jobs were lost during the Carter era, and how many were gained during the Reagan era.

Now, take a look at any two periods in American history, and you're going to find something very interesting...

Scenarios like the ones you mark out above are not unusual. THEYRE THE NORM.

That's because economies fluctuate. To hear many, the American economy is on the verge of catastrophic collapse because so many jobs are being exported overseas, yadda yadda yadda. Fantasy.

 

[Handy]

The main thing I take from posts like Jack's is that many conservatives are very big on acting like every issue is black and white, good and bad.

I have no idea how Progun, Prolife and Prodeathpenalty all ended up being the bastian of one party, but I'm amazed how many people will tow the line no matter what crap is attached to it, and then put down everyone else like they're Fascists.


No one group could possibly have all the right answers.





Except for the Souther Baptists, of course.

 

[Tim Burke]

No one group could possibly have all the right answers.

And yet, it is possible for one group to have all the wrong answers.

And you think the Democratic party of today is anything like what it was 10, 20, 30, 40, or 50 years ago?

The Democratic party of 50 years ago, taken as a whole, was probably more conservative than every one in Congress now, save for Ron Paul.

 

[Handy]

And yet, it is possible for one group to have all the wrong answers.

Like when Democrats protest search and seizure violations?

Sure, all bad.

 

[gb_in_ga]

The Democratic party of 50 years ago, taken as a whole, was probably more conservative than every one in Congress now, save for Ron Paul.

Odd thing about that observation is that Ron Paul really isn't a conservative at all -- he's a Libertarian (former Presidental candidate) flying under the 'Pub banner -- a Classical Liberal. Another thing to keep in mind about the 'Rats of 50 years ago was that they were still in the FDR "New Deal" and "Big Labor" mindset -- which was not at all conservative, but was instead enamored of big government and collectivism. At least, back then in the pre-Nam days, they weren't overtly embracing Communists and Socialists as they had the pragmatism that allowed them to see that wouldn't fly with the electorate -- at least they knew who the enemy was.

 

[Fremmer]

Considering that this a gun-related forum, I suppose that I'm not surprised that liberals and/or democrats are castigated, considering their group's position on gun control and guns in general. If this were a pro-abortion or an environmental forum, I suppose that the conservatives and/or republicans would be castigated.

One observation that I have is how the term "liberal" has evolved to become associated with something bad, even with the general public and with liberals themselves. It has gotten to the point that liberals are re-labeling themselves "progressives." I don't see conservatives trying to relabel themselves as something other than conservatives (although I do see liberals attempting to describe republicans/conservatives as "neo-conservatives" in a derogatory fashion, which doesn't really seem to be catching on too well). I have a very liberal friend who refuses to call herself a liberal; she will take great effort when speaking to me or other non-liberals (if that is what I am -- I'm still trying to figure out how to classify myself ) to describe herself as a progressive, or as being in the "middle" or "mainstream", despite the fact that she is certainly liberal.

I'm not trying to argue whether liberals are good or bad; the point of my post is about how the term "liberal" has evolved in meaning to the point that even liberals themselves want to avoid it.

 

[gb_in_ga]

It has gotten to the point that liberals are re-labeling themselves "progressives."

Good point. Granted, I wouldn't have called them liberals in the first place, because they aren't. Them calling themselves "progressives" is, in my mind, "marketing speak". They know that most people favor true progress (implication: more liberty leading towards a more utopian society), so they seek to associate themselves with that term. The problem with that objectively speaking is that they make the assumption that people like me would view their platform as being truely progressive, meaning promoting the making of progress in a positive fashion. I feel that their agenda is anything but that -- it is instead making progress toward socialist/communist totalitarianism. What was done was that the far left unilaterally laid the label of "progressive" on themselves without changing their ideological stance in order to actually make it so. Hence, through my mental filters, the term "progressive" becomes just yet another hijacked synonym for "Leftist" like what was done with the term "Liberal". It is sad that the language gets perverted in this manner. Well, at least they are no longer claiming to be proponents of Liberty (implication of the term "Liberal"), so it is somewhat of a move towards "truth in advertising".

 

[Musketeer]

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?

Better yet let's teach them about Flying Spagetti Monsterism...

http://www.venganza.org/

I am more Libertarian than anything. There are those way out on the fringe right who I disagree with. The difference in my opinion between the Democrats/Liberals and the Republican/Conservatives is that the lunatic fringe of the Democratic party is what is in charge. I do not think that is true with the Right. I am anti Neo-Con and am glad to see they are starting to see a backlash against them. I see no backlash against the nuts in the Democratic party.

To sum up why I use Democrat and liberal as an insult, it would simply be rude to use the words I would prefer to use in a forum where minors might be present.

Those who say they are liberal gun owners, who do you vote for? Who do you send money to? Do you really think they will honor any Constitutional right if they don't honor your 2A rights?

 

[ReadyOnTheRight]

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

I'm not sure why they are considered insults. If a person believes in liberal or Democrat convictions, why would it be offensive to use those words?

I am also a liberal [my personal definition of a liberal is someone who doesn't seek to impose their morals on someone else and expects the same]

"No working man ever prospered under a Republican administration"

And it seems to me that a fair percentage [ not all, but more than I'm comfortable with] of Conservative Christians want to force all Americans to think and worship and behave as they do or be branded Godless, Socialistic, liberal, Democratic, scum.

Throw in:
"Republicans are Racist"
"The Easter Bunny"
"Relax - We don't want your guns, we just want common sense gun control"

and you have a nice 6-pack of myths.

Get the Democrat Party to truly support RKBA and stop imposing their morals onto me and I'm there.

In the meantime, I will work on bringing the Repubs back to the Constitution - a much more realistic goal IMHO.

 

[gb_in_ga]

In the meantime, I will work on bringing the Repubs back to the Constitution - a much more realistic goal IMHO.

That's pretty much my aim as well. Somehow the Religious Right needs to be convinced that Legislating Morality is a bad idea (morality is the job of the Church, not the State), and that's not going to be an easy task. Likewise, weaning the porksters from their influence peddling won't be easy, either, but at least since the party platform pays lip service towards fiscal frugality, they can be shamed into it given enough pressure -- which you really can't do with the 'Rats, as frugality isn't part of their platform.

It seems to me that the hard left wing of the 'Rats have run off the center and right of that party, as Zell Miller has pointed out. (Incidentally, those who left and went to the 'Pubs are the REAL neo-cons, the new conservative converts from the left, never mind what the Left wants to paint the entirety of the 'Pubs). Hard core Leftists claiming that they are "moderates" or "centrists" does not make it true, they are still hard core Leftists never mind their claims. Talk is cheap, so look at the voting records. It seems to me that the 'Pubs have not embraced the desire to "purge" those who do not cling to the most radical fringes, making for a much larger body of voters with a much more diverse spectrum of ideologies, which makes it a much more viable party in the long run. They have the makings of a real, viable ruling coalition, as they have pretty well established that they are in possession of the actual political center, and have therefore become "mainstream" in fact.

 

[Redworm]

Somehow the Religious Right needs to be convinced that Legislating Morality is a bad idea (morality is the job of the Church, not the State)

The religious right is the primary reason I can't see myself supporting the Republicans. I believe it was Time (maybe Newsweek) that did a report on many influential religious leaders who feel that Bush and the Republican party "owes" them legislation toward their agendas because they believe the religious right is responsible for his reelection.

But then I see many conservatives in this thread claiming that the left is also trying to legislate morality so you're right that it would be a very difficult thing to do. I think Rich said it best when pointing out that people who only care about the second amendment while ignoring attacks on the other nine seem to have an out-of-balance view of the issues. The right to bear arms means absolutely nothing if the rights to privacy as well as free religion and speech are ignored.

 

[Ohio Annie]

I agree with Mr. Lucibella

" Personally, I think we should turn a blind eye to party affiliation. Politicians should be branded based on their actions and statements regarding personal liberties, personal responsibilities and personal rights in the face of a monolithic government weight on all of the above."

This is the principle of "by their fruits you shall know them" and it holds for holier-than-thou religious people too.

I am a middle of the roader and get run over by the bus regularly.

 

[Leif]

The difference in my opinion between the Democrats/Liberals and the Republican/Conservatives is that the lunatic fringe of the Democratic party is what is in charge. I do not think that is true with the Right.

People tend to forget that if the 'lunatic fringe' (whatever exactly that may be, but I'll take it to mean extreme left) of the Democratic Party controlled it, then centrists such as Clinton and Kerry would never have made it as far as they did. Of course, if you do not consider Clinton and Kerry as centrists with slight liberal leanings, as I'm sure a great many people who respond to this post will not (so flame away, because you will), then of course you think that the Democratic Party is controlled by a 'lunatic fringe'. It's this sort of ideological entrenchment that plagues political debates of all sorts, guns included, in this country, and both sides are very guilty of it. The left 'knows' what the right stands for, and the right 'knows' what the left stands for, and nobody can tell them anything different. If you want to see fringe, go look at the Greens or (gasp! dare I say it), the Libertarians; doesn't mean they're right or wrong, but the average American probably considers both the 'lunatic fringe' in the same breath.

The comment was made that one side was ostensibly better at not imposing its morals on the other, which was countered with a statement that the reverse was true. Guess what ... both parties have agendas, some of which are based on arguments about morality, some of which are not. I think that a lot of time is wasted here basically trying to convince proponents of one side of the inherent fallacies of their positions, left or right, Democratic or Republican. I would think that the ill-defined population labelled as "American gun owners" would be better served by setting aside some of their ideological seldgehammers - agree to disagree if you will - and concentrate on preserving what it has rather than cudgeling those that a subset of that population deems traitors in their midst.

Wishful thinking, probably ...

 

[Handy]

Did the Democratic party not announce recently that gun control was a losing issue for them and will not continue to be a national platform item?



I know, I know. It's all a big trick.

 

[Musketeer]

People tend to forget that if the 'lunatic fringe' (whatever exactly that may be, but I'll take it to mean extreme left) of the Democratic Party controlled it, then centrists such as Clinton and Kerry would never have made it as far as they did.

Who is Chairman of the DNC? You are going to tell me he isn't a left wing nut...

Did the Democratic party not announce recently that gun control was a losing issue for them and will not continue to be a national platform item?

It sure as hell is a part of their state platform though! Check out the bills in the NY Seante and Assembly, or any other state fighting for 2A rights.

 

[Handy]

That's what those states want to hear. Other often Dem states don't.


The left wing nut was made the chair of the DNC because he is an amazing fundraiser.

And he was the one that announced the end of the gun control platform.

 

[Mike Irwin]

"Did the Democratic party not announce recently that gun control was a losing issue for them and will not continue to be a national platform item?"

Yes, yes they did.

But I have to wonder (actually, it doesn't require much brain power to think it through)...

Did the Democrats do that because they've seen the light regarding ownership of firearms by responsible, law abiding citizens?

Or is it just another calculated ploy to help them win elections by saying to people "SEE! We don't want your guns, we dropped gun control as a national platform!"

How long do you really think that new rational would last were the Democrats to seize power again? "It's OK! We can trust them! They're politicians! All of them!"

Nope, no politician has ever broken a promise, changed a view point, blah blah blah.

So yes, Handy, ultimately it is a big trick, one that politicians of every party play to get their sorry carcasses elected to office.

Anyone who thinks that gun control wouldn't come screaming back to the Democrat's front ticket is a fool.

 

[Jart]

Nice thread.

But asking why "democrat" and "liberal" aren't terms that are greeted with open arms here strikes me as rather disingenuous.

This is a firearms forum. One would expect that members here are pro-RKBA. Although there are exceptions, individuals and groups associated with the terms "democrat" and "liberal" have lead the charge to gut the second amendment.

The response from a forum comprised of people that are diametrically opposed to the concept of eliminating firearms might be considered predictable.

That's not to say that some members might not be sympathetic to certain positions shared by "democrats" and/or "liberals".

However, these areas would be grossly off-topic, contrary to forum rules, divisive or a combination of the foregoing. Given a hypothetical member that was anti-death penalty, pro right-to-die, pro-choice, pro small government, anti-war-on-drugs, an atheist that doesn't mind the 10 commandments being displayed but cringes at the idea of ID being taught as science and an avid shooter, what's he going to post about that a "democrat" or "liberal" will find common ground with?

War on drugs: possibly on topic. Fodder for "militarization of the police" "no knock" and similar threads that will devolve into cop bashing or, at minimum, be accused of devolving into an "us vs them" thread.

Everything else has only the most tenuous connection to firearms and would rightly be locked as off-topic.

There are places for discussions of all these issues. TFL, I humbly submit, isn't it.

If the topic is firearms, avowed democrats should not be particularly surprised by the reception. Nobody will ever know how many members might be right with you on any number of other issues because, well, this is a firearms forum.

 

[Leif]

[delete - it wasn't very good anyway]

 

[Handy]

Well, I guess you can call me a fool.

It's all fine and good to talk about powermad politicians, but you're also saying that these people are so well meaning that they'd pass unwanted legislation and risk re-election?


I guess that makes sense, since Reps keep talking about gun rights and help pass more gun control law.