[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Not as many as on the right, and not many with any power. We have some kooks but they’re pretty easily ignored. There’s no left wing political power equivalent to the religious right, no media equivalent to Fox News, no sectarian equivalent to the Neocons, no disaster equivalent to Bush.
having said all that, I wasn’t arguing about whether there are or are not “fucktards” on the left, only that SA’s particular characterization of liberals was off base. Liberal fucktards might call you a murderer for eating a steak or tell you that American Idol is racist and sexist, or they might bore you to death with a 9/11 conspiracy theory, but they don’t apologize for real oppression in other countries, and they don’t bash America.
[/QUOTE]
I actually agree with… well, all of that.
[QUOTE=Polycarp]
Sort of. Not a very vast one – so far, it includes Insight magazine and their unnamed sources, probably one of their Roving reporters, and it appears to have taken in spoke- and Clothahump.
[/QUOTE]
Took me in? How do you figure that? All I did was ask a very reasonable question:
Wait - that apparently was the problem. It was a reasonable question. And the libs, rather than answer it, promptly resorted to ad hominem bullshit.
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
How *else * would you characterize the Washington Times? C’mon now.
[/QUOTE]
C’mon, be fair. That’s not what he means. Who told the Times? Did they make the whole thing up right there in their offices?
[QUOTE=Starving Artist]
You all know perfectly well that there is nothing coming from the left in regard to these issues that is anything like the widespread waves of condemnation that have been brought to bear on issues like race, women’s rights, homosexual rights, child abuse, prisoner rights, etc. The odd attempt by Amnesty International or the sporadic and mostly ineffective infliction of ‘sanctions’ here and there does virtually nothing to combat the deplorable conditions that most of the world’s population has to live under. (And for the record, I’m speaking of leftards in general–as in the overall population–not just those posting here, although certainly the accusation holds here as well.)
[/quote]
I don’t know what you would have liberals do about conditions in other countries but you were wrong in your assertion that they defend or apologize for any of it.
Most of us are tolerant of Christianity too. What we object to is creeping theocracy and the erosion of SOCAS. Most American liberals are Christians, after all. If you think people aren’t critical enough of the superstitions of other religions, it’s only because this is an American message board where Christianity is the prevalent religion, so it tends to surface in the majority of conversations about religion. Even the non-American posters here tend to come from Christian dominated countries like the UK, Australia, Canada and the odd South American country
If anyone seriously wants to debate something like reincarnation, though, they still get dealt with in the same merciless manner as someone defending creationism or psychics.
And this is the exact caricature of the left which is the most off base. can you give an example of liberals defending homophobia, misogyny, racism or religious bigotry outside the US on the grounds of cultural sensitivity? No you can’t. The meme that liberals buy into cultural relativism is a conservative myth.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
C’mon, be fair. That’s not what he means. Who told the Times? Did they make the whole thing up right there in their offices?
[/QUOTE]
It’s hard to tell. At best, they had a single source who they didn’t corroborate and they certainly made no effort to verify the accusations. The attribution is so carefully weaseled that it could apply to just about anybody with a passing acquaintance with Hillary and/or any other Democratic contender. There certainly isn’t any indication, even within the story itself, that Hillary had any knowledge of this.
[QUOTE=Clothahump]
Took me in? How do you figure that? All I did was ask a very reasonable question:
Wait - that apparently was the problem. It was a reasonable question. And the libs, rather than answer it, promptly resorted to ad hominem bullshit.
[/QUOTE]
OK, I do owe you an apology here, then. I inferred something from the tone of your post that was not in fact present. In my defense, may I offer that you have in the past several times made posts that looked to be apologias for rather egregious behavior by cultural conservatives, so presuming that was again your motive was not completely off base.
Are you in fact satisfied with the information given that leads many of us to be very skeptical that “someone in the Hilary Clinton camp” (a pretty nebulous bit of phrasing, unless Bill and Hilary have bought a Catskill getaway or sponsored a youth camp) was responsible for the false madrassa allegation? That it was in fact false? That the people behind the Washington Times and Insight have little respect for the truth? These things can be explored at more length if needed.
No, that is not “exactly” what she said. That was not even close to the meaning of what she said.
What Barbara Boxer ACTUALLY said:
Senator Boxer put herself in the same boat with Secretary Rice and the millions of us who do not have immediate family (in danger at war in Iraq). So we are not at risk of paying the price that someone who loses a wife, a daughter, a brother, a husband, a sister, a father, a mother might pay. I think that’s a fair statement. Nowhere does she say that neither she nor the Secretary of State are incapable of feeling emotional loss related to the war.
This is another example of a lie and character assassination (against Barbara Boxer). She was not ruthless and insensitive to Secretary Rice and she did not portray Secretary Rice as being that way.
Who is Frank Luntz? Is he by any chance a Republican? A Conservative? Has he been know to blog falsehoods previously?
My point is that I agree with the OP and I too am sick of it!
If the Democrats do it during this campaign, I want to know about it! But you will need to be as specific as I have been. And if the Republicans do it, I will want to know about it. Again, you will need to be specific.
Maybe we can have a thread restricted to campaign lies as they arise. (Mine would not count in that category.)
Shodan and Mr. Moto, thanks for your fairness on this one. I will try to be open when non-Republicans have specific lies pointed out and verified also.
Starving, you need to join my Sunday School class. Nothing but liberals in there! But we would feed you pumpkin bread and coffee and be really civil. As always, love and peace to you!
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
WWOD (What would Occam do?)
[/QUOTE]
He would weigh the entity of risk against the entity of benefit. What does it benefit the Times to risk conspiring to publish a completely baseless slander about someone they already believe to be cunning and ruthless to the extreme?
[QUOTE=Squink]
Wikipedia on Frank Luntz, Minister of Truth: … Berkeley linguist George Lakoff has written at length and given speeches regarding the Republican use of language to sway the debate…
[/QUOTE]
And Lakoff is the Democrats’ Luntz. He worked with Pelosi and Dean to help formulate language for Democratic congressional candidates (like “strong America” to sound pro-defense). She had called on him after reading his book. He’s quite the darling of Democrats now for obvious reasons.
Starving, you need to join my Sunday School class. Nothing but liberals in there! But we would feed you pumpkin bread and coffee and be really civil. As always, love and peace to you!
[/QUOTE]
I’d happily tolerate a roomful of liberals for some pumpkin bread and coffee, and civil liberals would be quite a treat.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
Your next quip will likely be humorous and make sense. But until then, I’m asking Dio whether that’s what he *would * say, not saying that that’s what he did say.
[/QUOTE]
You know, when you actually focus on the issues that emerge from outside this message board, you do a pretty good job of offering criticism of those from all parts of the political spectrum.
I wonder, then, why it is that, when addressing lefties like Dio on these boards, you often seem to go out of your way to infer things that they clearly never said, or to stretch their arguments to the point of ridiculousness, as you did in this case.
Sure, sure, you claim with wide eyes and an innocent look that you were really, truly just asking an honest question of Dio, but it really wasn’t. Dio was specifically asking Starving Artist to back up his blanket assertions about left/liberal hypocrisy, and yet you feel the need to ask those sort of disingenuous questions of Dio, rather than making any effort at all to address Starving Artist’s ridiculous generalizations.
I guess it’s possible you were simply ignoring SA as the moron and troll that he so clearly is, but if folks like you, rather than just lefties like me and Dio, pointed out to folks like SA what a fucking idiot he is every now and again, he might make some herculean effort to be less of one.
Just a thought.
Of course, it’s possible you agree with everything SA said, but i’ve never suspected you of being stupid, so i’m not betting on it.
Cheese Louise, mhendo, there Libby stands in his crisp and spotless communion dress, batting big brown innocent eyes, and you suggest he is disingenuous? The depths of your cynicism is apalling, and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
[QUOTE=Polycarp]
OK, I do owe you an apology here, then. I inferred something from the tone of your post that was not in fact present. In my defense, may I offer that you have in the past several times made posts that looked to be apologias for rather egregious behavior by cultural conservatives, so presuming that was again your motive was not completely off base.
[/quote]
Not really. However, thank you for your apology in this case.
Frankly, I think the whole damn thing is a mountain being made from a molehill. I really don’t care where he went to school. What I do care about is the fact that he is unqualified to be President and it looks like the Democrats are going to run him anyway. And it terrifies me that there people who would vote for him and he might win.
I wonder, then, why it is that, when addressing lefties like Dio on these boards, you often seem to go out of your way to infer things that they clearly never said…
[/QUOTE]
BWAHAHAHAHA…allow me to provide for you an example of Dio doing this very thing with one of my posts:
And the reason I can’t is because I never said it!
I never said liberals defend homophobia, misogyny, religion, etc. in other regions/countries. I said that they are outraged by it when they can pin it on the U.S. and largely indifferent to it otherwise.
Why are you not calling Dio to task for this attempt at verbal sleight of hand in the same way you’re calling upon Liberal to challenge me?
