Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Why do democrats hate so much? A thought to ponder.

page: 3
40
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 04:31 PM
link   
Interesting notion. This is the first time I've ever heard this. Generally it is Republican's who are thought to be without love and compassion. Not all of course. OP excepted. But as a general characteristic of the party.

During the Bush administration, I even thought the Democratic party would become the "new conservatives", because you know, the way Bush was trampling all over our constitution, and the Democrats were desperately trying to "conserve" it.




posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 04:35 PM
link   
It's 2009 and the O.P is pointing out "Hatred of the left".

We've been swindled by rats in Government for decades, only to culminate lately into an aggressive HEIST of the American people as of late.

If you don't see that we've been completely duped by both, you're seriously either drunk at the party, late to the party, missed the party because of a flat tire, or never got invited to the party.

Snap the hell out of it.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnny2127

Categorically untrue. Read the private papers of Lincoln sometime. This was a deeply held belief in human equality, not a military strategy. Read what he thought and wrote, and stop with this useless drivel. Its like the US version of people saying the Holocaust never happened.



Straight from the PBS website (source here...clicky)


In his inaugural address, delivered on March 4, 1861, Lincoln proclaimed that it was his duty to maintain the Union. He also declared that he had no intention of ending slavery where it existed, or of repealing the Fugitive Slave Law -- a position that horrified African Americans and their white allies. Lincoln's statement, however, did not satisfy the Confederacy, and on April 12 they attacked Fort Sumter, a federal stronghold in Charleston, South Carolina. Federal troops returned the fire. The Civil War had begun.


and the next relevant bit




Lincoln's chance came after the Union victory at the Battle of Antietam in September of 1862. He issued the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation on September 22. The proclamation warned the Confederate states to surrender by January 1, 1863, or their slaves would be freed.


It was a military tactic, plain and simple...he of course was part of some liberal wacky thought that it would be cool if all slaves were free, but he assured the conservatives time and time again that he wasnt going to do that...until it was a viable military tactic to crush the Confederate spirit, which incidently it did when they didnt surrender and he freed em all (not just the escaped ones)

you can apologise like a man, or close your eyes and ears and scream nananana, I cant hear you...either way



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 04:44 PM
link   
Why are Democrats full of hate? Did I wake up in some bizarre alternative dimension where everyone has goatees and the Republicans are the party of peace, love, and understanding? Where Republicans embrace those of different religious beliefs and stress tolerance of those with different sexual preferences.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Kaploink
 


Well I wouldn't agree with the overall statement that the Democrats are the party of hate. I am Conservative, but wouldn't say I am Republican anymore. I would say I am a Reagan Republican, but thats not the current Republican Party. That being said, I would say there is hate on both sides obviously. However, what I have noticed about most Democrats and liberals as that they are the most intolerant of other people's opinions of any group. They preach tolerance and then treat all dissenting opinions as that of people with lesser intelligence, or evil. Sure, some conservatives do the same thing, but its a much much higher percentage of democrats and liberals that do this.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 04:52 PM
link   
Didn't read the whole thread, but hopefully - as my title says "Thread Killer" - I can end this fruitless argument right now.

The "Republican" party vs. the "Liberal" party is a foolish argument for everyone.

These two parties have stood for different things at different times. The words Conservative and Liberal have changed so many times in the past 100 years, that this argument does not mean anything. Do not listen to what the OP says. Your party is not Repuiblican or Democrat...your party is Awakened.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 04:56 PM
link   
Interesting replies. Not surprized by some (sadly) but what can you do.

I wrote this, not to troll, but to expand on what I have seen. The vitriol and sheer hatred I've seen on the left. Just mention the name "Palin" and people start frothing at the mouth.

I have noted that while the left have the House, Senate, and the White House, they still look for people to hate. They, I feel, need that polarization in order to justify their beliefs.

The venom stated in these posts only justify what I have been thinking.

Why can't the democratic party unify and pass their agenda? They have ALL the cards, they have ALL the power. The republicans are nothing but a "weak sister" at this point.

The Garafelo's, Mahr's, MSNBC, CBS, PBS, ABC, NBC, celebrities, Michael Moore's are all still so damn angry. Now they point fingers at domestic terrorists, use the internet to inhibit people from posting their thoughts for feaar of reprisal, and resort to name calling when they feel it appropriate.

You guys won. Gloat, enjoy, release the anger. -sheesh-



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 04:57 PM
link   
I think the intolerance comes from a general hatred of ignorance.

If you know that 1+4=5 and someone says it is 3 cause God said it is...you can either blow your lid and call them a flipping idiot, or walk away laughing and looking down at that person...both responses are generally negative, but rightfully so.

So, when you have a large amount of scientific data, peer reviewed, showing a link between emissions of automobiles and increase in global warming and others simply deny the evidence, you tend to appear negative because your dealing with ignorance, or if you see the government that supposed to be independent of religious institutions given breaks for people in a religious ceremony and then start dictating how the religious ceremony should be preformed (aka, gays cant marry), then ya...people will see this as a absolute pinnicle of moronishness...such decisions should be made by the church, not by the government or any offical of the government..frankly, the government should only observe civil unifications...if some church wants to tie in their marriage ceremony with the state unification, then so be it..

The party isnt negative, its angry at ignorance as we all are when we have absolute raw hard data backing up a claim (and yes, smoking is linked to cancer...look how long it took for "them" to accept that bit of science)



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by DocEmrick
These two parties have stood for different things at different times. The words Conservative and Liberal have changed so many times in the past 100 years, that this argument does not mean anything. Do not listen to what the OP says.


Truer words have not been spoken.


Yes, the Democratic Party has its share of hatred. The Republican party hates just as well. People who are neither also hate. To try to quantify it and say that the Democrats hate more than Republicans is just a fool's game. There's got to be more substance than that.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX
I think the intolerance comes from a general hatred of ignorance.

If you know that 1+4=5 and someone says it is 3 cause God said it is...you can either blow your lid and call them a flipping idiot, or walk away laughing and looking down at that person...both responses are generally negative, but rightfully so.

So, when you have a large amount of scientific data, peer reviewed, showing a link between emissions of automobiles and increase in global warming and others simply deny the evidence, you tend to appear negative because your dealing with ignorance, or if you see the government that supposed to be independent of religious institutions given breaks for people in a religious ceremony and then start dictating how the religious ceremony should be preformed (aka, gays cant marry), then ya...people will see this as a absolute pinnicle of moronishness...such decisions should be made by the church, not by the government or any offical of the government..frankly, the government should only observe civil unifications...if some church wants to tie in their marriage ceremony with the state unification, then so be it..

The party isnt negative, its angry at ignorance as we all are when we have absolute raw hard data backing up a claim (and yes, smoking is linked to cancer...look how long it took for "them" to accept that bit of science)



Now THAT is a cognitive response from the left that I've read and can understand. Thank you for your reply.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikerussellus
Just mention the name "Palin" and people start frothing at the mouth.


And when you mention the word Obama? People get out their love blasters?




Why can't the democratic party unify and pass their agenda? They have ALL the cards, they have ALL the power. The republicans are nothing but a "weak sister" at this point.


The real answer is that they could if Obama would stop working for bipartisanship that's not going to happen.



The Garafelo's, Mahr's, MSNBC, CBS, PBS, ABC, NBC, celebrities, Michael Moore's are all still so damn angry.


And Limbaugh, Beck, O'Reilly, FOX, Reagan and others are all sweetness and light?
Please!



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikerussellus


The Garafelo's, Mahr's, MSNBC, CBS, PBS, ABC, NBC, celebrities, Michael Moore's are all still so damn angry.


The networks you posted cater to
Democrats, independents, moderate republicans, nazis, socialists, facists, libertarians, constitutionalists, whigs, aliens, pets.
there is only 1 network that caters to the far right wing exclusively...you know which one.

Personally, my anger has little to do with limblah or bleck, they are simply entertainers making a mint on spreading nonsense and a small group eating it up...my anger personally comes from looking at the Dems and wondering why the living hell they are dragging their heels trying to be bipartisan verses just get stuff done...

I respect the hell out of the republicans in this respect...when they had power, they slammed through things without batting a eyelash and barely even thinking about things...they simply got it done, scru bipartisan support, dont even bother talking to the other side. Dems need to learn to not be so group thought and caring about what the other side wants...to hell with em, just get it done.

Gah, I hate responding to threads meant to do nothing more than troll...but whatever, its sunday.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 05:06 PM
link   
What you have is a political party that has been taken over by people who want to change this country and control it without anyones input,just listen and do what you are told.The anger comes from being questioned and have no discernable answer or the ability to disscus the question in a civil manner.If the liberals try to argue there point then the truth will come out and that is the last thing people who are trying to take over a country(and you are the minorety (22%))want,the agenda needs to be hidden as long as possiable.

With a president like Obama you can bet that the Dems are angree 24/7 trying to protect a narcissistic lier and now doubt that he is capable of even leading them.One wonders if there is even anyone behind him that is trying to help him do the right thing or if he has just said "stand back I'll do this I am THE ONE"

How do you convince free people that they should become Socialist/Communist and not become mad with the reaction you must get??



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Why does Obama need the republicans for his agenda? He has all the cards. He doesn't need them at all.

To claim bipartisanship for some of his obvious left leaning policies is ludicrous.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Battleline
 


I tend to agree with you. The problem is with their own party, though. They can't push their agenda without all members supporting them. And as for getting the republicans on board, they look to nulify their left-leaning policies with republican endorsement.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 05:17 PM
link   
Hm. I take some issue with the liberal hatred label. Democrats I can't speak for, but I'm a person who doesn't hold a political party whatsoever and I would consider most of my beliefs to be rather liberal. However, I try my best to live in as much love and tolerance as possbile, I'll admit to my faults but I wouldn't say that I have more hate in me than any free-thinking conservative.

These lines of liberal and democrate or republican and conservative are meshed far too often. I would call many of the republicans I know liberals. Neo-Conservatives, yeah, I would lump them more often with Republicans. I'm not sure if we've developed an equal word for liberal democrats yet so I can't speak on that.

I think it's important to make a distinction here.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by johnny2127
 

You are correct of course...but sad isn't it...

how far the Republican party has fallen?

Unfortunately for the nation (and the party) all those people would be considered far too liberal for the GOP today.

Hell...

Nixon is too liberal for the GOP today.

[edit on 11-10-2009 by grover]



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by stonespiral
 


Unless you're Janine Garafelo, I think you're exempt. I'm refering to the anger that I see, especially when I've posted counter-points on political issues. Instead of sensible arguments, I see anger.

This anger is all over the media as well. Sure, there's Limbaugh et al, but what do you expect? Would these people want no other side?

As for the line between liberal/democrat/conservative/republican

My apologies.

I am a conservative, but in no way am I a republican.

Point taken.



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by DraconianKing
 


I don't even know. I think it is a bunch of old grumpy people being old. I assume you are around my age due to your Bleach Avatar. I don't think many individuals our age are this brainwashed in partisan nonsense, I think we understand that it gets us nowhere.

Now, I am not slamming all the older posters out there....I am just saying that this hate is being lost in the transference of values between generations. (even if the OP mislabeled which party feeds off of hate)



[edit on 11-10-2009 by TheOneElectric]



posted on Oct, 11 2009 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by havok
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but wasn't the southern democratic party responsible for trying to keep slavery in the USA in the 1850's?



Why yes, the southern CONSERVATIVE democrats were pro slavery

and the BIG GOVERNMENT Republican party was against it because it gave more credibility to the UNION'S effort during the WAR.

Unless you are saying southern culture is a liberal culture _ are you???

I guess the hippies that marched during the civil rights movement were conservatives too


Certainly the KKK is a LIBERAL organization


dress a cow in feathers and it probably won't taste like chicken





new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join