PDA

View Full Version : Leftist Hypocrisy: The Why



NJCardFan
01-12-2011, 03:43 PM
I've mentioned my theories on this in a bunch of threads but I believe the subject deserves it's own discussion. During these past few days, the right and left have been doing a bunch of finger pointing at each other when it comes to political "vitriol" as Sheriff DUMPnik put it. The left, as we all know, is blaming right wing rhetoric for the actions of a lunatic. Without a single shred of evidence collected and even before the bodies of the dead cooled, the finger pointing began. Even though this nut's obsession with Rep. Giffords began in 2007, the left are blaming Sarah Palin's "crosshairs" map for inciting him. Is there any evidence to support this? Did they find a map in this guy's house along side his skull in a bowl of orange peels? Did he mention this in any of his Youtube rantings? Of course not, but that doesn't stop the leftist smear machine and their accomplices in the media. Why should they wait for any evidence? After all, the sheriff declared their beliefs to be valid, right?

See, to them, any discourse away from their way of thinking and any speech that isn't in line with them is considered hate speech. Disagree with Obama, you must be a racist. Want a more secure border(which is something Rep. Giffords was advocating), you are anti-immigrant. Want people to actually provide for their own needs, you must hate poor people. And then there's the political rhetoric which uses metaphors. Sarah Palin saying, "regroup and reload" is one that comes to mind. The left sees this as a call to arms, actual firearms, in order to use violence to seek an end to the means of the right. But, as we all know, both sides use these kinds of metaphors in their rhetoric. President Obama quoting The Untouchables by saying, "if they bring a knife to the fight, we'll bring a gun." Or Paul Kanjorski's(D-PA) comment that Gov. Rick Scott of Florida "should be put on a wall and shot". There are countless other examples of liberal and progressive use of angry vitriol, Randi Rhodes' call for the assassination of George W. Bush notwithstanding. All of this is ignored by the leftist media machine and their counterparts and there is a reason.

To them, their anger is justified. After all, the right wing is nothing but a bunch of insensitive, uncaring, corporate loving Neanderthals. So when they use these terms or carry signs depicting bullet holes and blood on President Bush or hanging an effigy of Sarah Palin, it's OK because it's justified. They don't perceive their vitriol as wrong when the person is't directed at deserves it. Like calling Bush a war criminal for picking on those poor little jihadists. Or for pouring water on the heads of terror masterminds(probably because anything resembling a bath to jihadists is considered torture). Or having elected officials call American soldiers "Nazi's" because after all, war is wrong and those waging it are evil. And besides, no liberal or progressive has ever done anything remotely violent, right? I mean, those G20 riots are all blown out of proportion. And Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao were misunderstood. Castro and Che too. And Oswald, Arthur Bremer(George Wallace's shooter), Sirhan Sirhan, were mere loons with no political agenda, however, Jared Loughner, who would make these others quite sane by comparison, is a right wing zealot and teabagger following the orders of right wing extremists on radio and cable television. :rolleyes:

So, am I wrong or amirite?

swirling_vortex
01-12-2011, 09:54 PM
I'd say you hit the nail on the head. Morality and common decency for an angry liberal doesn't seem to apply when they are out and about with their politics. Not to go into a more conspiracy theory mode, but I'd suspect that the reason they are so angry is because they have lost the intellectual front. They can't debate on the economic side (you end up with people like Krugman who just throw away any economic thought and put in partisanship), they can't debate on the foreign policy side (those problems stem back to Carter), and they can't debate on the historical side. What they fail to realize is that we are living in their liberal "paradise". We have tons of government agencies, tons of laws and regulations on the free market, taxes so complicated that no one understands them, and a large welfare state, both at the federal and the state level.

So what's left of them to do? Two things. Blame the other side for everything or construct their own fantasy ideas for how society should work. We saw this with the green jobs stuff, which they tend to ignore even the basic principle of supply and demand. But they'll keep plugging away until something sticks.

I've had my own experiences with debating some of my liberal friends. I was told that I wanted people to die on the street for not supporting Obama's health care bill. The big problem I have is trying to go into specifics with them. When you try to get them to justify their answers, I've found that most of them can't do it. So when I ask people why do you support the health care bill or why you want higher taxes, I just get the same crappy answers. Usually the common response is that "It's the right thing to do" (a statement based entirely on emotion) or because X group has too much of something. It's maddening, but if I wanted easy answers, then I would be at DU instead.

NJCardFan
01-13-2011, 12:22 AM
Look how they jump to conclusions. Remember the census worker found hanged with the word FED on his chest? The cries that a 'teabagger' had done this resonated from the mountain tops. Then when it came to pass that it was a suicide. Were there any retractions? Nupe.

wilbur
01-13-2011, 09:51 AM
To them, their anger is justified. After all, the right wing is nothing but a bunch of insensitive, uncaring, corporate loving Neanderthals. So when they use these terms or carry signs depicting bullet holes and blood on President Bush or hanging an effigy of Sarah Palin, it's OK because it's justified. They don't perceive their vitriol as wrong when the person is't directed at deserves it. Like calling Bush a war criminal for picking on those poor little jihadists. Or for pouring water on the heads of terror masterminds(probably because anything resembling a bath to jihadists is considered torture). Or having elected officials call American soldiers "Nazi's" because after all, war is wrong and those waging it are evil. And besides, no liberal or progressive has ever done anything remotely violent, right? I mean, those G20 riots are all blown out of proportion. And Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao were misunderstood. Castro and Che too. And Oswald, Arthur Bremer(George Wallace's shooter), Sirhan Sirhan, were mere loons with no political agenda, however, Jared Loughner, who would make these others quite sane by comparison, is a right wing zealot and teabagger following the orders of right wing extremists on radio and cable television. :rolleyes:

So, am I wrong or amirite?

You are right that the left, of course, does engage in the all the same evil dictator-comparing, violence encouraging, over-the-top rhetorical poison that the right does. If one makes an effort to pay attention and to be fair minded, the left and the right look fairly indistinguishable when it comes to that. Be honest with yourselves... how many of you were hoping that shooter was an obvious liberal, and how would you be acting if he were? How do you think your favorite right-wing pundits would be acting right now? If you're honest, you'd say they would be acting a lot like Olbermann, and all the rest... we all know it.

So the same old song and dance plays out again.. when the right feels it to their advantage, they'll jump around and point to all the vitriol emanating from the left and how its poisoning the debate - the right is just the poor victim that wants to fight honestly and fairly... "Lets stop all this non-sense", they'll say.... When the left feels it to their advantage, they'll play the exact same move.

When are people going to wise up a little bit here, and recognize all this bullshit for what it is?

... and for the first person to say, "b-b-but the other side is worse"..... YOU ARE THE PROBLEM.

Novaheart
01-13-2011, 11:12 AM
And besides, no liberal or progressive has ever done anything remotely violent, right? I mean, those G20 riots are all blown out of proportion. And Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao were misunderstood. Castro and Che too. And Oswald, Arthur Bremer(George Wallace's shooter), Sirhan Sirhan, were mere loons with no political agenda, however, Jared Loughner, who would make these others quite sane by comparison, is a right wing zealot and teabagger following the orders of right wing extremists on radio and cable television.

Avoid the pissing contest of trying to categorize famous despots. It's as pointless as trying to claim great men because there is enough to work with that both sides can claim or blame. Adolf Hitler was not an American liberal, nor was he an American conservative, he was a dictator and a conqueror. We really have no idea what his society would have been like, because his entire reign was in conquistador mode. You can claim to know his mind through his speeches and writing, but the thing about a dictator is that he can change his mind, and make sweeping changes in society.

Oddly, I can't recall ever hearing anyone trying to frame Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Cleopatra, Genghis Khan, or any of the other historical greats as Republican or Democratic, conservative or liberal. So, obviously at some point we let go of emotions and trivialities (like mass murder) and focus on art, science, and social advances.

NJCardFan
01-13-2011, 03:34 PM
You are right that the left, of course, does engage in the all the same evil dictator-comparing, violence encouraging, over-the-top rhetorical poison that the right does. If one makes an effort to pay attention and to be fair minded, the left and the right look fairly indistinguishable when it comes to that. Be honest with yourselves... how many of you were hoping that shooter was an obvious liberal, and how would you be acting if he were? How do you think your favorite right-wing pundits would be acting right now? If you're honest, you'd say they would be acting a lot like Olbermann, and all the rest... we all know it.

So the same old song and dance plays out again.. when the right feels it to their advantage, they'll jump around and point to all the vitriol emanating from the left and how its poisoning the debate - the right is just the poor victim that wants to fight honestly and fairly... "Lets stop all this non-sense", they'll say.... When the left feels it to their advantage, they'll play the exact same move.

When are people going to wise up a little bit here, and recognize all this bullshit for what it is?

... and for the first person to say, "b-b-but the other side is worse"..... YOU ARE THE PROBLEM.

Thank you for trying to skew the argument. That wasn't my point. My point is that, yes, there is vitriol on both sides, however, while the left tries to use what the right says to further their agenda(silence the opposition), they ignore the equal amount of vitriol spewed out from their side. And sometimes what they say is worse. However, they don't hold themselves to the same standards they hold conservatives to. They are blind and deaf to their comments and remarks while casting aspersions at conservative rhetoric and the reason being is that leftists believe that their rhetoric isn't hateful because the person or group it's directed at deserves that vitriol. That's the point of this thread. I'm not playing a "you said it first" game because, quite frankly, that's a tactic of your ilk. I'm pointing out that the mindset of the left is that speech isn't hate speech if the person it's directed at is deserving of it. Bush IS a war criminal. Rick Scott should be lined up against the wall and shot. Palin should have aborted Trigg. And Bachman does run a foster mill. So the left doesn't see what they say as hateful because what they're saying, in their minds, is true.

AmPat
01-13-2011, 03:56 PM
You are right that the left, of course, does engage in the all the same evil dictator-comparing, violence encouraging, over-the-top rhetorical poison that the right does. If one makes an effort to pay attention and to be fair minded, the left and the right look fairly indistinguishable when it comes to that. Be honest with yourselves... how many of you were hoping that shooter was an obvious liberal, and how would you be acting if he were? How do you think your favorite right-wing pundits would be acting right now? If you're honest, you'd say they would be acting a lot like Olbermann, and all the rest... we all know it.

So the same old song and dance plays out again.. when the right feels it to their advantage, they'll jump around and point to all the vitriol emanating from the left and how its poisoning the debate - the right is just the poor victim that wants to fight honestly and fairly... "Lets stop all this non-sense", they'll say.... When the left feels it to their advantage, they'll play the exact same move.

When are people going to wise up a little bit here, and recognize all this bullshit for what it is?

... and for the first person to say, "b-b-but the other side is worse"..... YOU ARE THE PROBLEM.
Wrong! The first thought I had was it was a crazy person with a gun. My first thought was not, nor has it ever been , political. The knee jerk reaction of the left and the subsequent collusion of the leftist media, and vast left wing organization (unions?) reacted lock step in wrongly accusing Conservative talk radio or any conservative target as the culprit. Liberals couldn't wait to place political spin on this tragedy. Where is there an equivalent right wing reaction like this? Your claims try to spread and share blame for this when in actuality, this is a monster owned entirely by liberals. Enjoy!:cool:

enslaved1
01-13-2011, 04:01 PM
You are right that the left, of course, does engage in the all the same evil dictator-comparing, violence encouraging, over-the-top rhetorical poison that the right does. If one makes an effort to pay attention and to be fair minded, the left and the right look fairly indistinguishable when it comes to that. Be honest with yourselves... how many of you were hoping that shooter was an obvious liberal, and how would you be acting if he were? How do you think your favorite right-wing pundits would be acting right now? If you're honest, you'd say they would be acting a lot like Olbermann, and all the rest... we all know it.

So the same old song and dance plays out again.. when the right feels it to their advantage, they'll jump around and point to all the vitriol emanating from the left and how its poisoning the debate - the right is just the poor victim that wants to fight honestly and fairly... "Lets stop all this non-sense", they'll say.... When the left feels it to their advantage, they'll play the exact same move.

When are people going to wise up a little bit here, and recognize all this bullshit for what it is?

... and for the first person to say, "b-b-but the other side is worse"..... YOU ARE THE PROBLEM.

I didn't interject any politics into the shooting until that sheriff got up and started flapping his gums. Until then, my sole concern was for the victims, their families, and that the shooter be caught and brought to justice. Even after that, politics were a far second. That's my two bits. How would the right wing pundits handle the matter if the shooter was shown to be a left wing loon? Absolutely they would be all over it as evidence of how the left is rotting the minds of Americans........in a few weeks. The right would, for the most part, give the families time to grieve and the legal system time to work and solidify the case for the shooter being a left wing loon before jumping on it. As I've commented in other threads, the left didn't let the bodies get cold before they were looking for spin, grinning like ghouls at a fat man's funeral.

And for the sake of argument, please pull up some video/audio/transcripts of right-wing "dictator-comparing, violence encouraging, over-the-top rhetorical poison". I'm sure it's out there, but terabits of data have come up showing examples of the left calling for, encouraging, and wishing for physical harm to the right since the accusations started flying, and personally I haven't heard any of those lib accusers provide support for their claims.

I agree that there are opportunists on both sides. It just seems that the left as a whole embraces and encourages it more than the right. The right (for the most part, there are always exceptions) tries to keep things from sinking to the personal level, engaging in debate, not vitriol. If that counts as "but their worse", so be it.

NJCardFan
01-13-2011, 04:25 PM
This is nothing new. Minutes after the Virginia Tech shooting, the screams from the anti-gun crowd were deafening. Turned out the guy was just a loon. After the Holocaust Memorial shooting, accusations of this guy being a neo-Nazi right winger were screamed from the rooftops...until it turned out that he was a 9/11 truther who hated Bush. Moments after a small plane hit the IRS building in Austin, TX, the cries from this being another right wing anti-tax teabagger came from everywhere...until everyone got to read his screed to find out that he was just another disgruntled leftists crying about how unfair things were that he had to pay taxes while corporations did not. Then we hear that someone had taken over the Discovery building in Maryland, the perp was called a right wing gun nut...until it turned out that he was another leftist environmentalist loon upset that Discovery wasn't showing enough 'green' programming.

These are just a few examples of the left jumping to immediate conclusions all in an effort to prove some kind of point then in the end, they end up with egg on their faces. Are there retractions? Apologies? Never. Instead, they amp up their rhetoric by saying, "Well, soon or later it's going to happen". Well la-di-freaking-da. And soon or later I might win Powerball. This isn't to say that there aren't right win nuts capable of pulling stunts like this(Eric Rudolph comes to mind) but the difference between the right and left is that the right has the ability to call a loon a loon. And the right plays a wait and see before casting aspersions or assessing blame but in the end, we call a loon a loon. The Va. Tech shooter? Loon. Discovery building shooter? Loon. Ted Kaczynski? Loon. Jared Lougner? Loon.

The deal is, the left can't wait for one of these loons be an actual right winger. They can't. They are chomping at the bit. Foaming at the mouth. And if another incident like this happens, they will be all over it like a fat kid on a Twinkie. What makes this really disgusting is that they care not one bit for the victims. All they care about is their political agenda. And that is repugnant.

swirling_vortex
01-13-2011, 05:36 PM
Be honest with yourselves... how many of you were hoping that shooter was an obvious liberal, and how would you be acting if he were?
I assume that any person that wants to kill somebody is crazy. Why would I want to assume that a killer would be liberal? You can't defend what the left just did Wilbur. On Reddit especially, there were pages and pages of comments saying that Palin had blood on her hands and they even tried to pin Glenn Beck as the cause of it. From the conservatives I know, I didn't see the same reaction.

Avoid the pissing contest of trying to categorize famous despots. It's as pointless as trying to claim great men because there is enough to work with that both sides can claim or blame. Adolf Hitler was not an American liberal, nor was he an American conservative, he was a dictator and a conqueror. We really have no idea what his society would have been like, because his entire reign was in conquistador mode. You can claim to know his mind through his speeches and writing, but the thing about a dictator is that he can change his mind, and make sweeping changes in society.
True, Hitler may be an extreme case (although he was an anti-capitalist). But there are still many liberals who see Che as a savior. I can show you my textbook from last semester that praised Castro and Chavez for implementing "great poverty-reduction programs" and the author himself quoted Marx and Marxist ideas frequently. I find dictator worship happens much more on the left as long as the dictator in question is blaming the United States for something, whether it be the US's foreign policy or its economic policy.

PoliCon
01-13-2011, 06:21 PM
Be honest with yourselves... how many of you were hoping that shooter was an obvious liberal, and how would you be acting if he were?Actually - my thoughts were oh shit please don't let this be someone the media can paint as a conservative. As for how I would be acting - that's simple. I would be acting the same as I always do. I would point out the hypocrisy of the left and especially of the MSM in how they frame the discussion of this incident.


How do you think your favorite right-wing pundits would be acting right now? If you're honest, you'd say they would be acting a lot like Olbermann, and all the rest... we all know it. Do we know it? See the thing is - those of us with any knowledge know that it is the left who are almost always guilty of injecting violence into politics. So the right wing pundits might sit there smug knowing that the left has proven itself to be hypocritical once again - but I don't think a single conservative would be calling for laws against free speech or for gun control. Nor would be trying to outlaw any opposition political group.

lacarnut
01-13-2011, 06:36 PM
... how many of you were hoping that shooter was an obvious liberal, and how would you be acting if he were? . YOU ARE THE PROBLEM.

Wrong, Bozo. Plus, I would be pissed if a Republician President turned the memorial into a political circus event. Allowing a commie to speak and dishing out T-shirts. At least they did not pass the plate for donations.