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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mike Irwin:

Quite right. Before I'll believe them on that or any other issue, I want to see REAL VOTING RESULTS IN THE LEGISLATURES, both Federal as well as State. They're going to have to change their ways and voting patterns. Those leopards have to change their spots before I'll consider voting for them. Talk is cheap, and unfortunately (on both sides of the aisle) there is this tendency to tell the people what they want to hear and then vote completely differently once elected.
 
"but you're also saying that these people are so well meaning that they'd pass unwanted legislation and risk re-election?"


1994 Brady Bill?

1994 Assault Weapons Ban?

1994 Federal tax increase?

Anyone remember what happened in the 1994 mid term elections to many of the supporters of those pieces of legislation?

The 1994 tax increase was hugely unpopular with much of the country, especially given that the country was in the throes of a recession.

Yet that unwanted legislation was passed, and quite a few Democrats found themselves impaled on it.

Buehler? Anyone?
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but those bills were passed with Republican help.

In either case, it does not conflict with my point since those Dems were elected during a very pro-gun control movement in the US, one that Bush Sr. made one of the largest contributions to.
 
Marco Kloos

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

Try applying the same scientific principles to "intelligent design"... :p

"Intelligent design is not just a theory... it's intelligent!"


The order of the "creation", as described in Genesis, is EXACTLTY the same as has been discovered by the scientific community a few thousand years after the fact... :cool:

Looking HONESTLY at all the facets of a question IS SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH!

Liberals cannot seem to comprehend this methodology...
I think it's because they are DISHONEST... :mad:
 
"Methodology", as in the "start with a religious document and ignore whatever facts don't fit" methodology.


Believe whatever you want - that's what faith is. But don't pretend that biology, cosmology, geology, anthropology all have to be wrong to do it.

We don't find oil, predict earthquakes or new forms of matter by applying questionable math and modern translations to the Old Testament.

Adam may have been the first man, but the Bible has nothing to say about what the definition of "man" is. The story takes a very different turn if you are able to remember that they might not have been using biological species definitions.


Science is always poorly served when you bring your prejudices to the table. Presuming that your read of Genesis is scientifically correct is just that kind of prejudice.


Enough of that, if you want me to explain the above, PM me.
 
Where you go wrong Holly is your definition of "liberal". I tend to use the word as slander because I see the group "liberals" respresented by those who are the most selfish, the most elitist, and generally the most out of touch with reality.

These are the people who want to live their life anyway they want - morally, socially, sexually, whatever - and then have the government (which means the rest of us) pay for it when things get screwed up. They want to have children out of wedlock, or before they are finacially responsible, and then expect the gov't (the rest of us) to pay for it. [They want to whine about how Whitney needs more financial help because she has 2 kids, isn't married and has to work two jobs, without addressing WHY Whitney had 2 kids from 2 different men without being married]. They want to to experience sexual freedom and legalize drug use, and expect the government (the rest of us) to step in with AIDS funding. [They give Reagan no credit for winning the cold war, yet scream how he should have done more for AIDS victims]. They are selfish enough to think the gov't should take care of them whenever neccessary - give out free health care, free education, free housing - yet do not think this country is worth fighting for. They are selfish enough to think the wealthier portion of the population should chip in to pay their way because they don't want to work as hard. They are so selfish that they would allow their own kids to get an abortion without needing to know about it, just so their own freedom to abort any time any place isn't impacted. [they say they "need" an abortion, 'cause of medical issues, or 'cause they're not ready to have kids, without addressing WHY they got pregnant in the 1st place - twice!] They say they want want the government to stay out of their bedrooms, but think that same government should be the ones giving out free condems and fund abortion on demand. [If liberals don't want government involvment spelling out morality, then STOP DEPENDING ON THEM with regards to moral issues!]

They are elitist enough to honestly feel that "everybody thinks my way, or they should", and so naively, they do not understand about people who are truly evil in this world who would do them, do all of us, harm. And that interferes in the war against terrorism, the 2nd ammendment, the fight against crime (Tooky Williams anyone?), illegal immigration, the need for self-responsibility, foreign affairs, and a thousand other issues that they just don't get. It leads them to almost entirely view us, the US as the bad guy. They love to deplore US involvment in places like Vietnam (or Iraq) to the point where we can't win, without addressing the MILLIONS who were murdered there before and after we left by the scum we were fighting. They don't think America needs to have the strongest military, yet won't be the ones dying (as so many did needlessly vs the Japanese or Germans during WW2).

It is not a matter of just someone who disagrees with 'us'. It is that they want, NOT just to live their own life, but to live that life in a way as to rub everyone else's face in it, usually at everyone else's expense, and usually at the same time their representative organizations do all they can to limit or interfere with everyone else's freedoms of religion & expression, financial independence, life and liberty, child rearing, justice, traditions, education, etc. etc.

And these days liberals DON'T get their views passed through a majority of the vote, but instead rely more and more on liberal courts and representation by liberal leaders with their emotional half-truths and lies (and the backing up of the liberal media), to enforce their will. :barf:
 
Last edited:
The "Religious Right" (of which I am a proud member) is the 'tolerant' side in the most pure definition of the word. When the Christians I know meet someone who is a non-Christian, or one who does not have the same political views they do, they do not condemn them or brush them off.
Click to expand...

Bull.

They support your right to bear arms, and thats all that seems to matter.
Click to expand...
If I have to decide who to vote for, a turd who's pro gun, or a douche who is rabidly anti-gun, I'm voting for the turd. There are really only two parties so you're going to have to make up your mind, turd or douche. I'm guessing you picked the douche.

"Intelligent design" isn't a scientific theory. It is a theological theory that is dishonestly being offered as science.
Click to expand...
Yup.

There are holes in our theories of physics, but they don't concern the religious right so they haven't attacked and tried to convert it yet.

Although personally I have never seen or read an article detailing exactly why evolution is wrong. Its just generalised garbage about things being too complicated. Maybe these people don't realise we have been mutating, breeding, dying and being tested by nature for billions of years. You can see evolution in action, just look at photos and paintings from a few hundred years ago, its clear the majority of the population looks totally different.

Exactly how many people here believe that Earth was created however many years ago (2000 or some rubbish).
 
Pointer and shield20, thank you, I forgot that I was dishonest and elitist. That really was very constructive. If you'll excuse me, I must go and produce welfare babies and worship the devil now. :rolleyes:

OK, a little sarcastic, but this illustrates a key point about American politics today: it's not about morality, it's about ideology. The conservative Christian portion of the political right has done such a good job of painting its enemies as godless heathens that anybody who disagrees with it must be as such, regardless of whether or not they actually are. This plays well in an anxious age and the Republican Party was smart to capitalize on it.

Of course everybody thinks that God is on their side, of course everybody thinks that their side is honest, and of course everybody thinks that they represent the common man; nobody thinks of themselves as representing the interests of the godless, dishonest, and elitist, because being labelled as such is a death sentence in American politics. Whether or not God is on your side is not really a suitable topic for discussion here. Simply saying it certainly doesn't make it true - there's plenty of elitist attitudes, dishonesty, and godless behavior on all sides of the political spectrum.

Frankly, with new gun prices being what they are, being an owner of any gun that cost, say, more than $500 already puts you in an 'elite' higher-income category within American society than most, in that you have the disposable income for such luxuries. Unless of course, you're buying on credit ... :eek: I have to chuckle when I hear people decrying an entire political party as elitist, then in the same breath castigate other people for not owning guns, not owning enough guns, not owning expensive guns, etc. (and this is not directed at any one who posted here in particular). Many gun owners - if not most - are, in some sense, the same category of people as golfers - those who can afford to buy devices that cost in the low triple digits, supply maintain, and store them, pay range/club fees to use them, pay for training, pay for hunting licenses, CCW licenses, etc. And golf is an expensive sport ...
 
Last edited:
They want to to experience sexual freedom and legalize drug use, and expect the government (the rest of us) to step in with AIDS funding.
Click to expand...

Just to use this as an example...what about people who want sexual freedom and legalized drug use but also believe that no public funds should be spent on solving the problems that stem from those situation? Am I liberal because I believe in gay rights and freedom from religion or am I conservative because I am a strict capitalist that strongly believes in gun ownership? :confused:

The conservative Christian portion of the political right has done such a good job of painting its enemies as godless heathens
Click to expand...
I take it as a compliment when a bible thumper calls me godless. :p I respect the beliefs of others unless those beliefs are being pushed on me.
 
Although I don't agree with you on legalized drugs, sexual freedom is fine, gay rights are fine, actually just about anything is, as long as it does not inflict on, have an uninvited affect on, or depend on ANYone else (who is not willing to participate. You are (probably) not a liberal!

No sweat Lief - glad to help! :) YOU may be liberal, but not neccessarily dishonest - one doesn't have to go hand in hand with the other, or even elitism for that matter - that is usually best exampled by the Hollywood and Kerry/Kennedy types. There ARE other reasons for seeing things differently, just as long as ignorance or wishful thinking isn't one of them.

And your are right, God should be left out of the comparative discussion, too easy indeed to say "God is on MY side", or "Jesus was a liberal" (which he wasn't), or to blame Him for any incident (like Hurricanes), or count on Him alone to hand out justice, or to think His word is the one we should follow on things like abortion and the death penalty. I would rather rely on the real world, comon sense, history, historical and living examples, etc. preferably from as many sides/sources as possible.
 
Last edited:
I know, I know. It's all a big trick.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you'd like to pay a visit to Illinois where, lo and behold - draconian gun control is alive and on the move. You know Illinois - that blue state in the middle of a sea of red. With the Democrat governor, the Democrat Mayor of Chicago and the 4 years running of massive gun rights erosion.

Or how about California, where they tried a de-facto ban on AMMO last year.

Or NY, where there's a half dozen major gun banning bills on the roll at the moment.

I'll give you 3 guesses as to the political makeup of those states.

But sure, of course Democrats are giving up on gun control. Of course it's a bogus association to make.

Right. To quote Wayne Campbell, "and maybe monkeys might fly out of my butt".
 
"Correct me if I'm wrong, but those bills were passed with Republican help."

Yes, yes they were.

And your point is?

Maybe your point is the renewed Assault Weapons Ban?

Oh, whoops, my bad, that never even got started in a Republican-controlled Congress...

Silly me.

I don't know if you've ever sat down and really looked at the way the parties work, but very, very few legislative votes break down on purely ideological lines.

The point that you obviously didn't get is that the AWB and Brady Bill were not introduced nor were they championed by Republicans. As the chart up the page indicates, no successful anti-gun legislation has been introduced/championed by a Republican (at least none that I can think of).

Congress is made of up individuals who have their own consciences and agendas that also guide their actions. That's why you get so few votes that break down on purely ideological party lines.

So yes, those bills were passed with the help of individual Republicans who crossed party lines.

What wasn't the case, though? Ever more draconian gun control proposals aimed only at disarming law abiding citizens were NEVER the written national policy of the Republican party.

That can't be said of the Democratic party.
 
Leif said:
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...
Click to expand...
National Journal, a bipartisan magazine covering DC, ranks Senators according to their voting record. In 2003, the last full year available before Kerry's nomination, they ranked Kerry as the most liberal Senator in the country. More liberal than Hillary, more liberal than Daschle, more liberal than Boxer, more liberal than Schumer, more liberal than Feinstein, and even more liberal than Kennedy. No, I do not consider Kerry a "centrist with slight liberal leanings" for the best of reasons; it isn't so.
 
I do love a lively discussion !!!

And it would seem I opened a gigantic can of squealin' worms with this thread. LOL.
Perhaps I should have clarified some terminology in my original post. I will now do so. I am a classical or Jeffersonian liberal, someone who has a live and let live attitude. My beliefs are my beliefs, be they political or religious, and yours are yours. I won't try to impose mine on you and expect the same respect from you. Remember, the last time we mixed politics and religion people got burned at the stake. [yeah, yeah it's bumper sticker philosophy, but that doesn't make it any less true] The freedom of religion granted in the Bill of Rights also guarantees us a freedom FROM religion. After all, if the Quakers had their way, none of us would have guns.
Now, to get back to gun related topics... if the Republican Party is so friendly to RKBA, why is the largest gun-grabbing group in this country run by Sarah Brady? [remember Jim, her husband? Republican in Reagan administration? shot at the same time Reagan was shot.] And the attempted ban on Ammo in CA, doesn't that state have a Rep. governor? And IIRC wasn't Reagan, the great Republican demi-god the gov. of CA?
Oh, and just to clarify, not all people who consider themselves liberal [like me, even though I'm pro-death penalty I'm also pro-choice,but I think that if we educate our kids on birth control, including abstention,and provide condoms {yep I can hear y'all screaming already} maybe we wouldn't have teens leading the ranks of the newly HIV infected.]... who consider themselves liberal... don't necessarily vote a straight Dem. ticket. I consider myself an independent, and cast my vote for whomever I think is the best person for the job.
So you see there are liberals, like me who support RKBA,death penalty, and think sex offenders are toxic waste and are allowed to roam in society at our peril, support welfare to work programs and universal insurance coverage for children. So don't try to put me in what your definition of liberal and democrat are.
 
Now, to get back to gun related topics... if the Republican Party is so friendly to RKBA, why is the largest gun-grabbing group in this country run by Sarah Brady?
Click to expand...
Have you ever heard of a RINO? Republican In Name Only.

So don't try to put me in what your definition of liberal and democrat are.
Click to expand...
If I remember you were the one that started the thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top