Liberals

Why do people hate liberals?

Because they want to...

1) Take away guns.

2) All devilish atheists rule the world.

3) Censor the word, "Nigger" along with others.

4) Make the world politically correct.

They take away our gun ... liberal...they take away our guns...liberal.  Damn something isn't working here.  Almost like taking our guns is a basic liberty and liberals believe in these, but they are going to take them away?

-they freed the slaves
-they stopped child labour
-they gave women/niggers the right to vote
-women's emancipation
-they invented pensions
-they take guns away
-anti-war
-foreign aid
-unions
-criminalization of spousal rape
-positive discrimination

what's not to hate about them?

>>4
liberals didnt freed the slaves

>>2
this!

>>2
fucking this!

but still, i consider myself an independent

>>6
>>7
oops i didnt see that first post

>>4
So you just admit your an asshole who view women as objects and blacks as not human. Seriously, have you listened to yourself?

You're just an asshole if you seriously hate liberals over these things.

>>9
Hi, you must be new hear.

>>10
No, I actually been lurking on 4chan since last spring.

My old city-state represents love and libertianism.

For I am a /co/mrade.

>>9
I was being ironic. Don't you think?

>>12
What's ironic?

>>13
It's like rain on your wedding day.

People don't hate liberals. Subhuman knuckle-draggers hate liberals.

>>15
>>Subhuman knuckle-draggers
What?

I am an liberal!

democrats ftw.
Republicans ftl.

Liberals = free thinkers intellectual human beings.

Conservatives = religion blinded idiots who can't ge the Brain power to open their eyes.

Liberals often abuse their own high ideals, they're fake 90% of the time.

A liberal here has already tried to lump the dubious policy of "positive discrimination" with the noble causes of universal suffrage, ending slavery and so forth. >>18 uses the label "free thinking" to aggrandise his side of partisan politics which is totally illogical for obvious reasons but also in line with the liberal custom of trying to appear rational and morally righteous rather than actually being rational and ethical.

Under a conservative government, liberals can still usually act in a liberal fashion.  They can give half their money to public services and charity, they can treat gays and women like equals all they want, they can even free all their slaves.

Under a liberal government, conservatives aren't allowed to keep all their money to do with as they please, they can't treat gays and women like inferior people, and they're not even allowed to keep slaves.

I'm not ragging on all liberals here -- I've met a few who aren't hypocritical morons.  But when liberals feel their ideals have to be taken and forced upon people who don't believe in them, that's where I draw the line.

>>20
We should have enslaved Obama while Bush was still in power.

>>21
You did.  And everyone else, for that matter.  Let's just see how long it goes on.

Liberals are usually right in principle but need a reality check on a lot of things. Positive discrimination is often a good example of that. A black woman has a lot of liberal political capital above some white guy even if the white guy has accomplished a lot more or is better qualified. In Europe that was quite out of control, but it seems they're finally getting some sense, slowly and at long last.

>>23
Of course positive discrimination is wrong, no need to yammer on about it. You sound like a butthurt racist.

>>1

People hate liberals because unlike conservative positions (DURR-HURR JESUS DURR-HURR LESS TAXES!), liberal positions actually require long-term thinking, which conservatives don't care about because all they want is a quick fuck and to be the master race.

>>25
There are many liberal positions that are short sighted and naive, for instance during the 30s many liberals believed we should tolerate socialist regimes such as the national socialist worker's party of Germany and did their best to appease them by letting them annex other sovereign nation's territory and keeping the US out of the war as long as possible.

So it's still better to be a liberal than a conservative?

Hmmmmm...

Well...
Conservative:  Do nothing, do less, everything is fine the way it is, or we should go backward.

Liberal:  Do everything, do more, do something even if it's wrong, at least it's an attempt to move forward.


You tell me which is better.

Liberals complain so much about how Fox News Channel is so conservative as if that's a problem. "All the other networks love Obama, so FNC must be evil." Fair and balanced doesn't mean they love liberal positions as much as conservative; it means the other networks need to be balanced out.

For all that Liberals are supposed to be forward-thinking and pro-change and all that crap, they've been spouting pretty much the same pseudo-socialist rhetoric for as long as I've known them.  If they're so liberal, why don't they mix things up and promote a fundamentalist Zoroastrian theocracy or something?  I mean, all that 'democracy' and 'equal rights' stuff has been around for ages, we need something new.

>>30
>I mean, all that 'democracy' and 'equal rights' stuff has been around for ages, we need something new.
Apparently not, because there is still racism and sexism in the world.

>>31
Simply disagreeing racism and sexism isn't enough, if the only solutions you can come up with are diversity drives and getting butthurt over "merry christmas" then it's obvious lending my support would be a waste of resources that could be better spent elsewhere.

>>31
Apparently not, because there is still racism and sexism in the world.

Of course there is.  Whether it's religion, country of birth, race, sexuality, or just which sports team you cheer for, there's always going to be people who will use such arbitrary criteria to prove their superiority over others.  It's part of human nature, and acting as if tens of thousands of years of evolved behaviour can be overcome by happy thoughts and marshmallows is just fantasy.

The fact that discrimination exists isn't the problem -- the problem is how to deal with it.  And I've not met any liberals with convincing arguments that they know how.

>>20
"But when liberals feel their ideals have to be taken and forced upon people who don't believe in them, that's where I draw the line. "

It's almost like they're not really liberal at all! Almost like they cherry pick which personal liberties are good and which are bad, which isn't liberal in any way.

Protip for the idiots: It is possible to be socially liberal (like or apathetic towards gay marriage, abortion, etc) but still be fiscally conservative (prefer limiting the size of government [IE: let people take care of themselves, stop making the country a Nanny State] try to reduce debt, etc...) Also, stop assuming that republicans are all 100% psychotic Christians. There are, in fact, atheists in the republican party.

Heh, you can see a problem with liberals by looking at California. California considers itself the most progressive and liberal state. They have a horrible deficit, they suffer power outages because of their socialism, and businesses are flocking away from them. That's why 1.5 million people left California last year and about the same number came to Texas, the conservative bastion.

It's the liberals who support the crazy men who sue Hooters when Hooters won't hire them as Hooter Girls. Everything must be equal, like socialism.

>>34 Dude, I'm sure there are atheists in every political party, but in American politics, it is almost impossible in the current age for an honest atheist to be elected. 

On topic, Obama was highly criticized (not in major new sources of course) for his political affiliations, including his church.  This involved him pleading ignorance about his pastor's (J. Right's) racism... it seems like he's just using religion as a tool to be elected.  Fine by me, of course, but no honest religious person wants anyone seeming dishonest (certainly not an atheist!) in office.

Outwardly, American "Liberals" are less, erm, fanatic in their beleifs.

Another thing wrong with liberals is how hard they milk the "IM A VICTIM" gravy train, it seems it extends to optional beliefs now.
>>36
Stop trying to make yourself out to be like a jew in auschwitz, no one's oppressing you, atheism is just another religion and thus a choice and a legitimate issue no different from views on foreign policy or government spending.

>>37
atheism is just another religion
Why does this myth keep on being perpetuated? How can atheism be a religion when it is a lack of faith in any religion whatsoever?

>>38
It's not my fault the English language is so FUCKED UP that it can't even properly define religion in such a way that it includes atheism.  But just saying "Durr, no it's not" does nothing to solve the problem.

>>38
Wrong, wrong.  Examples of myths that are continually perpetuated, especially to the detriment of society, are things like Jesus, and Mohamed.  As to atheism being a religion I suggest you look the word up.  You'll find it generally fits.

>>40
How does that continue to make it a "religion", per se? Atheists do not go to a church and do not pray to a god or a deity. Believing in things or having faith in something does not make one religious. For example, I could say I have faith in a baseball team winning a game on so-and-so date; I have decided to put much confidence in the fact that such will happen when the time comes. In this context, believing or having faith in that such-and-such will happen on such-and-such date and time does not carry a religious connotation.

Atheists do not go to a "church" and make donations to said church and pray to a god or a deity as stated earlier. They do not group together and rally against people who do practice a religion (and if there are those that do, that's rather featherbrained and pointless).

>>41
Star Trek is my religion.

>>38
Myth? When you have atheists denouncing religion whilst at the same time chanting slogans and worshipping dawkins do you expect no one to make the connection?
>>39
>>40
>>41
I see nowhere in the dictionary or on the internets where it says that religion must compose of several metaphysical beliefs. Most atheists share other beliefs such as determinism anyway and there are many religions that include atheism as one of their beliefs such as buddhism and marxism. You're just splitting hairs.

The truth is it doesn't matter what religion you believe in, just as long as you're not a douche about it. I suppose you could claim to be areligious if you want but you'd probably need to give up atheism since atheism is just one more belief closer to being in a religion.

Just a few thoughts. I guess reality isn't as simple as you enjoy believeing to comfort yourself after all! Atheists are funny.

>>43
believing*

>>35
Our republican governor. Thanks for sucking balls. Good bye.

>>43
Atheism is simply a LACK of belief in a deity. It is not an assertion that there AREN'T any.

Atheism is a neutral stance. Everyone is born atheistic. Faith gets drilled into you by your parents, your community and your culture.

No theist has yet made a logically sound argument for the existence of their deity. Thus, their assertions are invalid and aren't even on the table for serious discussion. My claim that an invisible pink unicorn is standing on your shoulder is EXACTLY as valid as any theistic claim.

An atheist recognizes this and chooses not to believe in any deity because there is no evidence to support such a claim. He does not rule out the possibility, but sees no reason to assert that they exist.

An anti-theist takes it one step further. Because none of the theists have ever been able to offer a single scrap of actual evidence, they are basing their entire belief system on nothing more than imagination, fear, ignorance, and delusion. That is, it's all pretend. And that means it isn't real. And that means your invisible sky daddy doesn't exist because you (or someone thousands of years ago) made him up. Occam's Razor, Burden of Proof, etc. Just because it's a really old folk tale, doesn't mean it's true.

Every reference definition of the word 'religion' I've seen has listed Faith as a requirement. Faith is belief without evidence. Explain to me how atheism or even anti-theism rely on Faith. They don't, because they don't have to. That's the difference between Religion and a belief system: Faith. And Faith is retarded.

Christians have been waging smear campaigns on the terms for decades, to the point that the vast majority of people don't even know what "agnostic" really means. I suggest you take a couple weeks and do some serious research and "soul searching" before you embarrass yourself further.

>>43
Atheism is simply a LACK of belief in a deity. It is not an assertion that there AREN'T any.

Atheism is a neutral stance. Everyone is born atheistic. Faith gets drilled into you by your parents, your community and your culture.

No theist has yet made a logically sound argument for the existence of their deity. Thus, their assertions are invalid and aren't even on the table for serious discussion. My claim that an invisible pink unicorn is standing on your shoulder is EXACTLY as valid as any theistic claim.

An atheist recognizes this and chooses not to believe in any deity because there is no evidence to support such a claim. He does not rule out the possibility, but sees no reason to assert that they exist.

An anti-theist takes it one step further. Because none of the theists have ever been able to offer a single scrap of actual evidence, they are basing their entire belief system on nothing more than imagination, fear, ignorance, and delusion. That is, it's all pretend. And that means it isn't real. And that means your invisible sky daddy doesn't exist because you (or someone thousands of years ago) made him up. Occam's Razor, Burden of Proof, etc. Just because it's a really old folk tale, doesn't mean it's true.

Every reference definition of the word 'religion' I've seen has listed Faith as a requirement. Faith is belief without evidence. Explain to me how atheism or even anti-theism rely on Faith. They don't, because they don't have to. That's the difference between Religion and a belief system: Faith. And Faith is retarded.

Christians have been waging smear campaigns on the terms for decades, to the point that the vast majority of people don't even know what "agnostic" really means. I suggest you take a couple weeks and do some serious research and "soul searching" before you embarrass yourself further.

Oops, sorry. Dropped my keyboard and it managed to double post.

>>47
explain to me why the big bang (nothing exploding into something)
is more logical than a creator god (sky wizard creates the universe)
and how these 2 are incompatible with each other?
I can only speak as a Muslim I'm not 100% sure about the bible, but the Qu'ran in its original language and completely unobscured or taken out of context does not go against anything that modern science has said
why is it more logical to think that nothing exploded into something, than having a creator?

sorry if this seems aggressive my English isn't great

>>49
First, thank you for proving your ignorance. The "Big Bang" theory (actually called Cosmic Inflation) says nothing of the sort.

Cosmic Inflation only describes events back to a fraction of a second (about 10^-36) AFTER the event in question and in the 13.73 billion years since.

Seriously, do some research. It's for your own good. Don't just blindly listen to propaganda.

==================

Second, you still haven't provided a single rational reason for believing in your deity. As such, the only logical assumption that can be made is that you (or rather, someone a few millennia ago) made it up and that it doesn't exist. Occam's Razor, Burden of Proof, etc.

==================

Third, some of the major claims in the Qur'an that do not agree with Science:

Mankind descended from a single soul. (4:1, 7:189)
The Earth is flat. (13:3, 15:19, 50:7, 51:48, 78:6, 79:30, 88:20, 91:6)
The Sun orbits the Earth. (13:2, 21:33, 27:61, 35:13, 36:40)
The Sun rises and sets on Earth (18:86, 18:90)
Muhammad split the moon in two (54:1)

Feel free to argue that each and every one of those is simply a translation error.

>>50
Hey, look everyone!  I can cut-and-paste long-refuted arguments from atheist websites!  Sure is easier than thinking!

You mean LIE-berals.
You know, because of their relative propensity towards lies that lead to Marxism. And because it sort of rhymes with liberal.

>>50
i bet you jerked to your own post.
i was asking a question, and you didn't explain at all why your argument is more rational. No Atheists seem to be able to answer this and instead tell me I'm stupid.

Occam's Razor "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity." well that's the tl;dr version.
Kid, don't post philosophical ideas you have no idea about.


and with your copy and pasted quotes you failed to mention the "twain scattered (like seeds) countless men and women."

also some of those references are off. like... completely irrelevant passages. i was thinking that my Arabic version of the Qu'ran could be wrong, but hey, maybe its because you're full of shit.

i think maybe it is you who needs to do some research. And I'm not the one who listens to propaganda... considering the site you copy pasted off could be classes as such.

>>46-48
Sorry but the definitions I've seen have only required that the beliefs concern the nature of existence and the universe, not faith. I can see how a religion can be founded around beliefs which do not require faith in the same way a religion can be founded around a single belief, I could easily create a set of guidelines for a religious community in each or both circumstances. If you strike up a list of physically unproven beliefs in a religion and ask a follower why they believe in them you are unlikely to get the response "faith" for each of them, faith isn't fundamental for a religion.

Even if atheism means the absence of belief in god, not the belief in the non-existence of god, it doesn't mean it can't be used in a religion, in fact it is. If Buddhism and all the communist personality cults are not religions then what is?

>>49
>>50
I think it's simpler to admit we don't know what happened before the big bang. As for the koran it may actually prove god exists by providing discoveries the ancients did not have the technology to achieve, if it's all true muhammed was just a human visited by an angel though, american deep south style protestant christianity and religious plurality is still the most reasonable course.

27:61
Or, Who made the earth a resting place, and made in it rivers, and raised on it mountains and placed between the two seas a barrier. Is there a god with Allah? Nay! most of them do not know!

I don't see anything about the sun orbiting the earth in this koran quote, this seems more like a primitive metaphor of "why does existence occur?" tailored for the mentally deficient desert tribes of arabia.

>There are, in fact, atheists in the republican party.
why the fuck would you be an atheist and be part of the same political party that actually DEBATED whether or not it was offensive that Obama included "people without religion" in his inauguration speech?

>>55
*cough* Big tent *cough*

srsly, there are people out there who are culturally and fiscally conservative, maybe even with small-l libertarian leanings, who hold their noses and vote R because the Democrats offend them even more.  srsly.  If you find this difficult to imagine, perhaps--and I mean this in the nicest possible way--you need to get out more, and see more of the country, and more of the world.

>>56
*seriously

>>57
SRSLY U GUISE

facepalm.txt

>>59
UR NOT SERIOSE

>>60
Of course "UR" is not "SERIOSE". Ur was an ancient Sumerian city in what is now modern Iraq. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ur

>>61
UR WONG

>>61
Yeah, that city had a lot of history. Well, until the loved-by-liberals muslims burned it down.

>>63
It's still largely intact and well preserved for its age. Also, Arabs centuries ago used to enjoy living in beautiful cities and kept a large empire during the Islamic golden age; all while places like London were just but a small villages.

>>64
Only because they conquered it from the Byzantines, 300 years later and they had succeeded in turning it into a stankhole like the rest of nigrabia.