No Leftist Haters May Read This!

[Father Time]

The Left Hates Conservatives
Tuesday, July 27, 2010

1. "Perhaps the most telling of the recent revelations of the liberal/left Journolist, a list consisting of about 400 major liberal/left journalists, is the depth of their hatred of conservatives…as exemplified by the e-mail from an NPR reporter expressing her wish to personally see Rush Limbaugh die a painful death -- and the apparent absence of any objection from the other liberal journalists.

2. Every one of us on the right has seen this hatred…[by]…mainstream elite liberal journalists. There is simply nothing analogous among elite conservative journalists. Yes, nearly all conservatives believe that the left is leading America to ruin. But while there is plenty of conservative anger over this fact, there is little or nothing on the right to match the left's hatred of conservative individuals.

3. From Karl Marx to today, the Left has always hated people on the Right, not merely differed or been angry with them. Why?

a. First, the left thinks the right is evil. Examples are innumerable. For example, Howard Dean, the former head of the Democratic Party said, "In contradistinction to the Republicans ... (Democrats) don't believe kids ought to go to bed hungry at night." Or take Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Fla., who, among many similar comments, said, "I want to say a few words about what it means to be a Democrat. It's very simple: We have a conscience."

b. Second, when you don't confront real evil, you hate those who do. Whether out of guilt over their own cowardice or fear that the one who confronted the bully would provoke the bully to lash out more, those who refuse to confront the bully often resent the one who does. During the 1980s, the left expressed far more hatred of Ronald Reagan than of Soviet Communist dictator Leonid Brezhnev. And, when Reagan labeled the Soviet Union an "evil empire," the liberal world was enraged ... at Reagan. Today, the left has similar contempt for those who take a hard line on Islamic terror. The liberal and leftist media routinely place quote marks around the words War on Terror…the Obama administration has actually forbidden use of the term "Islamic terror." The real enemies the Democratic administration is prepared to name are the Republican Party, tea parties, Fox News and talk radio.

c. Third, the left's utopian vision is prevented only by the right. From its inception, leftism has been a secular utopian religion….imagining a utopian future. There will be no poor, no war, no conflict, no inequality. That future is only a few more government programs away from reality. And who stands in the way of such perfection? Conservatives.

4. How could a utopian not hate a conservative? The right, with its beliefs in a strong military; in individuals, not the state; taking care of themselves, their families and their neighbors; and in punishing criminals, is the anti-Love, a figure as reviled on the left as the antichrist is to Christians. The right, with its beliefs in a strong military; in individuals, not the state; taking care of themselves, their families and their neighbors; and in punishing criminals, is the anti-Love, a figure as reviled on the left as the antichrist is to Christians.

a. This hatred will only increase if the left feels its programs to greatly increase the size of the government are in any way threatened in the forthcoming elections."
The Dennis Prager Show

Best example of 'projection' I've seen in a very long time.

It's getting harder and harder with each passing day to pick out the "best" projection, the "best" hypocritical issue, the "best" embellished news story. The left does lack one very serious talent that the right has always enjoyed, and that's the ability to engage a completely gullible audience.

Well the environmentalists have that power, that's not to say they're wrong or lying most of the time but there are a lot of people who will seemingly believe anything they say.

 

[Bfgrn]

It's an idea that would likely have bipartisan support. It would save social security.

Problem: Social Security doesn't NEED to be saved.

We constantly hear from Wall Street gangsters and from Republicans and an occasional Democrat that Social Security and Medicare are a form of welfare that we can’t afford, an “unfunded liability.” This is a lie. Social Security is funded with an earmarked tax. People pay for Social Security and Medicare all their working lives. It is a pay-as-you-go system in which the taxes paid by those working fund those who are retired.

Currently these systems are not in deficit. The problem is that government is using earmarked revenues for other purposes. Indeed, since the 1980s Social Security revenues have been used to fund general government. Today Social Security revenues are being used to fund trillion dollar bailouts for Wall Street and to fund the Bush/Obama wars of aggression against Muslims.

Paul Craig Roberts - served as an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration earning fame as a co-founder of "Reaganomics."

Paul Craig Roberts: Looting Social Security

 

[Article 15]

I agree...but I am confused.

Conservatives seem to get the racist label quite often. We seem to get the "why do you hate the poor so much" quite often. Exactly how is the right labelling the left?

You are way too level headed to have posted this with a straight face. Me thinks you are playing dumb with that question.

 

[Article 15]

The Left Hates Conservatives
Tuesday, July 27, 2010

1. "Perhaps the most telling of the recent revelations of the liberal/left Journolist, a list consisting of about 400 major liberal/left journalists, is the depth of their hatred of conservatives…as exemplified by the e-mail from an NPR reporter expressing her wish to personally see Rush Limbaugh die a painful death -- and the apparent absence of any objection from the other liberal journalists.

2. Every one of us on the right has seen this hatred…[by]…mainstream elite liberal journalists. There is simply nothing analogous among elite conservative journalists. Yes, nearly all conservatives believe that the left is leading America to ruin. But while there is plenty of conservative anger over this fact, there is little or nothing on the right to match the left's hatred of conservative individuals.

3. From Karl Marx to today, the Left has always hated people on the Right, not merely differed or been angry with them. Why?

a. First, the left thinks the right is evil. Examples are innumerable. For example, Howard Dean, the former head of the Democratic Party said, "In contradistinction to the Republicans ... (Democrats) don't believe kids ought to go to bed hungry at night." Or take Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Fla., who, among many similar comments, said, "I want to say a few words about what it means to be a Democrat. It's very simple: We have a conscience."

b. Second, when you don't confront real evil, you hate those who do. Whether out of guilt over their own cowardice or fear that the one who confronted the bully would provoke the bully to lash out more, those who refuse to confront the bully often resent the one who does. During the 1980s, the left expressed far more hatred of Ronald Reagan than of Soviet Communist dictator Leonid Brezhnev. And, when Reagan labeled the Soviet Union an "evil empire," the liberal world was enraged ... at Reagan. Today, the left has similar contempt for those who take a hard line on Islamic terror. The liberal and leftist media routinely place quote marks around the words War on Terror…the Obama administration has actually forbidden use of the term "Islamic terror." The real enemies the Democratic administration is prepared to name are the Republican Party, tea parties, Fox News and talk radio.

c. Third, the left's utopian vision is prevented only by the right. From its inception, leftism has been a secular utopian religion….imagining a utopian future. There will be no poor, no war, no conflict, no inequality. That future is only a few more government programs away from reality. And who stands in the way of such perfection? Conservatives.

4. How could a utopian not hate a conservative? The right, with its beliefs in a strong military; in individuals, not the state; taking care of themselves, their families and their neighbors; and in punishing criminals, is the anti-Love, a figure as reviled on the left as the antichrist is to Christians. The right, with its beliefs in a strong military; in individuals, not the state; taking care of themselves, their families and their neighbors; and in punishing criminals, is the anti-Love, a figure as reviled on the left as the antichrist is to Christians.

a. This hatred will only increase if the left feels its programs to greatly increase the size of the government are in any way threatened in the forthcoming elections."
The Dennis Prager Show

Another day, another pot meet kettle thread from PC.

 

[Article 15]

Sky-D, can you be serious?

After the Journolist scandal, and numerous examples of the left using ad hominems and demonization...

I no longer wish to convert the left, merely to expose same.

Somehow, by your lights, indicating the iniquity is the same as effectuating it.

Are you fucking kidding?

When have you EVER expressed disapproval over conservatives doing the same damn thing?

Un-American/Anti-American
Socialist
Marxist
Muslim
Terrorist
Anti-Christ

and that's JUST Obama

What an insipid post...

no quotes, no links....

The message board equivalent of arts and crafts.

No wonder you major effort is in neg reps....


And Maggie finds this a useful post?

What the heck happened to your standards?

Clearly, your dislike has colored your judgement.

Actually, the post was spot on.

The left and the right both label and demonize one another.

I don't expect you to admit that of course, as you are a prime offender of it.

It's YOUR dislike that has clouded YOUR judgment.

 

[Article 15]

I don't think I've ever seen a more stunning display of hypocrisy than PC whining and moaning about lefties insulting conservatives while still having Ann Coulter in her signature. Or even the fact that it's PC who frequently posts the same 'liberals are evil' copypasta.

Yes, she is a total hack and quite full of herself.

 

[JakeStarkey]

PC has never posted an original thought of her own, but merely copies and pastes others works without carefully evaluating the material.

 

[MaggieMae]

No, I'm not agreeing to anything,
I'm calling you out on a bone headed remark.

I would have to backtrack and re-read the exchange, but if the dispute is over whether liberals are more hypocritical than conservatives, I would point to the opening dissertation by a known uber conservative radio commentator, known to write/say inflamatory things to which his choir all jumps in to high five. But when a "liberal" counters the argument, he/she is slapped with being an ignorant partisan. The only thing ignorant is that perception.

It goes both ways, Maggie, there is name calling from both sides. The media has "their guy doing the flaming be it Limbaugh, or Olbermann....we can both do the list

So why continue to claim that one "side" or the other isn't biased, not just here but everywhere? It's okay for PC to post a biased blurb by Prager, but it's not okay for me to post something from Salon.com on the same topic, for which I was immediately shot down alleging Salon is "biased." Cons can post links to stuff in CNS.com as if it's gospel, but Heaven Forbid someone from the left posts comething from Huffington Post which doesn't even get read. It's pretty stupid.

 

[MaggieMae]

Kinda' sounds like you have a losing hand.

Nope. You just bore me, as usual.

 

[MaggieMae]

Sky-D, can you be serious?

After the Journolist scandal, and numerous examples of the left using ad hominems and demonization...

I no longer wish to convert the left, merely to expose same.

Somehow, by your lights, indicating the iniquity is the same as effectuating it.

Are you fucking kidding?

When have you EVER expressed disapproval over conservatives doing the same damn thing?

Un-American/Anti-American
Socialist
Marxist
Muslim
Terrorist
Anti-Christ

and that's JUST Obama

What an insipid post...

no quotes, no links....

The message board equivalent of arts and crafts.

No wonder you major effort is in neg reps....


And Maggie finds this a useful post?

What the heck happened to your standards?

Clearly, your dislike has colored your judgement.

Why would you need "links" when you'd have a hard time choosing one out of thousands? And for someone so smart, judgment has no 'e' in it.

 

[MaggieMae]

Jesus Jumping ballsac, are you seriously so unaware of self that you don't know how smug of a bitch you come off as, like........you kno.......basically like your "op" says " the left" does?

You mean....(sob)...you..you...don't like me??????

"...are you seriously so unaware ..." that your post makes it pretty obvious that I'm beating the heck out of your side?

As usual, you posts are mildly amusing but utterly inconsequential..

From all I've read, you've been thoroughly thrashed. Better re-read the posts.

 

[MaggieMae]

You pat yourself on the back more than a nutsac clapping an ass during doggy-style. Really. And you have the nerve to declare "the left" as elitist?

You are more pompass than a cheerleader with her poms stuck in her butt. Your life's sad, girl. I barely can respond because I feel you need these lil' faux internet victories *shrug* sorry

My, you have a way with words, don't you.

You look like such a looser when school-yard vernacular is the best you can do.

But you do have a point: beating you would not require enough effort to claim it as any kind of victory.

Fighting fire with fire is a decent strategy, and virtually all of your retorts are school-yard. You're of the "oooohhhhh!! I slapped you DOWN with my uber dope internetz debating skillz......you so dumb!! read a book!!" school. Your cellulite thighs and bubble gut needs a humbling post-haste.

Meanwhile, you're so inept to make your own fucking points that you point to links and paste verbeage that does it for you. You're so incapable of standing on your own two (my third's a kick-stand, by the way), that you link to extremist hate mongers such as Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin to do the projecting and labeling of those YOU hate, for you. The points that are original to YOUR OWN self are about as salient as singing under water.



Meanwhile, literally every single accusation you toss out at people is a glaring projection of your own posts, and you're too much of a tool to realize that. Arrogance stinks like shit and your posts smell like fertilizer.

But I'll bet PC still thinks you'd make a great organ doner.

 

[MaggieMae]

Internet Argument Techniques | Cracked.com

What we have here is a classic case of number 2.

GREAT find! I'll be using that link a lot, I can tell.

 

[G.T.]

My, you have a way with words, don't you.

You look like such a looser when school-yard vernacular is the best you can do.

But you do have a point: beating you would not require enough effort to claim it as any kind of victory.

Fighting fire with fire is a decent strategy, and virtually all of your retorts are school-yard. You're of the "oooohhhhh!! I slapped you DOWN with my uber dope internetz debating skillz......you so dumb!! read a book!!" school. Your cellulite thighs and bubble gut needs a humbling post-haste.

Meanwhile, you're so inept to make your own fucking points that you point to links and paste verbeage that does it for you. You're so incapable of standing on your own two (my third's a kick-stand, by the way), that you link to extremist hate mongers such as Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin to do the projecting and labeling of those YOU hate, for you. The points that are original to YOUR OWN self are about as salient as singing under water.



Meanwhile, literally every single accusation you toss out at people is a glaring projection of your own posts, and you're too much of a tool to realize that. Arrogance stinks like shit and your posts smell like fertilizer.

But I'll bet PC still thinks you'd make a great organ doner.

lol there's a good handful of fine ladies that would appreciate my donating them my kick-stand.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Internet Argument Techniques | Cracked.com

What we have here is a classic case of number 2.

I ran into this list like a week ago. I was shocked at how many of the techniques on this list I had seen in use just while reading this forum.

As others have said: The truth is the partisans hate the other side. Always have, always will. Check the forums and you'll find posters all the time advocating shooting, deporting, or arresting Libs. You'll find posters that refer to Bush as a "Monkey", and Obama as "The Boy King." In the bigger world outside you have the staples of Conservatives thought (Rush, Hannity, Coulter, Beck) frequently use terms like "Feminazi", or "Obamabots", or "BSD" to characterize their opposition as insane or worse. Coulter tosses around words like "Treason" as book titles. Ditto on the Left.

So the Left hates the Right and the Right hates the Left? Big deal. Its been that way since the dawn of the nation. The Founders said far worse about each other during elections than what you see today.

Fun thing is, those guys are largely irrelevant. The elections are still decided by the moderates and independents, not the partisans. All that you get by using this kind of dialogue is an electoral loss when you piss off the voters that really matter: the Independents.

 

[Meister]

I would have to backtrack and re-read the exchange, but if the dispute is over whether liberals are more hypocritical than conservatives, I would point to the opening dissertation by a known uber conservative radio commentator, known to write/say inflamatory things to which his choir all jumps in to high five. But when a "liberal" counters the argument, he/she is slapped with being an ignorant partisan. The only thing ignorant is that perception.

It goes both ways, Maggie, there is name calling from both sides. The media has "their guy doing the flaming be it Limbaugh, or Olbermann....we can both do the list

So why continue to claim that one "side" or the other isn't biased, not just here but everywhere? It's okay for PC to post a biased blurb by Prager, but it's not okay for me to post something from Salon.com on the same topic, for which I was immediately shot down alleging Salon is "biased." Cons can post links to stuff in CNS.com as if it's gospel, but Heaven Forbid someone from the left posts comething from Huffington Post which doesn't even get read. It's pretty stupid.

I guess you haven't been reading the entire thread between NYCab. and myself. He was the one stating "The rightwing and its propagandists have become zealous devotees to the concept of what someone once called 'partisan accountability', which means, essentially, that you're only accountable to those who agree with you politically/philosophically. In that world, hypocrisy becomes a positive trait"

I was stating that that could be said for both sides, yet when you enter into the debate you go after me......why is that? When all is said, your agreeing with me on this matter, yet you say nothing to NYCab. Why is that? Must be blind partisan.

.

 

[Foxfyre]

I was stating that that could be said for both sides, yet when you enter into the debate you go after me......why is that? When all is said, your agreeing with me on this matter, yet you say nothing to NYCab. Why is that? Must be blind partisan.

But that's the way partisanship works. It's okay if YOUR side does it but not okay if the OTHER side does it.

And YOUR side can be absolved of anything if you just point to something similar or actually anything criticizable that the OTHER side did.

Or if YOUR side does it, it is because of noble motives or intentions or there is genuine remorse and apology. If the OTHER side does it, it is due to evil, selfish intentions and any remorse or apology is just to save their jobs or butts.

Capiche?

 

[JakeStarkey]

I was stating that that could be said for both sides, yet when you enter into the debate you go after me......why is that? When all is said, your agreeing with me on this matter, yet you say nothing to NYCab. Why is that? Must be blind partisan.

But that's the way partisanship works. It's okay if YOUR side does it but not okay if the OTHER side does it.

And YOUR side can be absolved of anything if you just point to something similar or actually anything criticizable that the OTHER side did.

Or if YOUR side does it, it is because of noble motives or intentions or there is genuine remorse and apology. If the OTHER side does it, it is due to evil, selfish intentions and any remorse or apology is just to save their jobs or butts.

Capiche?

I will correct my error here for criticizing Foxfyre when I misread her statement.

I apologize.

 

[DiveCon]

I was stating that that could be said for both sides, yet when you enter into the debate you go after me......why is that? When all is said, your agreeing with me on this matter, yet you say nothing to NYCab. Why is that? Must be blind partisan.

But that's the way partisanship works. It's okay if YOUR side does it but not okay if the OTHER side does it.

And YOUR side can be absolved of anything if you just point to something similar or actually anything criticizable that the OTHER side did.

Or if YOUR side does it, it is because of noble motives or intentions or there is genuine remorse and apology. If the OTHER side does it, it is due to evil, selfish intentions and any remorse or apology is just to save their jobs or butts.

Capiche?

Internet Argument Techniques | Cracked.com

Read it carefully, sweetie, because you are staring out of most of the commentary.

and which one are you calling her?
eh numbnutz?

 

[Sky Dancer]

I was stating that that could be said for both sides, yet when you enter into the debate you go after me......why is that? When all is said, your agreeing with me on this matter, yet you say nothing to NYCab. Why is that? Must be blind partisan.

But that's the way partisanship works. It's okay if YOUR side does it but not okay if the OTHER side does it.

And YOUR side can be absolved of anything if you just point to something similar or actually anything criticizable that the OTHER side did.

Or if YOUR side does it, it is because of noble motives or intentions or there is genuine remorse and apology. If the OTHER side does it, it is due to evil, selfish intentions and any remorse or apology is just to save their jobs or butts.

Capiche?

You ought to know.