Why do liberals attack religion, race, and sex constantly?

by David Lindner Posted 2012/06/04 19:07:05

Related Topics: Liberals, Religion, Sex, Race, Liberal

Read More

70 votes
Read all 221 opinions
Lightning Report View Results and Demographics + View Demographics

Loading Demographics... Click an icon to see demographic results Display unknown and private
	political gain	17 votes	24%
	other	53 votes	76%

Add a comment above

justfred 2012/06/04 20:46:19

other

+16
??????????????????

What the hell are you babbling about?

Liberals advocate for the freedom of ALL religion, including freedom FROM religion (how can you have freedom of YOUR religion unless you have freedom FROM MY religion?)

Liberals want equality for all people regardless of race.

Liberals want equality for all people regardless of gender or sexual orientation.
>> See Replies

More polls by David Lindner

elijahin24 2012/06/05 17:15:43

other

+1
Let's start with race. The GOP, since Nixon, has consistantly attacked people of color, for political gain. At best, they've simply ignored the needs of minorities, and at worst, have gone out of their way to screw them over. Most recently, the voter-log purges, which target minorities FAR more than white people.
I think this Republican attack on womens health has been self-explanitory.
And we don't attack religion. We attack religious fundamentalists, who think that religious freedom, means that everyone has to believe and act as THEY do.

reply
David L... to elijahin24 2012/06/05 18:39:18

Nixon was a democrat up until he ran for president

reply
elijahin24 to David L... 2012/06/05 18:42:13

Yeah, and? The party positions on race flipped around the time of Nixon. Republicans still use his "southern strategy" today.

reply
David L... to elijahin24 2012/06/05 18:43:33

You mean liberals like bill Clinton who famously did in 1995

reply
elijahin24 to David L... 2012/06/05 18:52:13

Bill Clinton was successful in the south, because he was from the south. He didn't race-bait, and appeal to white racists.

reply
David L... to elijahin24 2012/06/05 18:55:25

He definitely played the race bait and switch like nixon

reply
elijahin24 to David L... 2012/06/05 19:31:22

Well, Nixon didn't really switch, and Clinton played the race card, in that he promised to stand up for the rights of minorities. and for the most part he did.

reply
David L... to elijahin24 2012/06/05 19:32:37

He did the same thing as Nixon lol

reply
elijahin24 to David L... 2012/06/05 20:16:43

If you mean winning the election; yeah, I guess he did. His methods were, however, very different.

reply
David L... to elijahin24 2012/06/05 20:24:09

No I mean the methods

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1...

reply
elijahin24 to David L... 2012/06/05 18:52:33

By the way, there wasn't an election in 1995.

reply
David L... to elijahin24 2012/06/05 18:54:24

I meant 1996

reply
elijahin24 to David L... 2012/06/05 19:31:34

I figured.

reply
Fred to David L... 2012/06/06 00:14:37

Nixon was a republician congressman,senetor,vice president and president

reply
David L... to Fred 2012/06/06 00:38:37

you are correct sir. I am wrong.

reply
wolf sloan 2012/06/05 15:27:05

other

+1
no life of their own

reply
ally 2012/06/05 14:01:57

other

Whenever I feel down, SH evangelical con logic gives me the best laughs.

reply
David L... to ally 2012/06/05 15:27:39

try again! Im a libertarian. I know how you libs like to stereotype

reply
ally to David L... 2012/06/05 15:41:11

A libertarian is just a republican turned inside out. Same logic, different moniker.

reply
David L... to ally 2012/06/05 15:54:12

a libertarian is a true democrat, until their party was hijacked by progressive communists.

reply
ally to David L... 2012/06/05 15:59:19

Libertarians were highjacked by the evangelical rightwingers. Maybe you should study your own party, more. LOL.

reply
David L... to ally 2012/06/05 16:01:49

libertarians are classical democrats. maybe you should study my party more. LOL.

reply
ally to David L... 2012/06/05 16:25:07

If that was true, as a so called libertarian, my original comment would have had no affect on you. But it did.

reply
David L... to ally 2012/06/05 16:34:12

I was clarifying that you are generalizing any opposition to obama as conservative. thats pretty stereotypical of you.

reply
ally to David L... 2012/06/05 16:36:24 (edited)

And your stereotypical misinformative ideas don't. Typical conservative logic.

reply
David L... to ally 2012/06/05 16:38:18

I said liberals, not ALL liberals. try again.

reply
Pet Rock Whisperer 2012/06/05 09:07:47

other

+1
Could this question be any dumber, likely not!

reply
David L... to Pet Roc... 2012/06/05 13:19:24 (edited)

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?...

reply
Pet Roc... to David L... 2012/06/05 16:02:31

Your business card?

reply
David L... to Pet Roc... 2012/06/05 16:03:25

no, a reflection of your namecalling comment.

reply
Pet Roc... to David L... 2012/06/05 16:10:09

First, I didn't do any name calling. Second, I'm no lib! You're just striking out one after another!

reply
David L... to Pet Roc... 2012/06/05 16:37:47

you called my post dumb, ball 1

your posts tend to lean left! ball 2

gonna make me walk?

reply
Pet Roc... to David L... 2012/06/07 18:01:18

Your post IS dumb! That's generally the nature of cons vs. libs (or libs vs. cons) type posts. Because they are typically the pot calling the kettle black posts. Perhaps if you had thought it through a little bit. You might have anticipated that 100% of the replies wouldn't be teabagger circle jerk in nature.

My posts tend to be non political. So in your mind that makes em left leaning! With that level of logic, I wouldn't make you walk and chew gum at the same time. The potential for self injury to you would be too great!

You have a good day David!

reply
David L... to Pet Roc... 2012/06/07 20:52:19

lets see, you just described your own nature. BALL 3

Im a libertarian, not a conservative BALL 4

nothing I have said was from the point. BALL 5

3 more and you can make the person after me walk.

try to post reality, and not opinion. it might help

you have a good day too :)

reply
Pet Roc... to David L... 2012/06/08 16:45:34

You wouldn't know balls if they were slapping your chin!

reply
David L... to Pet Roc... 2012/06/08 16:49:27

oh and there it is.

lose the debate- namecall

goodbye :)

reply
Pet Roc... to David L... 2012/06/08 17:26:49

There was no name calling. You posted a question of opinion, not fact at all. It was an attack and nothing more. Nothing clever or original about it. You lost by posting it. And you have been grabbing straw with every reply to me. The fact you seem to think this is some sort of contest is yet another example of you grabbing straw.

reply
David L... to Pet Roc... 2012/06/08 17:28:06

You wouldn't know balls if they were slapping your chin!

this is name calling and to say otherwise makes you petty.

quit wasting my time :)

reply
Pet Roc... to David L... 2012/06/08 17:44:28

You sure can't take a joke at all. And you call me petty?

reply
David L... to Pet Roc... 2012/06/08 17:45:57

how is that a joke :)

reply