The Bigots

[Paschendale]

And that of course never happens to people who aren't on the left. Conservatives, right libertarians, religious right, Tea Partiers - that never happens to them.

I'm sure it does happen from time to time, though there's not much that needs to be exaggerated when it comes to the religious right and the rabid anti-government movements. But what is an occasional folly from the left is standard operating procedure from the right. The go-to example of this took place at your national convention. Some of the most popular radio and television broadcasts in this country on politics are nothing but this empty chair nonsense. It's an everyday occurrence from the right. It's nearly constant.

 

[disneydude]

They have forgotten who they are. The sane leftists among us, those who can have a discussion of the issues and make a logical argument, are increasingly invisible, lost among the incoherence. Sane leftists apparently feel they have no power to right their own ship. They as well as anyone know how completely unhinged these PC leftists are. Sane leftists, too, have given up any hope of making the PC leftist crowd see sense because, for example, any among them who are white and male are automatically dismissed as oppressors. Those who don't make a big play of being oppressed victims have no place.

What a crock of ****. Where did you find this, NewMax or the Enquirer?

 

[washunut]

I would call out both sides if I saw that behavior from both sides with even remotely similar frequency. I don't.

Perhaps you are blind (or part of) the B.S. from the other side.

 

[eohrnberger]

Hey that bolded part is a very good summation of the Tea Party. That's exactly why they started and what they felt. Somehow over the years they've become the crazy Christian, old white person only group.

Is that what they've really become? Or is that what the leftist news media has made them out to be?

There's a difference, you know. It would make sense that it's far more the latter than the former, but you never know.

The TEA Party is multiethnic, and it is comprised of a wide age range, than 'old white person's group.

 

[Hard Truth]

When did Ralph Nader become a "prominent liberal"?

By the way, I like your idea of asking for verification of claims by requiring quotes from politicians to validate ideas in a post. I'm going to ask everyone who says things about Republicans, or conservatives, or the Tea Party, etc. to provide quotes of prominent right leaning politicians saying "I hate the poor", or "I hate black people", or "I want sick people to just die", or "I'm a Tea Partier and I don't want to have anything to do with anyone who doesn't go to church", and "I'm a conservative man and I like little boys", and so on, to validate the many claims I've seen.

Since "(a)reas of particular concern to Nader include consumer protection, humanitarianism, environmentalism, and democratic government"*1 he seems to fit the description. He labels himself a progressive to distance himself from the centrists like the Clintons) labeled as liberals by the mainstream media.*2

Besides what they say, the legislation politicians introduce or sponsor and how they vote also reveals their views.

*1Wikipedia

*2 "..According to Nader, what NPR considers a liberal perspective is really middle-of-the-road. Among his examples are well-known Democrats like President Barack Obama, former President Bill Clinton and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Progressives, he said, exist farther to the left on the political spectrum. They support things like a Medicare-type single-payer system for all Americans, and not the health care compromise passed by Congress...". http://www.npr.org/blogs/ombudsman/...ph-nader-and-whether-npr-ignores-progressives

 

[Bob Blaylock]

They have forgotten who they are. The sane leftists among us, those who can have a discussion of the issues and make a logical argument, are increasingly invisible, lost among the incoherence. Sane leftists apparently feel they have no power to right their own ship. They as well as anyone know how completely unhinged these PC leftists are. Sane leftists, too, have given up any hope of making the PC leftist crowd see sense because, for example, any among them who are white and male are automatically dismissed as oppressors. Those who don't make a big play of being oppressed victims have no place.

They haven't changed. Not really. The apparent paradoxes described here have nothing to do with changes in the wrong-wing position, but different applications of the same underlying ideology.

They've always been the champions of “free speech”, as long as what you meant by “free speech” was pornography, obscenity, and other such material. When it comes to genuine free speech, applied to the expression of meaningful opinions and beliefs with which they disagree, that are not, and have never been for it.

And they've always had a tricky, inconsistent juggling act between feminism and pornography; two causes that they champion, which are often in conflict. This is not unrelated to the support that Bill Clinton has unwaveringly had from them, even among feminists, and even amid all the credible reports of Clinton's misogynistic behavior, which includes at least one credible account of an outright violent rape perpetrated by him.

They've long taken the side of sexual immorality, indecency, and deviance, siding with those who once cried “Don't force your morality on me!” and who now happily force their immorality on others.

They were the side of overt, anti-black racism, until they discovered how they could exploit black Americans for their own political gain, to the detriment of those being so exploited.

The ideology is the same as it has always been.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

With respect, don't be too quick to pat yourself on the back. Conservatives aren't exactly freedom loving if you want to smoke a bowl or marry the person you love.

Almost as if to come out and prove what I was saying.

You value the right to abuse harmful drugs, to engage in immoral sexual behavior, and to force the rest of society to give an official endorsement to that immoral behavior; and you think that this somehow balances out the genuine, essential rights that you so strongly oppose.

Yours is an ideology that willfully favors that which is evil, degrading, and harmful over that which is otherwise; and somehow imagines that you are taking some sort of moral high ground by so doing.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

So OP is saying 'the left' are bigots because

Something rotten, very rotten has happened to the Left just in my lifetime.
They use to be able to give some sort of argument or logical reason for their position, even if an incorrect argument; now they have no argument, none of them, aside from wild and insincere accusations delivered in a mechanical fashion without any hope of being believed, phony as a three-dollar bill.

by mechanically using wild and insincere accusations? That's rich.

 

[Kobie]

Perhaps you are blind (or part of) the B.S. from the other side.

Oh for Christ's sake.

I'm not saying it doesn't come from the left to a degree. But on this forum, it's a deluge from the right. I could easily list 20-30 right-leaning posters who constantly blame liberals for all the world's ills; who seek to tie liberals to the worst regimes and movements in history; and who constantly talk to the empty chair, as Paschendale very succinctly put.

 

[whysoserious]

So keep posting and keep proving the OPs point. That the modern liberal is a dishonest, deceitful and partisan ideologue who'll go to just about any length to prove he's right.....even when he's so obviously not.

Fenton, the war in Iraq was a misled campaign and terribly executed. You and all the other right-wing hacks on this thread can say that the left is entirely dishonest and full of liars, but you're really just embarrassing yourselves. It's painfully evident that you're all too far to the right to be intellectually honest with yourselves... and that's a sad thing.

 

[mbig]

Can you supply evidence it is not a generalization?

I can't and I'm a Canadian liberal

Who is against ACA but not your own National Health Insurance?
Have you checked your 'likes' received' (one ultra-con just had an orgasm over you), and friends list?
It's like 90% Conservative/very Con on the 'likes, and I don't see any liberal on your 30 friends, but almost Universally Conservative posters, including a few who would not even consider a liberal friend.
Canadian liberalism is Not THAT different from ours.
I call BS.... AGAIN.

 

[LagerHead]

Almost as if to come out and prove what I was saying.

You value the right to abuse harmful drugs,

I value the right for adults to make decisions for themselves without the threat of violence against them if the disagree with you.

to engage in immoral sexual behavior,

I didn't realize you were a singular moral authority. My apologies. for not recognizing that sooner. :roll:

and to force the rest of society to give an official endorsement to that immoral behavior;

Not trampling on someone else's rights is nowhere near the same thing as an endorsement. For example, I would never use marijuana, cocaine, or any other similar drug, but as you already know, I don't claim to be the singular moral authority so I don't care if others partake. In fact, I hope they have a grand time. However, I don't endorse the behavior.

and you think that this somehow balances out the genuine, essential rights that you so strongly oppose.

I'm sorry, you've lost me. To which "essential rights," exactly, am I opposed?

Yours is an ideology that willfully favors that which is evil, degrading, and harmful over that which is otherwise; and somehow imagines that you are taking some sort of moral high ground by so doing.

You might want to go back and reread. Only one of us claims to be the holder of all moral authority. I'll give you a clue which one of us it is. His screen name rhymes with Bob Blaylock. See if you can figure out who it is and get back to me.

 

[Gringo allstar]

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998


"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999


"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002



"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002



"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003


I'm a bit confused.....Were you intentionally trying to prove the OP's point or did you just stumble in here and trip over your baseless left wing talking points on accident ??

Slam dunk!!

 

[Gringo allstar]

Anyone who claims anti-right vitriol here even compares to the daily smearing of the left is either blind or an idiot. You pick.

Honestly it seems fairly even.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

If black people and young people don't join the Tea Party, that's their choice. And it in no way supports any claim or notion that the TP excludes people based on race, sexual orientation, age, or religious beliefs.

I never said they excluded them, I am saying that their movement is so narrow minded and so far to the right that it doesn't appeal to the young or minorities and it sure as hell isn't accepting of their points of view. The religious right didn't exclude young people or minorities either but they didn't have many of them in the group.

 

[Cavendish]

I never said they excluded them, I am saying that their movement is so narrow minded and so far to the right that it doesn't appeal to the young or minorities and it sure as hell isn't accepting of their points of view.

Are you implying that all minorities and young people have the same point of view? Are you claiming that supporting a vision of limited government is somehow incompatible with being a minority? Are you suggesting that all people of certain demographics or age groups have to be unanimously left-wing or else they're somehow deluded?

Because yes, you're implying all what I've said above, and it's bull**** by any measure.

 

[tres borrachos]

I'm sure it does happen from time to time, though there's not much that needs to be exaggerated when it comes to the religious right and the rabid anti-government movements. But what is an occasional folly from the left is standard operating procedure from the right. The go-to example of this took place at your national convention. Some of the most popular radio and television broadcasts in this country on politics are nothing but this empty chair nonsense. It's an everyday occurrence from the right. It's nearly constant.

"My" national convention? What is that?

 

[tres borrachos]

Is that what they've really become? Or is that what the leftist news media has made them out to be?

There's a difference, you know. It would make sense that it's far more the latter than the former, but you never know.

The TEA Party is multiethnic, and it is comprised of a wide age range, than 'old white person's group.

No, it isn't what they've become. It's what people who are being spoon fed by left wing propaganda groups, and they repeat the lies.

It's amazing how ignorant people are of the facts. I've seen organized Tea Party groups here in NH over and over and over. They are from all walks of life, all ages, probably all religions (I never saw anyone bearing signs that say "I'm a Christian and if you're not, don't talk to me!"), all sexes, all colors. But why look into the reality when it's easier to repeat lies.

 

[Cavendish]

"My" national convention? What is that?

Don't you know, all people who he disagrees with are card-carrying Republicans who vote based on party not principle? :lamo

 

[tres borrachos]

Since "(a)reas of particular concern to Nader include consumer protection, humanitarianism, environmentalism, and democratic government"*1 he seems to fit the description. He labels himself a progressive to distance himself from the centrists like the Clintons) labeled as liberals by the mainstream media.*2

Besides what they say, the legislation politicians introduce or sponsor and how they vote also reveals their views.

*1Wikipedia

*2 "..According to Nader, what NPR considers a liberal perspective is really middle-of-the-road. Among his examples are well-known Democrats like President Barack Obama, former President Bill Clinton and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Progressives, he said, exist farther to the left on the political spectrum. They support things like a Medicare-type single-payer system for all Americans, and not the health care compromise passed by Congress...". Ralph Nader and Whether NPR Ignores Progressives : NPR Ombudsman : NPR

Tell me how he is a "prominent Liberal". Is he a household name? How much is he discussed on the networks? Cable? Blogs? Message boards? Where was he a keynote speaker recently? What prominent Liberal groups use his name as being representative of them?

He is as "prominent" a Liberal as Gary Hart is.

 

[tres borrachos]

Oh for Christ's sake.

I'm not saying it doesn't come from the left to a degree. But on this forum, it's a deluge from the right. I could easily list 20-30 right-leaning posters who constantly blame liberals for all the world's ills; who seek to tie liberals to the worst regimes and movements in history; and who constantly talk to the empty chair, as Paschendale very succinctly put.

Paschendale...the same poster who assumed I was a Republican because he disagrees with my post. Yeah, he's succinct alright. And his posts are clueless.

It sounds from your posts that you simply can't stand Obama and the other Liberals being targeted on this board. Maybe you need to take a break for a while.

 

[tres borrachos]

I never said they excluded them, I am saying that their movement is so narrow minded and so far to the right that it doesn't appeal to the young or minorities and it sure as hell isn't accepting of their points of view. The religious right didn't exclude young people or minorities either but they didn't have many of them in the group.

So in other words, their message doesn't appeal to a lot of people. Funny, the Democratic party message doesn't appeal to a lot of people too, including me. It doesn't accept my points of view. So obviously that means the Democratic Party doesn't have a wide tent.

 

[LowDown]

So called "political correctness" is about not using terms or images to depict or describe people that are designed to discredit, weaken or marginalize them. It is a part of social and educational movement to understand and oppose often subtle social forces that reinforce bigotry and class oppression. It is not something that a significant number of liberals in the USA want enforced by law.

It's being used as a means to stifle criticism, especially criticism of the left.

The decision to fire the Mozilla CEO was made by his employer, not all liberals. The pressure from the public to deal with his viewpoints was not a widespread popular movement among liberals, esp. when compared to the largely successful attempts of conservatives to silence the Dixie Chicks and Bill Maher.

I detect a tendency to smear all conservatives over the actions of some conservatives even as you insist that all liberals should not be smeared with the actions of a few liberals.

Their is nothing oppressive or undemocratic about calling out bigots, tyrants and individuals trying to buy political power and contacting or boycotting those who support them. That is a classic example of free speech in action and consumer's right to make free choices.

Then you will have no objection to us calling out PC leftists.

The people I mentioned are among the best known and most popular real liberals in the USA because they have been consistent advocates for equality, peace and justice for years. Feel free to find quotes from similarly well-established liberals to prove your point. The conservative practice of using the opinions of a small number of obscure academics and activists who advocate extreme points of view is ridiculously dishonest. Most liberals never heard of these people the conservative media dredge up until after conservatives start claiming that their viewpoints represent all liberals.

Sorry, but we don't seem to be hearing very much from the liberals you mention. The other liberals seem to be making all the noise. There are a few, like Johnathan Chait, who are calling the PC crowd out over their illiberalism, intolerance, and ignorance, but they are only getting grief for it. Besides which, he's a white male so his opinions don't count. They're reactionary, even.

 

[LowDown]

What a crock of ****. Where did you find this, NewMax or the Enquirer?

Speak of the devil...

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Are you implying that all minorities and young people have the same point of view? Are you claiming that supporting a vision of limited government is somehow incompatible with being a minority? Are you suggesting that all people of certain demographics or age groups have to be unanimously left-wing or else they're somehow deluded?

Because yes, you're implying all what I've said above, and it's bull**** by any measure.

I am saying that demographically speaking whatever views minorities and young people have, they largely are not congruent with that of the tea party.