Despite their claims of being tolerant, it seems that whenever someone has the temerity to disagree with a liberal, even on a minor point, they instantly accuse that person of perpetuating some form of hatred or bigotry. Why do libs resort to these tactics almost uniformly?
Wouldn’t logic dictate that if they truly had the facts on their side, as they always claim, that such tactics would only serve to diminish whatever argument they’re trying to advance?
Conservatives might say ":All liberals are vermin and need to be exterminated":, but that’s not the same thing as what the OP is talking about: Racist/Sexist/etc. No comparison, sorry. The correct response should probably be ":all conservatives..": etc. And guess what, I see that too.
Although that poster has given me an idea. Maybe we SHOULD respond in kind. If nothing else, run that kind of language into the ground. People will groan, and no one will ever want to hear it again. I’ve done it before, it might work here too.
I should also note I’ve seen pinkos say ":take america back": as well. Back to what, 1917??
Because they’re weak, and don’t have anything else. They’re like a monkey who sees another monkey get beaned over the head by a rival. They aren’t that aware, but they see that using a club works. So they copy it. Just like at the beginning of the film 2001. 🙂 They know it gets results, especially when gossiping to each other about how awful conservatives are, it creates a sounding board..and echo chamber where lies are reinforced.
So you’ve gotta make it stop working. As Obama said ":Get in their face":.
Look at that little troll Kristen Chenowith. Awhile back she called out a writer for saying he didn’t think homosexuals convincingly played straights. There was an uproar, and people went craaaaazy. What’s sad is, the writer was openly gay. Chenowith called him a homophobe in the same press release as when she had heard he was homosexual. A homophobic homosexual, can you believe such a thing??! But that’s what the Left has sunk to with its knee-jerk programmed responses. I’ve seen Jews(Jonah Goldberg, and others) called ":Nazis": because they weren’t pinko. It’s sick and scary both.
Also, for a group that is largely non-religious, the Leftism takes the place of religion. They’re extremely morally self assured. So if you are on the opposite side of the spectrum, what does that make you? EEEEEEEEEEEEEEvil. That’s right. I think it was John Dewey who said that man had religious feelings, and as a nonreligious person he wanted to construct a philosophy that lets people acknowledge that without being religious. The religious feeling wasn’t something to avoid, just religion. Naturally, he was also a Progressive and wanted the educational system to reflect that. Look at the French revolution, or the Greek anarchists, or the Weathermen! Total religious fanaticism. Without the religion.
It’s happened to me before. Awhile ago I had an answer reported as violating the community guidelines. I was busy and foolish and shrugged it off. I was not aware of the 7 day limit to repeal, and didn’t take the time to deal with it anyway. Later I read the notification report and the one line reason given for my answer being deleted? ":Hate speech and violence":. !??!?! There wasn’t even a joke about violence in my post. I was talking about ":The State Against Blacks": by Walter Williams and some of the material in it, and how racist unions used to keep blacks out and unemployed. I also brought up ":Losing Ground": by Charles Murray. Somehow, that was hate speech. I would’ve taken the time for an appeal if I had read that. And I would’ve won too, I’m sure. I still don’t know in what universe my deleted post was hate speech.
Because in Leftist eyes, ripping a union for their racism..apparently is.
I invite you to read book Leviticus in the bible and see how ":tolerant": Moses’s laws are too.. This point, in defending the ":mosque": (which by the way isn’t even a mosque, and isn’t even at ground zero but facts never seem to actually matter to Cons) I’m defending the very heart of the first amendment of the Constitution. I know all you con’s love the 2nd amendment so much but seem to love to skip over the first one so often.
Without an actual example of what you’re talking about you’re just rehashing a stereotype and repeating a right wing talking point. Baseless. Maybe post a specific issue that you witnessed ":liberals": resort to claims of racism, sexism, etc. Besides, I guarantee any situation you might come up with will just be a case of the wingnuts accusing the left of ":playing the race card": no matter what. The right loves saying things like ":play the race card": and ":take our country back": and all these other stupid catch phrases…I’ m a total dumbass that doesn’t know anything but San- Dimas High School Football Rules!!! (cheers, applause). Thats the perfect analogy of a republican. Facts always go against republican arguments. Always. They are always wrong about everything all the time. Its that simple.
I would like to see some stats on this…legitimate states would be amazing! There was an actual study done in the 90s where they wanted to see if support for the death penalty was tied to racist beliefs. The study titled вЂњRacial prejudice and support for the death penalty by whitesвЂќ was published in the journal of research in Crime and Delinquency and found that an overwhelming number of whites who support the death penalty have racial bias. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and if yours is motivated by racial issues then so be it. ThatвЂ™s whatвЂ™s great about living in America, everyone has a voice. I agree with volleyball chick even though she has a though of thumbs down. Its all perspective. When the patriot act came out a lot of libs said it was too much government intrusion on their lives. Now the cons are screaming it but for a different reason.
I know. And another ":irony": is that they claim to be ":tolerant":, yet they are completely intolerant of evangelical views, conservative views, or any other views that disagree with their own (take for example the booing of Carrie Prejean after she gave her opinion on gay marriage). Being tolerant means being neutral and tolerating ALL views, not trying to be ":anti-establishment": just to satisfy the need to appear like a rebel.
Liberals cannot debate on the facts. They thrown around theory, with out explaining the variables. By doing this, they state false assumptions and push a flawed agenda/ideas, When someone challenges them with facts or asks them to explain the variables, Liberals cannot and they go on the attack by accusing the questioner of racism, homophobia, or sexism. The sad point is the main stream media helps them.
Example: Today, Obama accused the Republicans of blocking reform and the safety net for the unemployed.
Fact: You do not need one Republican vote to pass anything as the Democrats control the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. You did not here the main stream media state this, they only reported the Republicans were blocking reform.
the truth is, if you say something that is racist, it’s racist. if you say something that is sexist, it’s sexist. if you disagree, you disagree.
why do cons think that if they say something racist, it shouldn’t be considered as such?
it’s true a few liberals call people racist without much to go by, but certainly not a majority.
it’s obvious cons love this question. even though they’re clearly not qualified to answer. so many valid answers with so many thumbs down. shows cons are more interested in insults than learning anything.
You know – you could replace all the ":Liberals": in your rant with ":Conservatives":, and it would be the very same thing.
It is all perspective. Each side has it’s good points and bad points. But each side also represents a point of view (opinion): not a fact. So until one side or the other can prove that they are based on FACT and not OPINION, they will continue to be considered IDEOLOGIES.
All liberal thought, policies, values and beliefs are rooted in specific, fundamental lies. All liberal rhetoric is simply justification of those lies. The one who provides the lies is the father of all lies. The lies are designed to be alluring and his greatest triumph is to make people believe they are doing something good and decent, when they are actually harming others and being immoral. The traditional means of accomplishing this goal is to control the language, as I will soon demonstrate.
Those who claim racism when someone disagrees with 0bama, have simply fallen for one of the alluring lies. The truth about race is: There is only one race, the human race. If anyone believes they belong to a different race than me, they are wrong and I welcome them to join the human race, with the rest of us. Every time, they claim special privileges for a race, or insist a race is being treated differently, they are perpetuating the evil. They are dividing people and fostering hatred and envy.
Each liberal tenet is rooted in exactly the same type of language change. Each language change, makes evil a little more prevalent. Taxing the rich does not help the poor, it slows the economy and causes more poverty. Yet they have gotten away with this lie for over a century. They claim we have to pay for helping the poor with taxes. when we should be paying for helping the poor, primarily with economic growth. Those left over, who still need help after an expantion of wealth, will have more money and help available to them. Yet the liberals continually demand higher taxes on the rich and foster envy and class hatred to accomplish the real goal, of causing more poverty with higher taxes.
You ask: ":Wouldn’t logic dictate that if they truly had the facts on their side, as they always claim, that such tactics would only serve to diminish whatever argument they’re trying to advance?":
The answer is, they have different facts than we do. Their facts are based on the alluring lies I mentioned earlier. Their logic starts from the lies.They see their logic as ":perfect": because they have a solid belief in the lies from which they base their logic. Their arguments are often brilliant and completely logical after the initial lie.
Someone here, actually claimed, ":you could replace the word liberal in your rant": with conservative.": He is right, once you allow liberals control of the language. It is their fondest desire to make (evil into good) and (good into evil)