Things Liberals Believe in

[Heracles 417]

In the South, Blacks and Whites have always lived close together; they are used to each other. In the North, they mostly kept separate and are still getting used to each other. I have found the North to be more racist than the South because they tend to be covert and sneaky about it. At least, in the South, I always knew where I stood.

Spot on there. The North West and mid west is a whole different world than the South. I have gone days without seeing an African American in those regions whereas in the South, African Americans and White Americans are quite intermingled. While there is a way to go before they see each other as a fellow American, on both sides, they have a good mix.

[Heracles 417]

Instead of tossing out the label 'liberal' how about confining your comments to specific incidents or specific people. The label as you apply it is at best vague as it doesn't conform to any generally accepted definition of the term and at worst insulting because of the difficulty of pinning down exactly who/what you are objecting to.

I also think you might have a rather confused definition of what tolerance actually means. Tolerance is not the same as to like. Tolerance is acceptance of things whether you like them or not. For example, unless they violate your personal rights and freedoms you are expected to tolerate 'liberals' in the USA.

Grouping people together is a fact of life so get over it. There is a liberal point of view in America as there is a conservative point of view. After all Bill Maher himself states he is a liberal. I didn't just push him into a group. As Bill O'Reilly states he is a conservative.

Yes there is a fine line between generalizing to accepting reality. If 20 out of 20 random Liberals state that they believe that the earth is flat then it is probably safe to assume that a good portion of fellow liberals believe this as well.

The issue I have with liberals like Bill Maher is that they have built a reputation of saying we are open-minded, tolerant, free thinkers bla bla bla. Yet their actions do not support this. Their absolute intolerance of those with differing and religious views is completely contrary to what they apparently stand for. Another example, saying they are for the people, for the average Joe. Yet crapping on and insulting the intelligence of any blue collar worker who does not support their views. This same average Joe is then made out to be, "just a stupid American who does not know anything".

Edited October 26, 2008 by Aficionado

[Peikko 1,575]

Instead of tossing out the label 'liberal' how about confining your comments to specific incidents or specific people. The label as you apply it is at best vague as it doesn't conform to any generally accepted definition of the term and at worst insulting because of the difficulty of pinning down exactly who/what you are objecting to.

I also think you might have a rather confused definition of what tolerance actually means. Tolerance is not the same as to like. Tolerance is acceptance of things whether you like them or not. For example, unless they violate your personal rights and freedoms you are expected to tolerate 'liberals' in the USA.

Grouping people together is a fact of life so get over it. There is a liberal point of view in America as there is a conservative point of view. After all Bill Maher himself states he is a liberal. I didn't just push him into a group. As Bill O'Reilly states he is a conservative.

Yes there is a fine line between generalizing to accepting reality. If 20 out of 20 random Liberals state that they believe that the earth is flat then it is probably safe to assume that a good portion of fellow liberals believe this as well.

The issue I have with liberals like Bill Maher is that they have built a reputation of saying we are open-minded, tolerant, free thinkers bla bla bla. Yet their actions do not support this. Their absolute intolerance of those with differing and religious views is completely contrary to what they apparently stand for. Another example, saying they are for the people, for the average Joe. Yet crapping on and insulting the intelligence of any blue collar worker who does not support their views. This same average Joe then is made out to be "just an idiot American who does not know anything".

Group away, but it makes a lot of what you say unreadable. I for one have no clue who you think you are talking about most of the time.

As for the Bill Maher things, from some quick research I have discovered he is a comedian, and I have to assume that at least some of his work is political satire. That said, why do you care what he says? Again, what do you mean by his 'intolerance'? Poking fun at someone for their religious belief doesn't take away from the fact that they have the right to those religious belief. His comedy is not stopping people from going to church or holding whatever views they want to hold. If you, as a believer don't find that funny, that of course is your perogative and moreoever no one is going to persecute you because you don't find it funny. There is not one thing you can't do now, that you couldn't do before he became a comedian.

As far as I can tell, you dislike this person simply because he ridicules things you hold dear. Really, that's simply too bad.

[Empress of Groovy 373]

In the South, Blacks and Whites have always lived close together; they are used to each other. In the North, they mostly kept separate and are still getting used to each other. I have found the North to be more racist than the South because they tend to be covert and sneaky about it. At least, in the South, I always knew where I stood.

Spot on there. The North West and mid west is a whole different world than the South. I have gone days without seeing an African American in those regions whereas in the South, African Americans and White Americans are quite intermingled. While there is a way to go before they see each other as a fellow American, on both sides, they have a good mix.

The black population is significantly larger in the South as compared with the rest of the U.S., with the exception of some densely population urban areas.

As far as the North being more racist than the South because races are "kept separate": pure simplistic B.S. Is there plenty of racial hypocrisy in, say, the Boston area? You bet. But I also can't help but think of my mother's very diverse high school yearbook from 1963. She went to a public high school in Boston. And this was well before the busing fiasco a decade later.

Re: the South: One thing I'll never forget is visiting my old boyfriend's house in rural northern Florida, just south of the Georgia border. His parents were of a common type of "casual" Southern racist. They used the word "colored" as if they were being PC (i.e., w/ a smirk, suggesting that they watching their language because of guests). There was a white bar and a black bar up the street. Seriously. This was in the 90s.

[Heracles 417]

As far as I can tell, you dislike this person simply because he ridicules things you hold dear. Really, that's simply too bad.

Hate is hate and is another reason I dislike American liberals. They want to bring every other amendment into the 21st century except from the First. Intolerance and hate is illegal in various other developed countries. While any hatred physically acted out is illegal here, verbal hatred is totally acceptable by liberal Americans. Unless of course it is aimed at those ideals they hold dear. Then the person being hateful is a bigot, ignorant, stupid etc etc.

I would have thought you being from the UK, from abroad, would recognize the difference between the two. Would understand what tolerance is all about. Where the countries, the government, supports diversity and different beliefs rather than pushing them all out.

[Heracles 417]

he black population is significantly larger in the South as compared with the rest of the U.S., with the exception of some densely population urban areas.

As far as the North being more racist than the South because races are "kept separate": pure simplistic B.S. Is there plenty of racial hypocrisy in, say, the Boston area? You bet. But I also can't help but think of my mother's very diverse high school yearbook from 1963. She went to a public high school in Boston. And this was well before the busing fiasco a decade later.

Re: the South: One thing I'll never forget is visiting my old boyfriend's house in rural northern Florida, just south of the Georgia border. His parents were of a common type of "casual" Southern racist. They used the word "colored" as if they were being PC (i.e., w/ a smirk, suggesting that they watching their language because of guests). There was a white bar and a black bar up the street. Seriously. This was in the 90s.

At the same time in never seizes to amuse me to hear people speak up against the South and how these people (from blue states) are all for minorities yet come from cities and regions of the country where white Americans make up the majority of people there. What do you guys call it again, "stereotyping" and "generalizing".

Blacks and Whites have lived together for hundreds of years now. While racial barriers on both sides have a long way to go, they are clearly better assimilated and integrated with one another than a lot of other non-southern states. An interracial marriage is not what I call assimilation but having respect for one another.

Edited October 26, 2008 by Aficionado

[Peikko 1,575]

Ridicule doesn't necessarily or invariably lead to hate. Again, tell me what has changed, what are you no longer allowed to do that you were allowed to do before Maher and people like him performed their acts? Do people point and snigger when you enter your church? Do people throw rotten fruit at you when you put up your Christmas tree? Do people try to attack you because you 'look religious'?

I have to wonder if you wore blinkers and earphones the whole time you lived in Australia because political satire is hardly confined to the US. Making fun of people is simply not going to be legislated against, and nor should it. What you seem to be confusing, if I am reading correctly between the lines, is why it's not possible to make fun of Blacks using racial language while it is perfectly acceptable to make fun of religious people. How you can possibly equate the two is beyond me.

[nowhereman 1]

As far as I can tell, you dislike this person simply because he ridicules things you hold dear. Really, that's simply too bad.

Hate is hate and is another reason I dislike American liberals. They want to bring every other amendment into the 21st century except from the First. Intolerance and hate is illegal in various other developed countries. While any hatred physically acted out is illegal here, verbal hatred is totally acceptable by liberal Americans. Unless of course it is aimed at those ideals they hold dear. Then the person being hateful is a bigot, ignorant, stupid etc etc.

I would have thought you being from the UK, from abroad, would recognize the difference between the two. Would understand what tolerance is all about. Where the countries, the government, supports diversity and different beliefs rather than pushing them all out.

The problem with this is that the so called liberals you speak of represent a tiny percentage of democrats... it is a cartoonish exaggeration. On the other hand you take offense to labels such as "redneck", when you are at the same time throwing around the label of "liberal". I know quite a few democrats & republicans and none of them fit the definition of liberal or right winger, respectively. My point is that, unfortunately, the extremes on both ends of the spectrum tend to be the most vocal in their opinions but the truth of the matter is they represent a small minority of the population as a whole.

[Heracles 417]

The problem with this is that the so called liberals you speak of represent a tiny percentage of democrats... it is a cartoonish exaggeration. On the other hand you take offense to labels such as "redneck", when you are at the same time throwing around the label of "liberal". I know quite a few democrats & republicans and none of them fit the definition of liberal or right winger, respectively. My point is that, unfortunately, the extremes on both ends of the spectrum tend to be the most vocal in their opinions but the truth of the matter is they represent a small minority of the population as a whole.

I despise liberals and not genuine JFK type democrats.

[Peikko 1,575]

Dispise? You mean like 'hate'? Does that mean you tolerate them or would you prefer to 'illiminate' them in some way?

[Heracles 417]

Dispise? You mean like 'hate'? Does that mean you tolerate them or would you prefer to 'illiminate' them in some way?

Yes. The only difference is that I have not pretended to build a reputation of love, peace, anti-war and tolerance. See the difference PH?

For a group of people who are 'like so against the wars n'####' they seem to be involved in every domestic battle they can get their hands on.

[Peikko 1,575]

Dispise? You mean like 'hate'? Does that mean you tolerate them or would you prefer to 'illiminate' them in some way?

Yes. The only difference is that I have not pretended to build a reputation of love, peace, anti-war and tolerance. See the difference PH?

For a group of people who are 'like so against the wars n'####' they seem to be involved in every domestic battle they can get their hands on.

Yes what? That you hate them but you tolerate them? Or you hate them and would like to iliminate them?

I do see 'a difference' It would seem that you openly 'hate' a group of people that I can't identify (I have no idea who this group of people are) where as Mayers and his ilk simply poke fun at things they find funny.

Edited October 26, 2008 by Madame Cleo

[Heracles 417]

Yes what? That you hate them but you tolerate them? Or you hate them and would like to iliminate them?

I do see 'a difference' It would seem that you openly 'hate' a group of people that I can't identify (I have no idea who this group of people are) where as Mayers and his ilk simply poke fun at things they find funny.

PH PH. The one thing I really like about you and six is your I am on the fence stance..

You claim to not be part of any group yet nine out of ten of your posts conform to that of what is considered to be liberal American.

Edited October 26, 2008 by Aficionado

[Peikko 1,575]

Does this mean you 'hate' me?

Very confusing. However, my point, such as it is, is that what you object to about Mayer is simply not unconstitutional, not even close and neither him nor the people who do find him funny infringe any of your rights and liberties.

Edited October 26, 2008 by Madame Cleo

[nowhereman 1]

The problem with this is that the so called liberals you speak of represent a tiny percentage of democrats... it is a cartoonish exaggeration. On the other hand you take offense to labels such as "redneck", when you are at the same time throwing around the label of "liberal". I know quite a few democrats & republicans and none of them fit the definition of liberal or right winger, respectively. My point is that, unfortunately, the extremes on both ends of the spectrum tend to be the most vocal in their opinions but the truth of the matter is they represent a small minority of the population as a whole.

I despise liberals and not genuine JFK type democrats.

Well the group of liberals you speak of represents the far left & I don't identify with that group myself. I find the far right to be equally ignorant & out of touch with reality. The problem here is that the term "liberal" is overused & misused so much that it has essentially lost meaning. Look at the right wingers that post here... as soon as you disagree with them they label you a liberal. It doesn't matter what your actual political views are, to them you are socialist, communist, hippy, etc. Along the same line look at the hatred and ignorance that the McCain camp has stirred up... so much so that on a few occasions McCain had to ask them to stop (and was booed for it).

Hatred & ignorance is not limited to a political party, but it does tend to reside with extremists (on either end).