Why do so many people look towards liberals as if they are criminals. I was looking at the news about this upcoming debate between Bush and Kerry, and everyone kept saying that Bush plans to stop Kerry by painting him as a Liberal (as if Liberal was a bad word or something). You go into some drinking bars and even dare bring up the word liberal and right away people will start treating you as if you are some kind of leper or something..Why is this? What do people in general have to fear from the Liberal population?

Please elaborate......

the answer lies in your question

Senator Kerry is running from it as quickly as President Bush is trying to tag him with it.

I think you mostly see it when a candidate has to run nationally after serving a liberal constituency (such as Dukakis and Kerry) because the country is generally right of center. Even the DNC realizes it and that's why they have advised Kerry not to talk about his Senate record.

I don't think there's anything inherently worse about being a liberal, but for whatever reason a lot of liberals have decided that it's a bad word, which pretty much instantly turned it into an effective insult.

Hence the word 'progressive' in lieu of 'librul'

Actually, in these modern times, libruls really don't give a f what any conservatives think?

This election is between 2 factions -- the evangelical-homophobic-xenophobic-knuckledragging-whites and everyone else.

Simple as that.

Dop

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
Hence the word 'progressive' in lieu of 'librul'

Actually, in these modern times, libruls really don't give a f what any conservatives think?

This election is between 2 factions -- the evangelical-homophobic-xenophobic-knuckledragging-whites and everyone else.

Simple as that.

Dop Next time they should title it "Someone with at least a modicum of intellect please explain something to me...", and we wouldnt have to worry about these dumb ass posts like the one above.

Originally posted by HaVoK
Next time they should title it "Someone with at least a modicum of intellect please explain something to me...", and we wouldnt have to worry about these dumb ass posts like the one above.

That post really bugged you. So bad you could ony come back with an insult. LOL. It hurts to look at yourself doesn't it. Over half the populatin of this country sees rebublicans as just what DOP decribed.

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing

Actually, in these modern times, libruls really don't give a f what any conservatives think?

This election is between 2 factions -- the evangelical-homophobic-xenophobic-knuckledragging-whites and everyone else.

Simple as that.

Dop

Originally posted by LionelHutz
I don't think there's anything inherently worse about being a liberal, but for whatever reason a lot of liberals have decided that it's a bad word, which pretty much instantly turned it into an effective insult. damn, lionel, that was a great explaination. i tell my children, that if a child says something insulting, it can only work if you show that you have been offended.

You guys are so wacko. Very few liberals are insulted by being called a liberal. Just as few conservatives are insulted by being called a conservative.

Liberals don't give a f about what conservatives think. Actually most of them don't even believe conservatives think much at all, unless it's about killing and hateing.

Originally posted by Echo2
That post really bugged you. So bad you could ony come back with an insult. LOL. It hurts to look at yourself doesn't it. Over half the populatin of this country sees rebublicans as just what DOP decribed. No...im just tired of idiots such as yourself posting your opinions and then making statements speaking for "over half the country". Get a grip lady. Not everyone is as filled with hate as you are.

Originally posted by HaVoK
No...im just tired of idiots such as yourself posting your opinions and then making statements speaking for "over half the country". Get a grip lady. Not everyone is as filled with hate as you are.

Blind or just ignorant? Hard to tell. Over half the population is liberal. If it weren't for the electorial college republicans wouldn't even get to see the inside of the white house.

Originally posted by Echo2
Blind or just ignorant? Hard to tell. Over half the population is liberal. Judging from this comment I would just say ignorant.

Originally posted by HaVoK
Judging from this comment I would just say ignorant.

Lol, true.....

I'm glad you agree with me that Havok is ignorant. It explains his non-backed up with stat or proof posts and his nasty comments.

Heh, I think Leper is agreeing that you are ignorant, Echo. Sorry to burst your bubble.

And let's face it, you and a couple of the other liberal posters make the most beligerant and idiotic posts on here.

"This election is between 2 factions -- the evangelical-homophobic-xenophobic-knuckledragging-whites and everyone else"

And then we have you agreeing with it, well, it's no wonder people think that both of you are morons.

Apparently my post woke up a few people on the right but did ya notice none of them did anything more than attack the messenger ... they didn't even try to debate the context of the message. BWAhahahahahaha ... a silence of admission.

Dop

evangelical-homophobic-xenophobic-knuckledragging-whites

How exactly does one "debate" this?

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
Apparently my post woke up a few people on the right but did ya notice none of them did anything more than attack the messenger ... they didn't even try to debate the context of the message. BWAhahahahahaha ... a silence of admission.

Dop No, your post was just so stupid that it deserved no comment, only an observation about the author.

It really pisses them off to see the truth in writing. Either that or they are completely ignorant as to how their party appears to the majority of people in the country.

Did you know that the republican party has fought against every single equal rights bill in the last century? And they say they aren't racist. ROTFLMAO. Did you know that the only reason the the word "sex" got into title five of the civil rights act is because a republican senator thought it would kill the bill? Now they are tryng to amend the constitution to discriminate against gays. And they say they aren't racist, sexist or homophobes.

Echo 2 wrote: "Did you know that the republican party has fought against every single equal rights bill in the last century? And they say they aren't racist."

Civil Rights Act of 1964:
Democrats - 69% voted YES
Republicans - 82% voted YES
If I'm not mistaken, 1964 occurred during the last century

In the 1960 presidential election campaign John F. Kennedy argued for a new Civil Rights Act. After the election it was discovered that over 70 per cent of the African American vote went to Kennedy. However, during the first two years of his presidency, Kennedy failed to put forward his promised legislation.

The Civil Rights bill was brought before Congress in 1963 and in a speech on television on 11th June, Kennedy pointed out that: "The Negro baby born in America today, regardless of the section of the nation in which he is born, has about one-half as much chance of completing high school as a white baby born in the same place on the same day; one third as much chance of completing college; one third as much chance of becoming a professional man; twice as much chance of becoming unemployed; about one-seventh as much chance of earning $10,000 a year; a life expectancy which is seven years shorter; and the prospects of earning only half as much."

Kennedy's Civil Rights bill was still being debated by Congress when he was assassinated in November, 1963. The new president, Lyndon Baines Johnson, who had a poor record on civil rights issues, took up the cause. His main opponent was his long-time friend and mentor, Richard B. Russell, who told the Senate: "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our (Southern) states." Russell organized 18 Southern Democratic senators to join with the Republican opposition in filibustering this bill.

However, on the 15th June, 1964, Richard B. Russell privately told Mike Mansfield and Hubert Humphrey, the two leading supporters of the Civil Rights Act, that he would bring an end to the filibuster that was blocking the vote on the bill. This resulted in a vote being taken and it was passed by 73 votes to 27.
The law was passed after a 75-day filibuster (lengthy debate to block legislation) in the Senate. The debate was one of the longest in Senate history.

If anyone turned the word liberal into an insult, it was probably that ultra-conservative, closet queen, director of the FBI, J.Edgar Hoover.

Originally posted by Echo2
It really pisses them off to see the truth in writing. Either that or they are completely ignorant as to how their party appears to the majority of people in the country.

It wasn't the truth, it was just an insult. An insult right back at him was more than appropriate under the circumstances. Speaking of ignorant, you seem to be under the impression that a majority of the country is liberal. How does that explain Reagan's landslides wins? Or the fact that in order to win a majority of the vote democrats need to attract the rather sizeable population of swing voters that often vote for either party?

Oh never mind, return to your world of intolerance.

Actually a scientific poll taken earlier this year (can't remember the pollster) showed that less than 30% of Americans consider themselves liberal.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
you seem to be under the impression that a majority of the country is liberal. How does that explain Reagan's landslides wins? Or the fact that in order to win a majority of the vote democrats need to attract the rather sizeable population of swing voters that often vote for either party?

Back in the 50's, 60's, 70's and into the 80's the left was very radical and the right was fairly middle of the road. Then slowly (like most things) the party's changed. The pedulum swung. The right moved further right and the left moved to the middle. Today the right are the radical ones and the left are more middle of the road. This is a natural process in politics. People are human and they tend to over respond when something needs to be changed.

Part of Reagens landslide was because of thwhat I mentioned above, and part of it was because the idiots the democrats put up to run against him were awfull. I was a reagan supporter. Reagon had what it took to lead a country and just about everybody saw that.

LionelHutz, Reagan was President awhile ago. Clinton won the popular vote twice and two elections. And even when a Republican won, after two terms, Bush in 2000, the Democrats still came away with the popular vote. I would say in America, we have more Democrats (not by a lot, but by a slight majority)

Originally posted by Overdose
I would say in America, we have more Democrats (not by a lot, but by a slight majority)

There might be more democrats than republicans (I honestly have no clue), but there is no way in hell it's anywhere near 50% of the population. I recall hearing the number 17% once, but I don't recall which party they were talking about.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
It wasn't the truth, it was just an insult. An insult right back at him was more than appropriate under the circumstances. Speaking of ignorant, you seem to be under the impression that a majority of the country is liberal. How does that explain Reagan's landslides wins? Or the fact that in order to win a majority of the vote democrats need to attract the rather sizeable population of swing voters that often vote for either party?

Oh never mind, return to your world of intolerance. sorry man, but reagan didnt do shit ! he was a product of name recognition. that really just showed how ignorant we can be when it comes to voting.....thats my opinion, reagan was not a good president, he wasnt even a good actor, but we bought that too.....he's been dead awhile, i think i can talk about his ass now

Reagan was a horrible President...

Reagan was a fine POTUS.

POTUS...?

Echo 2 wrote: "Then slowly (like most things) the party's changed. The pedulum swung. The right moved further right and the left moved to the middle."

You'd better review JFK's speeches and policies

POTUS : President of the United States

Originally posted by es347fan
Reagan was a fine POTUS.

Reagan was an awful president. He broke the law, selling weapons to Iran, and funneling the money secretly to finance the killing of thousands of innocent people in Central America. Then he lied about it.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Reagan was an awful president. He broke the law, selling weapons to Iran, and funneling the money secretly to finance the killing of thousands of innocent people in Central America. Then he lied about it.

Hello? We're not arguing about whether Reagan was a good president, we're arguing about whether Republicans are capable of winning the popular vote or whether the majority of people view them as knuckle-dragging racists. Seeing as how Reagan clearly won a majority of the vote, I think the answer is clear.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
Hello? We're not arguing about whether Reagan was a good president, we're arguing about whether Republicans are capable of winning the popular vote or whether the majority of people view them as knuckle-dragging racists. Seeing as how Reagan clearly won a majority of the vote, I think the answer is clear.

What I was trying to explain is that both political party's have slowly moved to the right more. Whether Reagan was a good pres or not is another debate. But he obviously apealed to more democrats than daddy bush did or baby bush does. Now obviously a pendulum swing is not set in stone. You can't look at one individual pres and use that as a reason to say it isn't happening. You have to look at the bigger picture. Go back 10 or so presidents and follow the party message from each one.

I submit that as a reaction to the screw ball liberals in the 60's, 70's and 80's, mainstream america moved further to the right. Seeing this shift, the democrats, wanting to pick up a larger share of the votes also moved further to the right. I also submit that in another 30 to 50 years it will swing back. This is historically the way people react to events. It is a very natural thing. When social (or other) problems need to be fixed and they finally decide to fix it they tend to go overboard and fix it too much. Then slowly they see their errors and back off from the parts of the fix that aren't working.

The republican party of today are seen as haters, dividers, judgemental, religious fanatics. They haven't always been that way. Just as the democratic party were once seen as commie, socialists with no morals.

President Kennedy believed in lowering taxes. he said "A rising tide raises all ships", later we called it trickle down. He was also so virulently anti-communist that he sowed the seeds of the Vietnam War. You think todays democrats have gone to the right sonce then?

Again, you are using one instace to try to negate a slow fifty year swing.

Trickle down was about giving the wealthy tax breaks so they would supposedly start business' and hire people. It didn't work. Kennedy was for lowering taxes equally across the board. Very big difference.


I remeber Kennedy. He and Reagon were very similar in their ideas and outlook about defense. But they had very different ways of looking at the economy. Did you know that Reagan was a democrat before he moved to the republican party? A shift to the right.

Reagan reluctantly became a Republican because he said the Democrat Party left HIM. Was that because the Democrat party shifted right? I think not.

What reagan said and reality were not always the same. Remember he told us he didn't give guns and money to the rebels in sandinista but the reality is that he did.

His political leanings moved to the right.

Originally posted by Echo2
What I was trying to explain is that both political party's have slowly moved to the right more.

maybe it is you that is moving to the left.

Echo wrote: "What reagan said and reality were not always the same."

Well then quit bringing him up to make your points.

That could very well be true. It's common knowledge the people become more accepting and less critical as they age. So that could indeed be part of the reason I switched party's. However, there have been many books and articles written about the historical pendulum swings of political parties over the centuries and this is a well documented happening.

Trav, it isn't a bad thing. It just is how societys tend to respond to problems.

October 14, 2004
By Sheila Samples

What is the matter with the Republican Party? As one born within a tiny, tree-shaded Republican enclave in Missouri, raised by compassionate family-values-oriented Christian conservatives, and whose entire family remains staunchly, even militantly conservative, I think I have earned the right to ask that question.

So - what the hell is wrong with you guys?

History bumps along from dateline to dateline with no regard for party affiliation. That's why last week during the second presidential debate, when President George Bush slid off his stool, assumed his arms-akimbo "Super Hero" stance and childishly blurted out, "You can run, butcha can't hide," I was jerked into the realization that it's not possible for such a horrid, vacuous little creature to be the cause of the rampant madness zigzagging throughout our society today.

Bush is the effect of it - the natural result of a cruel, thoughtless and destructive movement within the Republican party that shivered into life on November 22, 1963.

Both parties have been running and hiding ever since.

This is not a treatise on the assassination of a popular American president, nor of the massive manipulations of an investigative commision to cover it up. That tragic November day marks the "bump" in our history that began the evolutionary implosion of the Republican party into neoconservatism and the sheer, bleak cruelty of a loveless Christianity.

Before that fateful 1963 bump, New York Govenor Nelson Rockefeller was truly the face of a kinder, gentler Republican party. Rich, philanthrophic, and middle-of-the-road, as Assistant Secretary of State for Latin America in the 1940's, Rockefeller was responsible for the success of FDR's "Good Neighbor" policy. During his four terms as governor, Rockefeller began large-scale welfare and drug-rehabilitation programs, reorganized the New York transportation system and built major public works projects.

At the 1964 convention, Rockefeller pleaded with a booing crowd to "keep the Republican party the party of all the people." He warned them of the danger of allowing extremists to gain influence, and of the threat they posed, not only to the party but to the entire nation. "These extremists feed on fear, hate and terror," he said. "They have no program for America and the Republican Party."

Rockefeller sounded the alarm that hateful neoconservatism would only get stronger and more destructive. "They operate from dark shadows of secrecy," he said, and his warning that "extremist groups" would ultimately subvert the values and morality of the Grand Old Party were lost in a wave of jeers - "We want Barry! We want Barry!"

Rockefeller, in what was considered possibly his finest moment, lost the ideological battle for the party to Arizona's "Mr. Conservative," Barry Goldwater. The miracle it would take for either man to win the presidency didn't happen, of course, but the ideology embraced by the conservative wing of the party would result in a Nixon, a Reagan, and two Bushes - all swept along under the evangelical influence of a Pat Robertson and the warmongering cabal of New World Order neoconservatives.

If ever there was a "flinty-hearted bastard," it was Barry Goldwater. In his acceptance speech for the nomination, he brazenly admonished his followers, "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice... and moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue." Although Goldwater lost in a landslide to Johnson in 1964, he succeeded in putting a new face on the Republican Party. He achieved his goal of shifting control from the "liberal" Eastern wing to the radical extremists.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Reagan was an awful president. He broke the law, selling weapons to Iran, and funneling the money secretly to finance the killing of thousands of innocent people in Central America. Then he lied about it.

Selling weapons to Iran was part of the deal to free American hostages in the Iran hostage crisis. Illegal yes, but not necessarily "awful".

I can better remember Reagan for the stunt he pulled by attending a Nazi reunion with the surviving members of the old German SS, going to an SS graveyard in Bittsburg where he laid reeves on the graves of their fallen "warriors", and then went back to this reunion and offered his "condolenses" to them. That right there told both me and the sensible world exactly where this man's head was at :(


I was serving in the U.S Army at the time stationed in Frankfort, and man did we catch hell for that..and I mean in the worst kind of way :rant:

Originally posted by Leper
Selling weapons to Iran was part of the deal to free American hostages in the Iran hostage crisis. Illegal yes, but not necessarily "awful".

Actually, the hostages held in Iran were released just as Reagan took office. The hostages he was dealing for were others.

The "awful" part of the whole transaction was the financing of 'rebels' (read terrorists), that led to the murder of thousands.

Originally posted by Dunkirk101
I can better remember Reagan for the stunt he pulled by attending a Nazi reunion with the surviving members of the old German SS, going to an SS graveyard in Bittsburg where he laid reeves on the graves of their fallen "warriors", and then went back to this reunion and offered his "condolenses" to them. That right there told both me and the sensible world exactly where this man's head was at :(


I was serving in the U.S Army at the time stationed in Frankfort, and man did we catch hell for that..and I mean in the worst kind of way :rant: damn ! you have got to be kidding me ! the funny thing is, i didnt need to know this to know that this man was a fool as president. it came down to republicans being partisan and the rest being smitten by the ACTOR . thats why everyone voted for him........well, almost everyone...;)