Left Wing Double Standards

[aquapub]

1) Trent Lott gives lip service to an old man. The result: relentless, 24-hour, front page coverage for months until Lott steps down. The media acted like they exposed this monumental Republican racism, but actually only demonstrated why Democrats shouldn't be allowed into our party (Lott and Thurmond were life long Democrats who made these comments for years, but the media only pounced once they were Republicans).

John Kerry tells students to get educated do they don't end up in Iraq. The result: A brief mention on a couple of networks and on the back pages.

Biden acts shocked that a black man can be "articulate, smart, and clean." The result: Jury is still out, but I guarantee you, this story will die in a matter of days, not months.

2) Someone under Nixon steals some documents. The result: Nixon is relentlessly hounded and demonized for months until voters finally elect a Democrat Congress to impeach him.

Someone under Bill Clinton steals some documents from the National Archives when the 9/11 Commission starts asking questions about the Clinton Administration's culpability for 9/11. He hides them in a nearby construction area and then shreds the documents with scissors and claims the theft was an accident. The result: a fine, and scattered, brief media coverage that downplayed the incident.

3) A Congressman isn't psychic enough to know about another Congressman's dirty emails. The result: Hastert is relentlessly pursued by the media, who held the story until right before the election, until Congress loses a mid-term election.

A Congressman is caught having sex with a teenage boy page. The result: a standing ovation and promotion from Democrats, and he is treated like a martyr for the gay movement by the media.

4) Republicans consider using the filibuster. The result: the media vilifies them as a threat to democracy.

Democrats ACTUALLY USE the filibuster. The result: the filibuster becomes an "important tool for democracy."-NY Times.

5) Republicans debunk a delusional partisan's smears by legally leaking evidence that proves he is lying (Plame). The result: YEARS of scandalous media coverage and outrage over the leaking of classified information.

A left-wing "journalist" leaks that we have CIA prisons in Europe. The result: the media gives her an award.

Seeing a pattern yet?

 

[Iriemon]

America's great, isn't it?

 

[CurrentAffairs]

America's great, isn't it?

aquapub writes a very inciteful post and that's your response? That speaks volumes, Iriemon.

Nice job, aquapub. Excellent post. It left an extremist liberal with nothing relevant to say.

 

[jamesrage]

Typical left wing hypocrisy.
Lets add Joe Biden's Hypocrisy over judicial nominations to that list

Chairman Joe Biden: "[Y]ou Not Only Have A Right To Choose What You Will Answer And Not Answer, But In My View You Should Not Answer A Question Of What Your View Will Be On An Issue That Clearly Is Going To Come Before The Court In 50 Different Forms, Probably, Over The Next -- Over Your Tenure On The Court." (Sen. Joe Biden, Committee On The Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 7/22/93)

Democrats' Statements on the Nomination of Judge John Roberts

But because Judge Roberts did not answer my questions or, I would argue, any of your questions fully, and he does not appear to share the same expansive view of fundamental rights of previous nominees I've supported, I'm unwilling to take the constitutional risk at this moment in the court's history.
-Sen. Joe Biden

 

[Billo_Really]

Here's a little right wing hypocrisy for you...


http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-partisan-politics-political-platforms/17432-mccain-doctrine.html

 

[Feela]

Since when were the democrats left-wing(except in the minds of stupid "conservatives".)?
By international standards they are centre at best, usually centre-right, they are not even mild social democrats.

 

[PeteEU]

Since when were the democrats left-wing(except in the minds of stupid "conservatives".)?
By international standards they are centre at best, usually centre-right, they are not even mild social democrats.

because in most American minds "liberal" is left wing and socialist, but to the rest of the 6.2 billion people on the planet, liberal is the humane conservatives basicly.. but dont let facts get in the way of bashing people.

as for the original post.. another lame attempt to justify the attacks on media that dont follow the conservative tune. After all, all media that is critical of conservatives is "liberal", even media that usualy is "conservative".

Plus Aquapup's statement is has a few historical mistakes in and attempts to link racists comments to a botched joke.. well.

 

[Feela]

because in most American minds "liberal" is left wing and socialist, but to the rest of the 6.2 billion people on the planet, liberal is the humane conservatives basicly.. but dont let facts get in the way of bashing people.

I've heard some ridiculous fundies say it, but do conservatives really call the democrats socialist? That would be ridiculous, they are centre-right.
I'm an anarchist and socialist(as all anarchists are.) and I see little difference between small(really big.) gov't conservatives and liberals,at least the party levels.

Anyone that would call a democrat leftwing is not worth listening to.

 

[Feela]

aquapub writes a very inciteful post and that's your response? That speaks volumes, Iriemon.

Nice job, aquapub. Excellent post. It left an extremist liberal with nothing relevant to say.

What the hell is an extreme liberal? That makes no sense.

 

[Gardener]

Double standards are a byproduct of partisanship. It is just our sense of ego protection extended to include the group with which we identify.

If a person focuses on the double standards of one group by way of justifying the actions of their own, they are just as hypocritical as those they accuse.

Seems to me the best way to avoid double standards is to not join a group in the first place. Perhaps I am just a Marxist at heart (no, not that one, the other one), since no wiser words were ever spoken than a certain famous one-liner.

 

[aquapub]

Here's a little right wing hypocrisy for you...


http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-partisan-politics-political-platforms/17432-mccain-doctrine.html

This dumb hysteria you are peddling (this time) is not about Republican hypocrisy, and it has nothing to do with this thread or media bias. It also has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment as you ignorantly claim it does. The fines mentioned in it are specified towards kiddie porn.

Good luck manufacturing outrage on this. :lol:

Now, do we have any relevant, intelligent comments?

 

[jallman]

1) Trent Lott gives lip service to an old man. The result: relentless, 24-hour, front page coverage for months until Lott steps down. The media acted like they exposed this monumental Republican racism, but actually only demonstrated why Democrats shouldn't be allowed into our party (Lott and Thurmond were life long Democrats who made these comments for years, but the media only pounced once they were Republicans).

John Kerry tells students to get educated do they don't end up in Iraq. The result: A brief mention on a couple of networks and on the back pages.

Biden acts shocked that a black man can be "articulate, smart, and clean." The result: Jury is still out, but I guarantee you, this story will die in a matter of days, not months.

2) Someone under Nixon steals some documents. The result: Nixon is relentlessly hounded and demonized for months until voters finally elect a Democrat Congress to impeach him.

Someone under Bill Clinton steals some documents from the National Archives when the 9/11 Commission starts asking questions about the Clinton Administration's culpability for 9/11. He hides them in a nearby construction area and then shreds the documents with scissors and claims the theft was an accident. The result: a fine, and scattered, brief media coverage that downplayed the incident.

3) A Congressman isn't psychic enough to know about another Congressman's dirty emails. The result: Hastert is relentlessly pursued by the media, who held the story until right before the election, until Congress loses a mid-term election.

A Congressman is caught having sex with a teenage boy page. The result: a standing ovation and promotion from Democrats, and he is treated like a martyr for the gay movement by the media.

4) Republicans consider using the filibuster. The result: the media vilifies them as a threat to democracy.

Democrats ACTUALLY USE the filibuster. The result: the filibuster becomes an "important tool for democracy."-NY Times.

5) Republicans debunk a delusional partisan's smears by legally leaking evidence that proves he is lying (Plame). The result: YEARS of scandalous media coverage and outrage over the leaking of classified information.

A left-wing "journalist" leaks that we have CIA prisons in Europe. The result: the media gives her an award.

Seeing a pattern yet?

Just more ridiculous blather.

 

[aquapub]

Since when were the democrats left-wing(except in the minds of stupid "conservatives".)?
By international standards they are centre at best, usually centre-right, they are not even mild social democrats.

Being mildly retarded isn't much different from fully retarded. Both have no place in public policy.

 

[jallman]

This dumb hysteria you are peddling (this time) is not about Republican hypocrisy, and it has nothing to do with this thread or media bias. It also has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment as you ignorantly claim it does. The fines mentioned in it are specified towards kiddie porn.

Good luck manufacturing outrage on this. :lol:

Now, do we have any relevant, intelligent comments?

Why start now when the opening post was nothing but more of the rabid partisan hate we have come to expect from you?

 

[aquapub]

because in most American minds "liberal" is left wing and socialist, but to the rest of the 6.2 billion people on the planet, liberal is the humane conservatives basicly.. but dont let facts get in the way of bashing people.

Who cares whether Americans treat tems like "liberal" and "left-wing" as inter-changeable? Being left of mainstream America, to any degree, is too liberal for sanity and sensibility.

And let the world see liberals as a less offensive term than we do all they want. There's a reason no country more liberal than ours can compete with our economy...liberal policies are ineffective and economically suicidal.

It is far more accurate to perceive liberals as conservatives without personal responsibility, a job, family, or anything that might require them to live in reality or care about the consequences of their lunatic policies.

 

[aquapub]

1) as for the original post.. another lame attempt to justify the attacks on media that dont follow the conservative tune. After all, all media that is critical of conservatives is "liberal", even media that usualy is "conservative".

2) Plus Aquapup's statement is has a few historical mistakes in and attempts to link racists comments to a botched joke.. well.

1) No facts, no evidence, no point...just dissmissive attitude....based on nothing.

Congratulations. You are officially a crappy debator (a.k.a., a liberal). :applaud

2) Again, no facts, no points, just vague attitude.

 

[CurrentAffairs]

Just more ridiculous blather.

uh huh, but what about thread topic and the examples aqua gave? Care to address them?

 

[aquapub]

Anyone that would call a democrat leftwing is not worth listening to.

Where do terminology Nazis like this come from?

Do you also categorically condemn anyone wh calls a tablespoon a teaspoon? :roll:

For the American political spectrum, Democrats are "liberal."

And left-wing merely means on the left side of the aisle.

 

[jallman]

uh huh, but what about thread topic and the examples aqua gave? Care to address them?

If they weren't the exact same examples that he has incessantly droned on over and over again, I might be a little impressed. As it stands, it's just more blather.

Hell, if he would make a point some time or another, I might be inclined to listen. But as it stands, all I get from his posts is

"Blah blah blah blah blah (insert random caustic quip) blah blah blah blah blah blah (insert random partisan hate comment) blah blah blah blah blah blah (insert some contrived or transparently spun example liberals being pedophiles)"

It's silly, it's hysterical, and it deserves not one iota of respect. I am surprised that you fall for it, CA.

 

[niftydrifty]

Double standards are a byproduct of partisanship. It is just our sense of ego protection extended to include the group with which we identify.

If a person focuses on the double standards of one group by way of justifying the actions of their own, they are just as hypocritical as those they accuse.

Seems to me the best way to avoid double standards is to not join a group in the first place. Perhaps I am just a Marxist at heart (no, not that one, the other one), since no wiser words were ever spoken than a certain famous one-liner.

Well put. In addition to what you're saying here, I think that when one seeks to 'join' one of the groups and identify with it, what is actually happening is a deeply rooted human instinctual thing, an instinct that identifies with "the tribe." Once we identify with the tribe, all manner of bizarre irrational behavior sets in. We feel angry and even violent when the tribe is attacked, be it physical, or even verbal. We overlook logical points in order to protect the tribe. Cognitive dissonance can even keep us from thinking straight.

It's hard not to join the group. Eons of of instinctive behavior compel us to do so. It's a protective mechanism.

 

[aquapub]

uh huh, but what about thread topic and the examples aqua gave? Care to address them?

Don't hold your breath.

The only thing funnier than watching a bitter, impotent halfwit get put on everyone's ignore list for his bipolar tantrums is finding out that he has since fixated on following you around trying to save face by having angry conversations with himself.

:2funny:

 

[aquapub]

Well put. In addition to what you're saying here, I think that when one seeks to 'join' one of the groups and identify with it, what is actually happening is a deeply rooted human instinctual thing, an instinct that identifies with "the tribe." Once we identify with the tribe, all manner of bizarre irrational behavior sets in. We feel angry and even violent when the tribe is attacked, be it physical, or even verbal. We overlook logical points in order to protect the tribe. Cognitive dissonance can even keep us from thinking straight.

It's hard not to join the group. Eons of of instinctive behavior compel us to do so. It's a protective mechanism.

:bs

Nope. Normal, reasonable, intelligent people just take issue with their kids being delivered into the hands of pedophiles, their military being trashed and relentlessly lied about by reporters, their jobs being lost to race preferences or sent to China due to union abuses, their wages being bottomed out by illegal immigrants, their health care costs being inflated by frivolous lawsuits...in short, normal, reasonable, intelligent people just have a problem with liberals.

Thanks for the psycho-babble though.

 

[Iriemon]

aquapub writes a very inciteful post and that's your response? That speaks volumes, Iriemon.

Nice job, aquapub. Excellent post. It left an extremist liberal with nothing relevant to say.

I am so ashamed.

 

[CurrentAffairs]

If they weren't the exact same examples that he has incessantly droned on over and over again, I might be a little impressed. As it stands, it's just more blather.

Hell, if he would make a point some time or another, I might be inclined to listen. But as it stands, all I get from his posts is

"Blah blah blah blah blah (insert random caustic quip) blah blah blah blah blah blah (insert random partisan hate comment) blah blah blah blah blah blah (insert some contrived or transparently spun example liberals being pedophiles)"

It's silly, it's hysterical, and it deserves not one iota of respect. I am surprised that you fall for it, CA.

I didn't see caustic quips. I did see, however, five well thought out examples of double standards. Your response was to dismiss it as blathering. If I were judging the debate on it's merits, I'd say you didn't even try.

Sorry, but it's not my style to decide who is owed respect and who isn't. It's just a discussion. Why not address the topic?

 

[niftydrifty]

I didn't see caustic quips. I did see, however, five well thought out examples of double standards. Your response was to dismiss it as blathering. If I were judging the debate on it's merits, I'd say you didn't even try.

You saw nonsense. You saw goofball sleight of hand that only a weak mind could be convinced by.

aquapub: "these are not the droids you're looking for."
CurrentAffai: "these are not the droids I'm looking for."
aquapub: "move along."
CurrentAffai: "move along."

This insipid thread doesn't deserve attention. Iriemon gave it what it deserved. I'm feeling a little generous. So here goes.

#1 Two completely different comments made by two different people in two completely different situations receives what?... duh! Two completely different kinds of responses from the media and from the public.

And of course, aquapub downplayed the effect on Kerry. His career was damaged and his comments almost certainly hurt Democrats in the midterm elections soon after his comments were made.

#2 Two completely different events two and a half decades apart, and guess what? Totally different media coverage and consequences.

And of course, aquapub plays up the Berger story, making it sound more consequential than it was ever actually proven to be. But that's just like a whack job righty to make conclusions without evidence, eh?

#3 Two completely different situations involving two completely different people, and ... duh! Two completely different kinds responses from the media and from the public.

and of course, aquapub plays down Republican culpability and exaggerates the Democratic response to one of its own member's wrongdoing.

#4 Depending on whom you listen to in the media, you can paint anybody's filibuster anyway you want, of course. The Republicans did use the filibuster. The result: you probably never even heard about when Republicans filibustered a judicial nominee forcing the then Democratic President to withdraw the nomination. Democrats filibuster judicial nominees, and, guess what? We heard about it all over the place. "The party of no." "obstructionism." threats of "the nuclear option."

CurrentAffai, please ask aquapub where the quote "important tool of democracy" comes from. ask for a link.

#5 two completely different kinds of leaks by different kinds of sources about two different things. and guess what? different coverage by the media and different opinions from the public.

beginning to see a pattern here? my conclusion: different stuff is different. aquapub's conclusion: Liberals are hypocrites.

You can make any point by comparing two totally unrelated things pulled from thin air.

Hmmm, let's see [Niftydrifty reaches into his top hat]...

60 Minutes runs a story about how a Presidential candidate eluded National Guard Service duty during the Vietnam War. Documents used in the broadcast were obvious forgeries. The result? CBS sunk in the ratings. it's credibilty was questioned. Dan Rather's credibility also suffered and he soon after retired. Meanwhile, the candidates Guard Service (or lack) goes unexamined. The public seems more interested in frying Rather.

Fox News Channel runs a story about how a Presidential candidate attended a Muslim school. The story is false. The result: no big deal, everyone soon forgets about it.

anyone could do this all day long going either way. this is a pointless exercise and it proves nothing. double standards are logically not valid. the problem here is that these are truly not double standards. they are non sequiturs.

aquapub attempts to paint with too broad of a brush. in order to "prove" a true double standard, a single person should be quoted, using more similar examples, in order to illustrate what the double standard is.