How the Hypocrite Leftwing Argues

[Whateverist]

I was still voting Republican then and am ashamed to admit my vote helped him take control of Congress. The first cracks in my Reaganian faith began to form in my discomfort with his style of politics, even as I then agreed with the policies. But my ten year road to re-registering as Democrat was still ahead of me at the same time that Republicans would continue to run further to the right.

I think it is important for more people to hear from you and others who have become disenchanted with the republican party and its extremist policies. What might really help would be to identify what it is that attracted you to the party in the first place. Anything you can say that would help me understand the mindset of a conservative would really help me to understand the other side. I can't believe they're all callous or evil people but it is hard for me to fathom what positive motives move them.

[TaraJo]

I think it is important for more people to hear from you and others who have become disenchanted with the republican party and its extremist policies. What might really help would be to identify what it is that attracted you to the party in the first place. Anything you can say that would help me understand the mindset of a conservative would really help me to understand the other side. I can't believe they're all callous or evil people but it is hard for me to fathom what positive motives move them.

I may be able to help you some with that. My boyfriend's family are religious fundamentalists who watch Fox News religiously. Yes, it would be easy for me to just brush them off as fundie nut-jobs, but to him, they're his blood. What's more, they created the environment he was raised in.

I can say this much: since he moved in with me and started converting to more Democratic beliefs, he's been shocked about how much of the various stories that Fox News leaves out. When Breightbart went after Acorn, Fox was all over that. Shortly later, when everyone found out his recordings were edited to suit the party line, he had never heard of that until I told him about it. Yeah, it's really easy to shape political opinions the way you want them to be shaped if you're willing to only tell part of the story.

[downbeatplumb]

Think I can sum up A Theists position thus.

"I have seen some examples of a few (alleged) left wingers being arseholes, therefore all left wingers are arseholes".

[A Theist]

Think I can sum up A Theists position thus.

"I have seen some examples of a few (alleged) left wingers being arseholes, therefore all left wingers are arseholes".

Yes!!!!!! Exactly!!!!!!

[Something completely different]

Yes!!!!!! Exactly!!!!!!

If a bird takes a shit on your hat.


Are all birds evil vicious hat shitters?

[Mister Agenda]

Any disagreement with the Left results in a shrill tirade of name calling and finger pointing....the leftwing hypocrites claim to champion free speech, but at the same time they try to shut down any speech they disagree with.

Not a 'librul' myself, but freedom of speech doesn't include freedom from criticism. Criticism itself is protected speech. It doesn't include freedom from being shouted down, your freedom of speech doesn't trump other people's freedom to not listen to you. You don't even understand the nature of the freedom you're complaining the leftwing infringes on: it's a protection from government censorship and suppression, not a protection from having to compete with people who disagree with you in the marketplace of ideas.

[Autumnlicious]

Think I can sum up A Theists position thus.

"I have seen some examples of a few (alleged) left wingers being arseholes, therefore all left wingers are arseholes".

Don't forget:
"Both sides do it" (Nevermind that one side has a defined propaganda machine that is objectively more effective and said side also has a higher frequency of successfully passing arsehole legislation)

[A Theist]

Yes!!!!!! Exactly!!!!!!

If a bird takes a shit on your hat.


Are all birds evil vicious hat shitters?

You mean after one those winged little crappers relieved themselves all over the top of my Christy's of London Fedora...Yes they are!

[Mister Agenda]

Yes, when our nation was founded one of our cultural values was that marriage was between one man and one woman. More specifically, one white, Christian man and one white, Christian woman. Interracial marriage wasn't even legal in a lot of places until the 1950's (with religious conservatives fighting against it on the grounds of protecting traditional marriage).

I also find it ironic that the Christian here is arguing that gay marriage will lead to incestual marriage and/or polygamy.

Well, traditional American marriage led to interracial marriage, so clearly the slope is slippery and may lead to who knows what allowances on which consenting adult (or adults!) one might be allowed to marry. Not letting ANYONE marry seems to be the only permanent way off the slope.

---

Unfortunately, they also get called things like "race traitor", "Uncle Tom", and get pelted with oreos.

But, hey, I guess that's racial tolerance.

Nope, it's wrong no matter who does it. Neither side has clean hands when it comes to attacking members of minorities who don't meet their expectations of how they 'should' act.

When you're right, you're right. Of course, the other side doing it in no way justifies one's own side doing it. Tu quoque doesn't refute, it only 'tu quoques'.

[TaraJo]

Well, traditional American marriage led to interracial marriage, so clearly the slope is slippery and may lead to who knows what allowances on which consenting adult (or adults!) one might be allowed to marry. Not letting ANYONE marry seems to be the only permanent way off the slope.

Actually, I support that idea.

There are two primary aspects of marriage: religious/social marriage and civil marriage. They should be separated. All current marriages, as far as the state is concerned, are civil unions. Sure, they get all the benefits and responsibilities of a regular marriage, but they don't have the term 'marriage' attached on a state level. Individual churches can call them whatever they want from civil unions, marriage or ungodly mockeries of traditional marriage. Regardless of what those individual churches call them, though, one church doesn't get to tell the next what they can/can't do.

---

Think I can sum up A Theists position thus.

"I have seen some examples of a few (alleged) left wingers being arseholes, therefore all left wingers are arseholes".

Yes!!!!!! Exactly!!!!!!

Then it's also fair to point out that Tim McVeigh was an anti-government, gun-loving right winger and that if we're going to apply the same logic to both sides of that equation......