"Charitable libs"

[Andy]

You are only proving my original point. YOU are the one who is stuck in a mentality of grouping people into little boxes by what they believe on other issues.

I would have to agree with him. Just based on personal experience. Liberals constantly group in order to make up a false reason to accuse, slander or discredit. For example, Jennifer Flowers.

The president makes unwanted passes at her, and when she complains (something the feminist movements says she should do), what's the first thing they do? She's trailer park white trash. (grouping to discredit) I honestly feel horrible for the women. She'll likely spend the rest of her life trying to get that insult out of the back of her mind.

How about pro-life people? The first thing you hear is, they bomb abortion clinics. (grouping to accuse)

And any type of religious views, it's people like them that caused the crusades. (grouping to slander)

I myself, on this forum, have had the same thing done to me. Never once do they address the evidence on a particular issue, but rather I've been called "low brow" which to me just shows arrogance, "conspiracy theorist" just means 'I can't argue with your evidence', "Anti-technologist" despite being in a high tech field, making high tech products... and on and on.

That said, everyone "groups" to some degree. Everyone makes judgments about someone they meet in the first few minute of conversation. But, generally, Liberals use these as a means to discredit, slander, and accuse people with. It's a way of avoiding actually thinking through the issue which may lead to changing of opinion, or admitting error.

 

[Libsmasher]

I would have to agree with him. Just based on personal experience. Liberals constantly group in order to make up a false reason to accuse, slander or discredit. For example, Jennifer Flowers.

The president makes unwanted passes at her, and when she complains (something the feminist movements says she should do), what's the first thing they do? She's trailer park white trash. (grouping to discredit) I honestly feel horrible for the women. She'll likely spend the rest of her life trying to get that insult out of the back of her mind.

How about pro-life people? The first thing you hear is, they bomb abortion clinics. (grouping to accuse)

And any type of religious views, it's people like them that caused the crusades. (grouping to slander)

I myself, on this forum, have had the same thing done to me. Never once do they address the evidence on a particular issue, but rather I've been called "low brow" which to me just shows arrogance, "conspiracy theorist" just means 'I can't argue with your evidence', "Anti-technologist" despite being in a high tech field, making high tech products... and on and on.

That said, everyone "groups" to some degree. Everyone makes judgments about someone they meet in the first few minute of conversation. But, generally, Liberals use these as a means to discredit, slander, and accuse people with. It's a way of avoiding actually thinking through the issue which may lead to changing of opinion, or admitting error.

You left out the big one this campaign season (and possibly for four more years ) - anyone who disagrees with Obama is a "racist".

 

[GenSeneca]

And because Hillary didn't get the nomination... Americans are clearly Sexist.

 

[PLC1]

I would have to agree with him. Just based on personal experience. Liberals constantly group in order to make up a false reason to accuse, slander or discredit. For example, Jennifer Flowers.

Thus, you yourself group liberals in order to show how liberals group. Interesting. Is your definition of "liberal" still people who favor a strong and powerful central government, or has the meaning shifted?

 

[Andy]

Thus, you yourself group liberals in order to show how liberals group. Interesting. Is your definition of "liberal" still people who favor a strong and powerful central government, or has the meaning shifted?

I stated what I had experienced. If you call that grouping to point out how others group, especially since I have never done that to another, fine. I don't see many people saying they support X or are liberal, and having tons of people automatically calling them Jew killers or Killing Field supporters, or child murderers.

I don't see how any of the previously stated experiences, are in some way mutually exclusive to supporting an overbearing controlling authoritarian central government. It is possible that a defined Liberalism can have more than one single attribute.

 

[PLC1]

I stated what I had experienced. If you call that grouping to point out how others group, especially since I have never done that to another, fine. I don't see many people saying they support X or are liberal, and having tons of people automatically calling them Jew killers or Killing Field supporters, or child murderers.

Yes, grouping people under the banner "liberal", or any other banner, and saying that those people you have clumped are guilty of grouping others together is illogical to say the least.

No, I don't see people calling themselves "liberal" being automatically called Jew killers or killing field supporters, either. So?

I don't see how any of the previously stated experiences, are in some way mutually exclusive to supporting an overbearing controlling authoritarian central government. It is possible that a defined Liberalism can have more than one single attribute.

It is possible that the term "liberal" can be and is used to mean whatever the user wants it to mean at the time.

If the term means those who support an "overbearing controlling authoritarian central government", then most of the people we've sent to Washington are liberals, unfortunately.