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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Your joking right Holly? It isn't Arnold who is pushing for anti-gun measures in CA, nor was it Reagan.

Some facts...

AB50 (Koretz - Dem) .50 Caliber Rifle Ban
AB992 (Ridley-Scott - Dem) Ammo Tax
SB601 (Perata - Dem) .50 Caliber Handgun Ban
AB342 (Koretz - Dem) Anti-Hunting
AB996 (Ridley-Thomas) Ammo storage inaccessible
AB1190 (Nation - Dem) Anti-Hunting
SB489 (Scott - Dem) Semi-Auto Handgun Bill
SB 357 (Dunn - Dem) Ammo serial numbers
AB 352 (Koretz - Dem) SA microstamping
AB 944 (Ridley-Thomas- Dem) Dealer Warnings
AB 88 (Koentz - Dem) AW Penalties
H.R. 2038/S. 1431, (McCarthy D-N.Y. & Lautenberg D-N.J.) Sweeping AW Ban to replace Cintons '94 ban

AB 448 (La Sauer - CA REP) AW Ban Repeal


"several Democrat lawmakers crafted House Bill 1210 to include firearms as weapons of mass destruction.

"The Democrat-led Assembly will continue to push for anti-gun laws that weren't included in legislation passed in a special session this week " (NY)

"DCS - Internet Advocacy Group that's used by a list of who's who in the Democrat party as well as the official PR firm for the Democrat leadership Council (DLC) that Sen. Hillary Clinton is the 'Chair' member. DCS has registered a bogus 'Pro-Gun' sportsmen group in the attempt to make it appear as hunters and trap shooters are in favor of Assault weapon 'bans as well as other anti gun related issues. This made up group called The American Hunters and Shooters Association (AHSA), who will inevitably be used in future Democrat led anti gun campaigns in the near future as so called 'expert' witnesses or a 'sane' voice of sportsmen. just so the anti gun democrats can grandstand for gun control non-issues via their willing accomplishes in the press" (all three groups are in the same office in DC)

"S. 1805/6, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, states at the beginning “Citizens have a right, protected by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, to keep and bear arms....The entire Democratic anti-gun leadership remains in the Senate: Dianne Feinstein, Ted Kennedy, Charles Schumer, Frank Lautenberg, John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton. You will find their names on all the anti-gun amendments added to S. 1805/6 that resulted in its dismissal. "


It goes on and on...yes there are Republicans who favor gun-control, but it is overwhelmingly the (liberal) democrats who push this anti-constitutional horse poop in CA, (and nationally)...all backed by the same selfish liberal elitists who think giving sex surveys to elemetary school children is OK, and that 13 yr girls should get abortions without telling their parents.


"And, I know the sense of helplessness that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself because that's what I did. I was trained in firearms. I'd walk to the hospital when my husband was sick. I carried a concealed weapon. I made the determination that if somebody was going to try to take me out, I was going to take them with me." BUT "Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe...If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out right ban, picking up every one of them... "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it." Elitist Ass Diane Feinstein - CA Dem

"a federal district court in California recently held that a school district's distribution of a sexually-explicit survey to elementary school children did not violate the parents' substantive due process rights....in a district-wide study of first, third and fifth grade children"

"A Shrewsbury, MA school passed out a sex survey to 11- and 12-year-olds in May, asking them, among other things, how many oral sex partners they have had."



Holly, maybe you should be less concerned with which group you think we try to put you in with, and more concerned with the group YOU put yourself in with.
 
"So don't try to put me in what your definition of liberal and democrat are."

I put you in the category of liberal and democrat because you put yourself there as one of that party's supporters.

That's good enough for me.

While you, PERSONALLY, may deviate from the standard Democratic script, you apparently still adhere to and support that party.

You know what that makes you?

That makes you the same as just about every other voter in this country. Very few people support the complete script of one party or another to the exclusion of all else.

Even elected Democrats and Republicans don't support their parties 100% of the time.

There are Democrats in the house and senate who are anti-abortion, pro-death penalty, and pro-gun rights, just as there are Republicans who are pro-choice, anti-death penalty, and anti-gun rights.

I'm not at all certain why you think that your particular stance makes you something special in the political world.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, that would have helped. Although I'm not sure that you are properly characterizing Jefferson's "live and let live" view -- he certainly didn't have such a view concerning the American Revolution.

So don't try to put me in what your definition of liberal and democrat are.
Click to expand...

Well, once again, this is not our fault; we didn't know that you consider yourself a "Jeffersonian" liberal (whatever that means).

You cannot deny that the liberals in congress (including Pelosi, Kennedy, Boxer, Kerry, etc.) are strong supporters of gun control/gun elimination legislation. This might have something to do with the general dislike of liberals (or, at least of the aforementioned congressional liberals) by some of the members in this forum; after all, TFL is a "virtual community dedicated to the discussion and advancement of responsible firearms ownership." Sort of like the same reason that I imagine the terms "conservative" and "republican" are used in an insulting manner in NARAL's chatroom/forum.
 
"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 your point is?

Are you somehow trying to say that Handgun Control, Inc., or Brady Campaign, whatever it is, is an official entity of the Republican Party of the United States?

Few points...

It's pretty clear that Sarah and Jim Brady are not Republicans, because the Republican party doesn't support their desire to enact "sensible gun control legislation." Remember, by sensible = bans on possession and ownership of many, if not all, firearms.

They routinely come out AGAINST Republican nominees and candidates. How long do you think that they would stick around if they were party officials and doing that?

Jim and Sarah Brady hold no official party party affiliation. To the best of my knowledge, NEITHER of them has ever held an official party position. Jim Brady was employed as a member of Reagan's personal White House staff. He wasn't elected to the position, he wasn't appointed by the Republican Party, and he wasn't paid by the Republican party.

The connection you're trying to draw is flawed on so many levels its not even funny, and I'm kind of shocked that you would even attempt to bring it up.

That's not unlike trying to claim that the entire Democratic Party supports the death penalty because you, an individual with no affiliation to the party power structure, support that position.
 
Oh yeah -- I forgot. Holly's post is the perfect example of my observation that liberals will do everything they can to avoid calling themselves liberals:

I am a classical or Jeffersonian liberal
Click to expand...

Which then becomes:

I consider myself an independent
Click to expand...

And then becomes:

So you see there are liberals, like me
Click to expand...

Holly, I like ya already! :) Why not just call yourself a "Progressive"? Then you wouldn't have to worry about having to get around that term "Liberal".

I was serious about my previous post, Holly, but I'm just kiddin' ya with this one. :)
 
In case anyone is interested...

In this Virginia Legislative session, the number of pro-firearms rights bills that have been introduced?

15

The number of those introduced by Republicans?

14.

The number of strongly ANTI-firearms rights bills that have been introduced?

3.

The number of those introduced by Democrats?

3.
 
If only guns were the only issue and we didn't get a load of authoritarian and controlling social crap from many Republicans.

As I've said plenty - this seems to be the conserative gun creed: if I can have a gun then I am happy being a enemy of many other liberties.

I will support torture
I will support violations of the 4th Amendment
I will interfer with sexual relations of consenting adults
I will oppose the right of folks to determine their time of death when in great pain.
I will try to control the press and media if they present life styles antithetical to my religion
I will try to get the state to subsidize my religious beliefs and teach them in the schools.
 
Signature seen on this board: "I'm pro-rights...on gun issues."

Picking and choosing from the Bill of Rights is not just a liberal thing...not by a long shot.
 
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?
Click to expand...

Although not particularly mature, using Democrap is a valid form of a shorthand way of showing disgust and contempt for a party which is led by truly disgusting and contemptuous people (schumer et al). Just like Re-puke-lican is a valid form of satire for expressing contempt for that other wing of the uni-party. Since both parties absolutely suck sweaty hind end. I hate them both. I'm an equal-opportunity offender. The point is, both parties have totally lost their way, and are deserving of as much questioning and ridicule as can possibly be poured upon them until we lose this farce known as the 2-party system, and get a viable third party off the ground and sustained in the fight.

You can't NOT criticize the 2 the major parties without acquiescing in a broken, corrupt system like we currently have. We need THIRD PARTIES (& fourth, & so on). If you blindly adhere to either of the present parties, without questioning it, like limbaugh ditto-heads, then you're really not puttin' enough thought into it. Unless you just so happen to agree one party's ENTIRE platform utilizing independent thought, which is extra-ordinarily unlikely given the current state of affairs (the current big gov't neocons and the utter hypocrisy of both parties in certain areas). The problem is the scarce NUMBER of parties. Since there are only 2 parties (viable), that means necessarily that they must be and are in fact broad coalitions of allies, not a true unified, principled group. Being a Democrat or being a Republican makes you part and parcel of the problem (unless you just so happen to believe *everything* one party or the other stands for, which is very rare if one actually observes & thinks). Of course, we're taxed so heavily that we have to work every waking minute, so we don't have TIME to stop & think, so it's understandable how we got here. This is all by design of course.

www.constitutionparty.com

Oh lawdie, your kid is adorable Marko - congrats. :)
 
Lief said
...then centrists such as Clinton and Kerry...
Click to expand...

Left, right, and center are relative terms.

Most people, even those that call themselves Liberal or Conservative, judge left and right relative to their own views (considering their views as in the center).
 
From Dictionary.com

2 entries found for liberalism.
lib·er·al·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lbr--lzm, lbr-)
n.
The state or quality of being liberal.

A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.
often Liberalism The tenets or policies of a Liberal party.
An economic theory in favor of laissez-faire, the free market, and the gold standard.



Hmmm. Autonony of the individual. Free to make your own choices. Free to be a failure if you consistently make poor choices. Responsibility for the choices you make. No, most who call themselves liberals that I know would save me from myself.


Government by law with the consent of the governed. I don't consent to paying into Social Security. I don't consent to my money being used to feed those that are too lazy to feed themselves. I don't consent to giving up the right to defend myself, because there are those who are too cowardly to defend themselves, would rather an LEO put his life on the line to save theirs, and wish to bring me down to their level so they don't have to feel bad about themselves.


By this definition, I don't see anything 'liberal' about those I know who call themselves Liberals.
 
Holly

One of the major problems with Liberals is that they like to change the definitions of things so they can win their arguments or make their points... :mad:

When they define Liberals it is always as open-minded and caring and honest and good common people... But THAT is a Democrat!!

I think it would help a great deal if the Democrats would acknowledge that the Liberals are a cancer on the Democrat Party... Zell Miller did this publically by announcing that he was angry that the party had been hi-jacked by the Liberal Left, and many Democrats, like my whole family, became Reagan-Democrats or outright Republicans. We had had enough ever since the Liberal Hippy's in the 1960's.

If you could only try to understand the conservative's definition of a Liberal, it would help you understand why we are so reviled by them... We feel the same way about infiltrators and those who work subterfuge and shady methods, "worm-tongues", Socialists, Communists, Nazis and other tyrannicals.

I really was serious when I anwered your thread-question early on in the thread, Post #12... Please re-read it with this new explanation in mind and it might help you understand us better.

That is, IF you are sincerely interested...
A true Liberal wouldn't be in the least concerned.

Although I am trying to hide my bitterness a little in trying to be lite about it... I am being sincere with you. :)
 
wow, talk about taking a leap of faith...

Or deliberatly mis-stating your opponent's positon...

Quote:
1. "I will support torture"
I have not supported, nor has anyone in the context of this four-page thread, supported torture.

2. "I will support violations of the 4th Amendment"
Ditto number 1 above. I think if you look around, you will find adequate outrage on this subject. Mine included. Many Repubs included.

3. "I will interfer (sic) with sexual relations of consenting adults"
What? Ditto numbers 1 and 2 above, with the following amplification: I will not "interfer", but I will likewise not "support", "condone", or "financially subsidize" said relations, nor should I be forced to do so. And as for "tolerance"? Well, that depends on how in-your-face said "consenting adults" choose to be.

4. "I will oppose the right of folks to determine their time of death when in great pain."
What? Off yourself if you choose. Don't make me edit-to-add "Please do!"
Don't ask me to pay for it. Don't ask me to help you off your mom, wife, daughter. Don't ask my permission, don't ask my forgiveness. You will not get either. :mad:

5. "I will try to control the press and media if they present life styles antithetical to my religion"
What? How about being intellectually honest? The real position is: I will speak out against the mainstream media when they indoctrinate, endorse, glorify, espouse, peddle and normalise life styles that are far outside the mainstream. See #3 above. See "ACLU". See "NAMBLA". See a connection? :barf:

6. "I will try to get the state to subsidize my religious beliefs and teach them in the schools."
As opposed to...getting the schools to subsidize the above-noted questionaires to elementary school kids? Yeah, I can see that the Pledge of Allegiance is really evil in comparison. :confused:

Wrap it up: I, and a very real plurality (maybe majority) of Repubs are major-league pi$$ed off about any number of issues.
To hit the high points:
Illegal immigration.
Growing government.
Out of control spending.
Intrusion on individual rights (wiretapping, surveillance).
Idiotic policies at airports (TSA, no "profiling", etc)
Spending how much to keep Katrina "refugees" in hotels...forever?
Abortion--who cares?
I could go on and on.

I and every one of my Repub buddies spend more time bitczhing about these issues (and others) than we do about Howard Dean or Billary Clittin'. We know that Repubs do more damage to the Party than the Dems do. And we are objective enough to say so.

Now, my challenge to you Dems: I have NEVER, EVER heard a Dem say one negative word about any Dem, be it Bill, Ted, Hillary, Howard, Chuckie, Nacy...the list goes on.

You want dialogue? You got it.
Waiting...
 
1. "I will support torture"
I have not supported, nor has anyone in the context of this four-page thread, supported torture.

2. "I will support violations of the 4th Amendment"
Ditto number 1 above. I think if you look around, you will find adequate outrage on this subject. Mine included. Many Repubs included.
Click to expand...
Much as pro-gun liberals like me have to own up for the baggage we bring thanks to plenty of other antis on our side of the fence, you must admit that there are plenty of GOP'ers with baggage on the torture and the 4th amendment issues. To say otherwise is fallacious and unsupportable. Don't think so? Google terms: John Yoo, Alberto Gonzales, Dick Cheney, and torture. Have fun. I think because we progunners are fierce civil libertarians we all tend to not favor the evisceration of the 4th amendment and torture--but you simply cannot deny that today's conservative movement has been coopted by people who see both of those things as necessary adjuncts to the job, and even if they don't like them personally they put that aside to defend King George.

What? Ditto numbers 1 and 2 above, with the following amplification: I will not "interfer", but I will likewise not "support", "condone", or "financially subsidize" said relations, nor should I be forced to do so. And as for "tolerance"? Well, that depends on how in-your-face said "consenting adults" choose to be.
Click to expand...
Nobody's asking you to support, condone, or financiall subsidize anything. We're simply saying you should give people different from you the same respect and rights that you would want afforded yourself. In short, it's none of you goddamn business, so leave it alone. As for in-your-face, that's usually codewords for some homophobe who gets his feathers ruffled when he sees gay people holding hands or some other thing. If you don't like it, look in the other direction. Nobody's in your face. Just mind your own business. I'm secure enough in my heterosexuality to not give a damn about whatever else anyone else does. Too bad more conservatives can't say the same. :p

As opposed to...getting the schools to subsidize the above-noted questionaires to elementary school kids? Yeah, I can see that the Pledge of Allegiance is really evil in comparison.
Click to expand...
You simply can't deny with a straight face that the baggage from the Intelligent Design idiots is squarely in the conservative camp. Keep your religion to yourself, and we'll do likewise.

Now, my challenge to you Dems: I have NEVER, EVER heard a Dem say one negative word about any Dem, be it Bill, Ted, Hillary, Howard, Chuckie, Nacy...the list goes on.
Click to expand...
I have bad things to say about all of those characters. But I do respect HD's willingness to buck the trend and be pro-gun.
 
indoctrinate, endorse, glorify, espouse, peddle and normalise life styles that are far outside the mainstream
Click to expand...

The problem is that conservatives see something wrong with that. I don't. The "mainstream" has changed drastically over the years. Less than a century ago it was "mainstream" to keep girls out of college so they could stay home and be better homemakers. Fifty years ago it was "mainstream" to keep little black kids in schools away from the precious whites.
 
Hit a sore spot, OrionEngr.

It is easy to document many icons of conservativism spouting everything I said. There are some honest conservatives who don't go along. However, conservatism has two threads nowadays.

Those that don't believe in eroding basic rights but have conservative views on economic policy, personsal responsibility and the like and a second set. This group is composed authoritarian, inhibited, zealots who wish to control people and their behavior based on some religious strictures. They would violate the Constitution to make the society 'safe' and the trains run on time. They fume at any criticism of their failed leader.

Progun does not mean someone is pro personal liberty.

About the schools - when we get repeated attempts to force nonscientific drivel into the biology books based soley on one religion - how can one respect a 'conservative'. Is that not wanting the state to subsidize your religion? That's not the Pledge issue.

I'm old enought to remember 'conservatives' rallying for segregation and to prevent women from using birth control. Remember the laws controlling even the sexual acts that could be engaged in by married couples. The states that had laws against interracial marriage? Schools with quotas against minorities? The abuses by police? That's the history of the evil side of social conservatism that so many still long for.

That's crap. The legit side of conservatism is towards the liberatarian. The other side is contributing to the fall of the US into some authoritarian pest hole.

Is is OK though if we can have our guns!
 
What people like orionengnr represent is the body of the American public that has a hard time imagining why anyone wouldn't want to live the same way they do. The reality is that we're an inclusive society that believes that, as long as you're not ruining anyone else's day, you should largely get to choose what you do in the bedroom, in church, and amongst your family members. That whole pursuit of happiness thing applies to people who don't have the same narrowly constructed set of values that you might have. The problem is conservatives think that only applies to people who are just like them; the modern rightwing world outlook seems to be anymore something like this: you have the right to be with whomever you want, worship however you want, and think however you want...as long as it's the same way I do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top