Why do you dems have so much hatred.

Lol...actually, no. The millions of cons' 8 year praying jag for God to kill all the Obamas is more like first degree murder, while an individual hothead acting out their hate is more like manslaughter.
I'd say that trumpcare will also amount to first degree murder if it passes, and voters will remember.

 

Actually, having government promote jobs in the solar and wind energy arenas under Obama was far more sensible (and has been far more successful) than Trump's promise to resurrect jobs in the totally defunct, obsolete and environmentally destructive coal industry. It isn't that Democrats aren't offering answers to the employment challenges, it's that the Republicans have been more successful spreading their doom and gloom views with the American voters, convincing them that Democrats, liberals and the government itself are the enemy; and that serves none of us well. It might be well to remember that the Great Depression (1929), the Great Recession (200, and the Great Inequity (1981-present) all began under Republican administrations.

 

Millions, huh? Of course it wasn't but I'm not surprised considering the source.

Should Obama be charged for anyone who died because they couldn't afford to pay out of pocket such high deductibles? You know, since they were already paying as much as a mortgage for insurance after being told by Obama this wouldn't happen.

 

Sure didn't bother the right wingers when congress woman Gaby Giffords was shot in Arizona. Cons did nothing....but now the cons want to let all of the House and Senate carry guns. Can't you just see the Civil war starting all over again in Congress? I swear!...con solutions are hilarious!

 

You must have been in a comma when Gaby Giffords was shot.....

 

It's important to keep in mind that they are the continuation of the Bolsheviks from nearly 100 years ago. Study history and see what the Bolsheviks did. After that, nothing the modern day left does or says is shocking. It's expected.

 

They have been fed a steady diet of hate. They have been taught, pushed, and prodded to hate. There is a constant drumbeat of hate in all their media. With this assault from all fronts, it is hard to not have it feel natural.


Why is there such a push toward hate by leaders; especially from the left?

Hatred is a strong emotion. It can overcome rational thinking. If a person falls into the trap of unthinking hatred, he then accepts any argumant which supports his distorted view. He becomes easily led.

It is a useful emotion for leaders to cultivate for the manipulation of the public.

 

The man who shot Giffords was *NOT* hunting Democrats. The GOP and conservatives at that time were not casting Democrats as evil, just as being wrong-headed.

Today is totally different. The Democrats *are* casting the GOP as being EVIL and wanting people to actually die (think about Warren's "Blood Money"). And we have Democrats actually *HUNTING* GOP congresspeople.

No one in Congress felt they were under actual physical attack after the Giffords shooting. That simply is not the case today.

 

I think liberal hate is a consequence of liberal empathy disorder. They empathize with minorities so much they absorb the hate minorities feel for white people and end up hating white people themselves.

Oddly enough they feel righteous when expressing this hate.

 

According to Soc Sec the average wage in 1980 was about $12K. in 1990 it was about $20K. That actually beats inflation during the period.

So what was wrong with wage growth during Reagan?

From 2001 the average wage went from about $32K to about $41K in 2008. Again, almost exactly matching inflation.

So what was wrong with wage growth during Bush?

Under Clinton wage growth actually beat inflation.

So, tell me again about the "Great Inequity"?

 

I believe it is because of the different way that leftist supporters view rightist supporters. If you were to ask a Conservative supporter to describe a Liberal supporter, they would tend to use words like idealistic, naïve, and maybe detached from logic and reality. If you were to ask a Liberal supporter to describe a Conservative supporter, they would say uncaring, selfish, and evil. Liberals sincerely believe that they are the only people with compassion, and cannot fathom the notion that both sides deep down support policies that they sincerely believe are best for everyone. Conservatives believe in the notion of "give a man a fish he eats for a day, and if you teach a man to fish he eats for a lifetime". To the Conservative mind, that notion IS compassion, because in the long run that is what is best for the individual. Liberals fail to acknowledge the existence of an alternative view of what constitutes compassion. For this reason, when Conservative supporters debate Liberal supporters, Liberals project hatred and condescension.

Conservatives will often express hatred toward liberal politicians, but for the most part that hatred doesn't extend to Liberal supporters ( at least to a much lower degree). Liberals on the other hand, are much quicker to make a conversation personal because they view anyone that supports Conservatism to be evil. Their hatred goes beyond just the politician, and extends to all supporters.

 

Also, you hate your working class base now who used to support your asses in elections. You lost the white blue collar working voter, because you all won't stop race baiting. You all pander to minorities and you want them to have more advantages than the white working class base.

 

So, you're saying that the average conservative would describe liberals by 75% insults? And the liberals are the hateful ones?

Goshdarnit, if only we had one of these liberals to ask...oh, I have an idea!

I'd say conservatives are conservative, concerned with personal property, and very interested in order and security.

Did that match up with your expectations? Or are you going to do the usual dance of "Oh, but I'm talking about all liberals in general, not specific ones!"?

Okay, let's do another test.

I believe that most people have compassion, with the obvious exception of psychopaths. I believe that most people hold sincere beliefs, and want to make things better.

Damn, you're 0 for 2 so far. Not looking good.

I very much believe in the notion of teaching a man to fish. Where I differ from you is in that I believe that if the man has no means to learn how to fish, society has a concrete responsibility to provide those means.

So, for those keeping track of the score, FAW is 0 for 3.

That statement sounds rather hollow given the post you've just written.

You've done nothing but attack the character of liberals for the entire length of your post. You're not one to talk about making things personal.

Me, I hate nobody. Not even fools. I pity them, though.

 

An insulting response from both sides is sort of inherent in the entire concept. I assumed that the reader was intelligent/ intuitive enough to make that connection. I apologize for over estimating you.

See above.

See above.

At least you finally responded with something of substance. Kudos for that.

Both sides believe in a safety net, that much isn't in doubt. If I wanted to use your tactic, I would merely say I believe that if a man has no means to fish, society DOES have a responsibility to provide one....and then id shout from the mountaintops that ELCARSH IS WRONG. That isn't my style however. I prefer to remain dignified and actually talk to the substance of what is being discussed, rather than hiding behind the obvious vagueries that anyone from either side could point to and say that "I don't believe that".

At its core, this particular topic is not about whether a safety net should exist, rather it is about how large should that safety net be. While both sides can claim to advocate a safety net, one side obviously wants it to be bigger while the other wants it smaller. There is a belief amongst many on the left, that if one wants that safety net to be smaller than the left prefers, that equates to that person lacking compassion. There is a point where a larger safety net encompassing able bodied people creates a culture of government reliance that is ultimately harmful to the able bodied person that comes to rely upon that safety net. You can argue where that point resides, but the existence of that point is undeniable. Just because I believe that point occurs earlier in the process than does most leftists, that does NOT equate to me being uncompassionate. It equates to a legitimate difference of opinion as to what is best for that individual and society as a whole.

Oh yeah..........my post was just a BASTION of hate!

There are level headed Liberals and Conservatives. The topic of this thread is about hatred, and hatred is NOT a descriptor that I would typically use for level headed Liberals or Conservatives. Since level headed Liberals and Conservatives are not typically associated with hatred, I would have thought that it would have been obvious that we are discussing both ends of the spectrum that consistently display rancor toward the other side. Once again, I apologize. I grossly over estimated your ability to read between the lines within the confines of the given context. There are some people that need everything spelled out for them because they lack the ability to properly infer based upon context. Obviously you are among that group. While I apologize for the misunderstanding, I will not promise to spell everything out in future posts. I am not one of those people that believes in holding the entire class back so that the laggards are able to keep up.








BTW....After finishing this reply, I decided to take a quick look ( literally 30 seconds) over your recent posts so that I could derive just a little bit about you. I found this little tidbit in your response to a rightist poster....
"It's like people on this forum are trying to one-up each other with the most heinous, disgusting, vile, evil statements they can come up with.
Screw this, ignore."

hmmmm....seems like evil IS in your vocabulary, contrary to your above claim. I must have missed the part where you labeled him "concerned for personal property". Perhaps you aren't as calm and level headed as you are trying to imply? What you say and what you do seem to be divergent, at least if that quick glance through your recent posts is any indication.

 

But he might not have had the weapon he had if the reptilian right wing GOP terrorist organization wasn't in the pocket of The NRA. A rating from the NRA for politicians? Are you ****ing kidding me ? Where did the founders write that into The Constitution? Show me that **** paragraph please.

 

You must have been in a coma when it was shown he was an independent and the shooting had nothing to do with conservatives.

 

We live in a free society. That entails risk. I will *NOT* give up my ability to protect my family and my self using the best means possible because an irrational, psychotic decides to go hunting Republicans because they have been so demonized over the past several years.

It probably hasn't sunk into your head yet but those Republicans were saved by good guys with guns. We need *MORE* good guys with guns, not fewer.

The NRA is a member-supported organization. It is one of the largest member organizations in the US. And the NRA gives *NO* money to politicians. The only power the NRA has is the voting power of its members. I know that must chap your butt to no end but it is *exactly* what the Founding Fathers envisioned when they were writing the Constitution -- that citizens would choose their representatives to do just that, represent the views of the citizens.

Women are the fastest growing sector of gun owners. Faster than men. That means that you are going to be even more in the minority when it comes to protecting the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. The women I know that have armed themselves will *NOT* give up their guns easily. They are going to vote against you as well. Just like abortion, the weight of society is against you. Your liberal views have become so extreme that you are getting pushed into the wilderness.

 

...and you were the one accusing liberals of making things personal rather than discussing the issue?

People ought to learn at some point that attacking the person rather than the argument will only get them one thing; ignored.

 

If you voted for Reagan, I hope one day to win you back. If you voted for Bush pere, I hope one day to win you back. If you voted for Bush fils, or McCain, or Dole or Nixon, or Ford I also hope one day to win you back.

If you voted for Trump, I DON'T want you to ever cast a ballot for a Democrat. I know all I need to know about a voter, if he chose to do this to our country. Please, stay a loyal Republican.

 

Can you name any of these "Marxist Democrats"? They sound horrible..

 

Don't worry, I never was going to. I'm sorry you're upset Republicans are becoming the workers party, while Democrats are the victim identity politics party. Luckily we didn't and don't need delusional social justice warriors to win our elections. Cheers!

0-4 in the special elections. OUCH! Just wait until 2018 rolls around. I am excited to see Democrats get waxed again.

Even your own liberal friends from the likes of Salon and NYT realize that you guys have zero policy measures, and you guys cant have an honest discussion because your base is racist and hateful. I don't recall Obama getting death threats on the regular...

Stay classy.

 

That's because you have selective memory.

 

Maybe some fringe but you guys have famous people, your mainstream, calling for him to be killed.

Oh and did we ever shoot any democrats under 8 years of Obama? Only took a few months for a person to try to kill our congressmen. Sad, your party should be ashamed. They never denounced it, just silence. Yeah, great leaders you guys have, quiet approval of murder.

 

When the left comes together now a Hate Rally is virtually inevitable.

 

http://www.salon.com/2017/06/18/yes...-or-not-its-the-only-real-path-back-to-power/