Why Do Some Liberals Spend More Time On Republican

[Annie]

candidates or issues, than defending their own? I don't get it. Sure there are the threads about the GSA scandal or some Democrat's son/daughter/dog doing something they shouldn't, but we don't find lots of threads, certainly not multiples warning the left about their issues or candidates.

OTOH we are treated daily to 'advice from the leftists' to the right, pray why should that be taken to heart? Only an idiot would think you are truly working on helping out. So why? These posts result in the most flames and yes, bannings of any. So why?

 

[occupied]

Everyone prefers attack mode to being on the defensive, doesn't matter what party you belong to.

 

[Annie]

Everyone prefers attack mode to being on the defensive, doesn't matter what party you belong to.

So why so few 'advice' posts from Conservatives to Democrats? Could it be the 'heartless' just think the left knows what they want? OTOH, the left in their very altruistic M.O. posts constantly giving advice to the right on 'how to win'? LOL!

 

[Bigfoot]

There is nothing more basic to Liberal ideology then telling others to be like them. They are also one of the most hateful groups of people that a person will ever come across. This hate is fed to them by their mythos as a means to an end.

 

[Bigfoot]

Everyone prefers attack mode to being on the defensive, doesn't matter what party you belong to.

You cannot speak for EVERYONE, no matter how much your ideology says you can!

 

[occupied]

Everyone prefers attack mode to being on the defensive, doesn't matter what party you belong to.

You cannot speak for EVERYONE, no matter how much your ideology says you can!

Which one do you prefer? Debate is the same as any game, contest, fist-fight or war, being on the defensive sucks.

 

[Annie]

Everyone prefers attack mode to being on the defensive, doesn't matter what party you belong to.

You cannot speak for EVERYONE, no matter how much your ideology says you can!

Which one do you prefer? Debate is the same as any game, contest, fist-fight or war, being on the defensive sucks.

There is nothing to be gained from the multitude of posts to what the 'right' should do. It would be non-sensical for me to say team Obama should start taking into account those that assume those on food stamps type programs aren't eating healthy and should have the government find a way to fix it.

Why would 'conservatives' bother themselves with such?

 

[Si modo]

Smoke and mirrors.

And red herrings.

And strawmen.





When you have nothing, you use the tools of propaganda rather than rationale. It worked for the Nazis, the Soviets, the Communist Chinese, etc.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Everyone prefers attack mode to being on the defensive, doesn't matter what party you belong to.

I don't dispute that both sides enjoy being in attack mode. But I think that the point is that the right puts out more meat for their agenda. Leftists seem to lack confidence or belief in their agenda.

 

[occupied]

You cannot speak for EVERYONE, no matter how much your ideology says you can!

Which one do you prefer? Debate is the same as any game, contest, fist-fight or war, being on the defensive sucks.

There is nothing to be gained from the multitude of posts to what the 'right' should do. It would be non-sensical for me to say team Obama should start taking into account those that assume those on food stamps type programs aren't eating healthy and should have the government find a way to fix it.

Why would 'conservatives' bother themselves with such?

Someone needs to train the right on the art of considering the unintended consequences of their actions.

 

[Si modo]

By far, affirmative arguments are the most powerful. But, you have to have some meat to use it.

If you have no or little meat, well.........................................

 

[Cowman]

Maybe because we don't feel the need to defend those candidates all the time. We're not a Borg Collective.

 

[Si modo]

Maybe because we don't feel the need to defend those candidates all the time. We're not a Borg Collective.

I'm not sure you understood the OP.

 

[occupied]

Everyone prefers attack mode to being on the defensive, doesn't matter what party you belong to.

I don't dispute that both sides enjoy being in attack mode. But I think that the point is that the right puts out more meat for their agenda. Leftists seem to lack confidence or belief in their agenda.

There would be more of that if conservatives would open a damned link and read it every now and then.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Everyone prefers attack mode to being on the defensive, doesn't matter what party you belong to.

I don't dispute that both sides enjoy being in attack mode. But I think that the point is that the right puts out more meat for their agenda. Leftists seem to lack confidence or belief in their agenda.

There would be more of that if conservatives would open a damned link and read it every now and then.

Hmm. I think you just unwittingly demonstrated my point.

 

[occupied]

I don't dispute that both sides enjoy being in attack mode. But I think that the point is that the right puts out more meat for their agenda. Leftists seem to lack confidence or belief in their agenda.

There would be more of that if conservatives would open a damned link and read it every now and then.

Hmm. I think you just unwittingly demonstrated my point.

How is the "left" supposed to defend their "agenda" when every link from any source not part of the right wing blog-o-sphere is rejected out-of-hand? Why should anyone waste time trying educate people who do not want to be educated? The right insists on their own set of facts and are remarkably resistant even when their urban myths are proven false time after time.

 

[Cowman]

Maybe because we don't feel the need to defend those candidates all the time. We're not a Borg Collective.

I'm not sure you understood the OP.

Please show to me how I do not understand the OP.

Lay it out for me, I'd love to hear it. The OP was asking why we spend so much time on republican candidates than defending our own.

 

[Flopper]

candidates or issues, than defending their own? I don't get it. Sure there are the threads about the GSA scandal or some Democrat's son/daughter/dog doing something they shouldn't, but we don't find lots of threads, certainly not multiples warning the left about their issues or candidates.

OTOH we are treated daily to 'advice from the leftists' to the right, pray why should that be taken to heart? Only an idiot would think you are truly working on helping out. So why? These posts result in the most flames and yes, bannings of any. So why?

In politics and boxing, a good offense is the best defense.

 

[Cowman]

There would be more of that if conservatives would open a damned link and read it every now and then.

Hmm. I think you just unwittingly demonstrated my point.

How is the "left" supposed to defend their "agenda" when every link from any source not part of the right wing blog-o-sphere is rejected out-of-hand? Why should anyone waste time trying educate people who do not want to be educated? The right insists on their own set of facts and are remarkably resistant even when their urban myths are proven false time after time.

Yes.

Wikipedia? Oh please, everybody knows that Wikipedia is just nothing but false information. Conservapedia is where you can find the real answers!

Scientists? Who would believe scientists on anything regarding the numerous science fields? Scientists are only interested in money, not science! It's all a big conspiracy against big business!

Historians? Who would believe anything a historian has to say, when everybody knows what Historians only believe in revisionist history, and they gather that revisionist history from historical literature and knowledge!

Blogs? Yes, we should all believe in blogs. Unless they are liberal blogs. Liberal blogs are run by liberals and don't have the real story that real american bloggers have. Did you know that bloggers are the news journalists of the 21st century?

News Journalists? Why should we trust so called "News Journalists?" We know that pundits disseminate the real information. It's so much more digestible too because it follows my world views.

 

[occupied]

Hmm. I think you just unwittingly demonstrated my point.

How is the "left" supposed to defend their "agenda" when every link from any source not part of the right wing blog-o-sphere is rejected out-of-hand? Why should anyone waste time trying educate people who do not want to be educated? The right insists on their own set of facts and are remarkably resistant even when their urban myths are proven false time after time.

Yes.

Wikipedia? Oh please, everybody knows that Wikipedia is just nothing but false information. Conservapedia is where you can find the real answers!

Scientists? Who would believe scientists on anything regarding the numerous science fields? Scientists are only interested in money, not science! It's all a big conspiracy against big business!

Historians? Who would believe anything a historian has to say, when everybody knows what Historians only believe in revisionist history, and they gather that revisionist history from historical literature and knowledge!

Blogs? Yes, we should all believe in blogs. Unless they are liberal blogs. Liberal blogs are run by liberals and don't have the real story that real american bloggers have. Did you know that bloggers are the news journalists of the 21st century?

News Journalists? Why should we trust so called "News Journalists?" We know that pundits disseminate the real information. It's so much more digestible too because it follows my world views.

Screw liberal-pedia here's an article on Glenn Beck's blog that has the real truth.