Why are liberals so hypoceitical in things they say and do with others?
As far as I can tell, it is self-hatred, which they take out on others, a desire to avoid responsibility, and a need to feel like they are 'elite' or 'enlightened' above other people (to help them deal with their self-hatred, I guess). You can see it in the other answers - 'Judy & Charlie' doesn't provide an answer, just tells you to shut up and posts an insult - liberals are very big on thinking they are smarter than everyone else, so you'll find they call others stupid a lot. 'Lone Star Patriot' tries the tired 'you are a Russian' insult, tries to act smart like the other user did, and has a bit of paranoia in there too . . . hope he isn't a gun owner! So, that's who liberals are - a sad, miserable people, who only want to attack others.
As a liberal, what do you think conservatives just need to accept?
Climate change is real, and we are running out of time to combat it. Conservatives should be helping to find conservative solutions to the problem rather than denying its existence.Supporting the troops means actually supporting them- funding the VA and the GI bill, providing mental and physical support for veterans and their families.Coupled with that, the military budget is bloated and no one is accountable. The money largely doesn’t reach the troops and instead is spent on military contractors, some of whom are, to put it bluntly, robbing us blind. Suggesting that this is so should not be met with an assumption that the speaker is unpatriotic or a “Communist”.Between Medicare, the VA, the ACA, private employment-based insurance, and public assistance, we are running multiple different yet overlapping healthcare systems in the country. A single universal system would be significantly more efficient and cost us all less money. How do we know this? That’s not only the result of studies, but we have numerous examples from other countries that have both much lower costs and far better outcomesIn order to believe in supply-side economics, you have to ignore facts, data, logic, individual anecdotes from places like Kansas, and literally all of human history. The Laffer Curve is a thing, but we haven’t been anywhere near the right side of it in my lifetime.Can we stop pretending that the Republican Party actually believes in personal responsibility, fiscal reponsibility, or small government? Don’t believe words, believe actions. And votes.If you want fewer abortions, you have to create policies which result in fewer abortions. In other words, creating a society where fewer women wish to have them-sex education, contraception, and better support for mothers and children both pre-and post-natally. And yes, that means making them available when the pregnant woman wishes. It’s still her body. Banning them does little but drive them underground where they are both more dangerous and more numerous.
Any other liberal anti-feminists here?
A lot of people see me as a contradiction. I'm liberal, Christian, and usually anti-feminist. I believe in women's rights but not necessarily all of the feminist movement. Conservatives think they are the only ones with values and the only ones to focus on families but thats ridiculous. I vote democrat and I think the feminist movement has taken one step foreward for women and two steps backwards for society and families
Why do some liberals think Obama is squeaky clean when there are sources claiming that he and Michelle lost their law licenses to avoid charges?
I want to start out by saying I am not a liberal and I am not an Obama supporter. I am a radical, and I opposed both Obama and for what it's worth Hillary Clinton.That said, this is A “when did you stop beating your wife?” question. It presupposes a factual claim that is untrue. The Obamas never "lost” while licenses in the way that Bill Clinton did as part of a disciplinary proceeding, nor were they forced indirectly to get them up to avoid such proceedings. Much less charges. No public disciplinary proceeding has ever been brought against either of them, contrary to a false Internet rumor. they voluntarily went on inactive status, avoid a requirement to take continuing education classes and pay hundreds of dollars in annual fees. They could clearly afford the fees, but the CLE classes — I speak as a practicing lawyer — are a pain in the neck. You can confirm this with the AAR DC in Illinois, where I believe they got their law licenses. it matter of public record. Both could practice law again if they chose to do so. They would have to pay their biographies and go on in active status, which they could.In saying that I am not endorsing the proposition that Obama is "squeaky clean." But his corruption is probably legal and other sort that you would approve. He is a creature of penny Pritzker and the Pritzker family, and the Chicago real estate industry. They originally back him and financed him, elevating at first to the Illinois legislature, then to the US Senate, at five White House.In Illinois, he made his bones for the real estate and finance industry by engaging in and supporting as a legislator various kinds of shady practices that resulted in thousands of poor black families losing their or becoming my road debt. He Rewarded Penny Pritzker making her commerce secretary in his second term, something which he could not do in his first term, because she was under the geisha, and if recollection serves, fined for these practices.My guess is that someone who would ask a question such as the one you posed would think that this is all hunky-dory.
Who was Bush's "You're either with us or against us" speech directed at?
Liberals think the world revolves around them. If a conservative makes a statement they don't agree with, they label conservatives as hate mongers. If the tables are turned then they are expressing free speech.
Question for liberals who see nothing wrong with premarital sex... why is cheating wrong?
I always hear liberals claiming that premarital sex is alright because that way you can find out whether you're sexually compatible with such person...There are also liberals who claim that premarital sex is like testing a car! Well, according to such "logic" why would it be wrong if a man or woman who are dating someone ... decide to have sex with another person ? why can't they find out whether they are sexually compatible with this other person that they just met? So, suppose a husband or wife decide to have sex with another person, why would it be wrong? if you already own a car, are you forbidden from "testing other cars"? is your old, used car going to get mad if you decide to test other cars? So, liberals, please tell me... if premarital sex is cool then why some of you have a problem with cheating?