The Hatred of the Left

Dennis Prager

"A related defining characteristic of the left is the ascribing of nefarious motives to conservatives. For the left, a dismissal of conservatives' motives is as important as is dismissal of the conservatives as people. It is close to impossible for almost anyone on the left -- and I mean the elite left, not merely left-wing blogs -- to say "There are good people on both of sides of this issue." From Karl Marx to Frank Rich of The New York Times, this has always been the case.

Why does the left attribute only nefarious motives to those who believe that the Islamic center does not belong near ground zero?

Because leftism holds these beliefs:

1. Those who hold leftist positions are, by definition, better people than their opponents.

2. Those who hold leftist positions have, by definition, pure motives; therefore, the motives of their opponents must be impure."



The Dennis Prager Show

So, only leftists think they're better than opponents? Do rightists think they're worse than their opponents? And do rightists also think their motives are impure and that leftists must be pure?

And have rightists never claimed that leftists are un-American and evil?

Is Ann Coulter suddenly not a rightist?

I love how the OP clarifies with the undefinable elite left, that way they can single out leftists who aren't arrogant No True Scotsman style.
 
Last edited:
The people who refer to themselves as CON$ervatives these days are not true CON$ervatives. They're mostly Fascists who have hijacked the term and it is they who have made CON$ervatism a dirty word.

The far right has shown some fascist tendencies and so has the far left. Conservatives claim to support the concept of limited government and personal freedom, but in practice they do not. I would disagree with you, however, in your claim that they are not true conservatives, because conservatism tends to be apprehensive towards cultural change and I think that describes modern conservatives quite accurately.
A true conservative would be someone like William F Buckley, not hate mongers like LimpTard and HanNITWITy.

There are no true conservatives anymore.

"In its current incarnation, conservatism has taken on an angry crankiness. It is caught up in a pseudo-populism that true conservatism should mistrust—what on Earth would Bill Buckley have made of “death panels”? The creed is caught up in a suspicion of all reform that conservatives of the Edmund Burke stripe have always warned against. Authentic conservatism is better than this. "
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/will_true_conservatives_stand_up_20100323/
 
Last edited:
I listened to Prager for years when he was on KABC in LA when it was taken over by the RepubliCONs. I'm very familiar with the way he sounds very "reasonable" but it is easy to see through his CON.

It shows up right here in this paragraph attributed to him, as he casually associates journalist Frank Rich with communist Karl Marx.

It's just another CON by the RepubliCONs.
 
The people who refer to themselves as CON$ervatives these days are not true CON$ervatives. They're mostly Fascists who have hijacked the term and it is they who have made CON$ervatism a dirty word.

The far right has shown some fascist tendencies and so has the far left. Conservatives claim to support the concept of limited government and personal freedom, but in practice they do not. I would disagree with you, however, in your claim that they are not true conservatives, because conservatism tends to be apprehensive towards cultural change and I think that describes modern conservatives quite accurately.
A true conservative would be someone like William F Buckley, not hate mongers like LimpTard and HanNITWITy.
Buckley couldn't sell a radio show today. No one wants the intellectual approach. They want professional wrestling and slime. It's easier to understand and passion appeals more than rational thought. Who wouldn't rather have their misguided philosophy pushed by emotion? It's why something as inane as American Chopper is popular while something like Masterpiece Theater is not.

Remember, the contemporary Conservative doesn't do nuance. Everything is either right or wrong, black or white.
 
ironically, cad posts this under the assumption that muslims, in general, are somehow collectively responsible for 9/11.

cons sure don't grasp irony, do they?
Muslims "WERE" responsible for 9/11. What the fuck part of that doesn't sink into your pea brain?

It really depends how one defines "responsibility" doesn't it. A "pea brain" assumes that TIME itself should start on 9/11. Unfortunately the clock started much earlier. We attacked the Muslims much earlier for good reasons or bad depending on if one lived safely within our borders or in the Arab lands. What some Americans believe is that there are no values that need be respected in other cultures. They, the Muslims, of course don't use our perspective as the benchmark. The failure to understand what it is like to live in someone elses shoes has always been our achillies heal and probably always will be. The failure to calculate blowback for our actions has always been our stupidity.

I wonder sometimes what we would do if our country was truely attacked out of the blue like we did Iraq under Bushes Daddy. OOPS! Stupid question.. we would kick their asses and blow up a couple of nuclear bombs on their asses just to make the point stick.

Defending Kuaitt was not our buisness in my opinion...an opinion that was obviously shared by many Arabs. Ya Suddam Hussein was a crazy evil man but it was us that helped make him what he was touching back on the subject of "responsibility" breifly.

So was there any "responsibility" owed the Arabs and muslims for what we did in their lands? If one has a "pea brain" apparently not. Apparantly they felt differently and a handful of them got together, called themselves Al Queda and decided to "splain" it to us in the only universal language we can apparently understand.."pea brained" violence.
 
Last edited:

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top