how-to block ads
|
kapil
The Kapil
join:2000-04-26
Chicago, IL
| Every Action Has What?
An Equal And Opposite Reaction.
Keep going you right wing, bible thumping at the same time thumping young boys' bottoms, free market as the world - including working Americans - starves and free falls into poverty, death penalty promoting, calling a collection of cells a baby, while permitting genocide overseas, hell even committing genocide in Iraq, denying gays equal rights while getting divorced because you screwed an intern and your trophy wife is humping the Mexican gardener whom you've been trying to get deported, sorry excuse for a human being, jerkwads.
Push Harder to make this country and this world a more miserable place. Win this election next week. Kill More trees and more black men on death row. Consume more, buy more, spend more, dig more, extract more, recycle less, care less, be humble and in-tune with the rest of the planet even less than that.
Why? Because we're watching. The universe is watching. The power that be is watching. And we'll snap back twice as hard because blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness for they shall be filled. | |
Noah Vail
Premium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to kapil
Let's see.....
Hatred, Vitriol, Deceptive Lies, Outright Lies, Hypocrisy, Negativism, Defeatism, Paranoia and concluded with Empty Threats.
Nice Encapsulation of the Leftist Manifesto. Good Job!
After reading the above, will you vote left? Could this be you?
NV | |
no
@verizon.net | I'll vote left because the right reeks of just as much zealotry. At the very least most of the left aren't radicals like the person to whom you replied. Say the same about the people currently in power. I dare you. | |
Noah Vail
Premium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
·RoadRunner Cable
| So proud of your stand that you posted it anonymously. Well, I suppose I would too.
Can you provide a specific example of this RW zealotry and how it has limited you? Any unambiguous example going back to your birth will do.
You think he is Radical Left? Why would you think that? As a recovering leftist, I find his attitude to be representative of the left.
A thread of hatred is woven all through his diatribe. It's the same hatred I hear from nearly (if not all) every left leaning democrat I've questioned. Hatred of Bush, Hatred of Evangelical Christians, Hatred of Fox News, Hate - Hate - Hate. If there's another commonality, it's well disguised.
Why would anyone vote for a body governed by Hate, except, perhaps those also consumed by Hatred?
I can't quite make sense of your challenge. Are you saying that people in power are mostly radicals? I think they're better described (on average) as pandering, empty suits. In other words they are representative of the populace that voted them into office.
Which is evidence of the need for the privilege of voting to be earned, not given away, but I digress.
I'd take you up on your dare, if I could figure out just what it is. Perhaps you could clarify.
NV | |
Billy_Soul_Devourer
@verizon.net
| There are many varying degrees of the left viewpoint. This 'hate' that you refer to is just one extreme viewpoint from the spectrum of discontent that many of the left have over the policies and actions by the right. One could also lay down a similar blanket statement in response, stating that all right wingers are trying to push their agenda on morals (an entirely subjective view) or self-interest.
There are numerous of examples of right-wing zealotry. How about religious zealots trying to cram their morals and beliefs down everyone else's throats? (Yes, I personally have had acquaintances try to impose their religious viewpoints upon me despite my clear assertion that I was not interested in them.) I am not stating that all of the right are religious zealots, but rather that the religious zealots are one concrete example many within the right.
Another example is all of the 'think of the children' campaigns and regulations that restrict liberties overall, and do very little (if anything) to solve the problem. Often times, they appear little more than false dichotomies and thinly veiled propaganda attempts at garnering public support (Representative $FOO didn't support proposition $WONT_SOMEONE_THINK_OF_THE_CHILDREN? ! So remember, people, voting for $FOO means that you support the child predators!)
One example: The Online Child Protection Act (COPA). Among other things, it seeks to punish web site operators for failing to block childrens' access to inappropriate materials. Some of the debate is over whether the access has been sufficiently prevented, and to what extent is it the responsibility of the site operator vs. the parents. What constitutes sufficient blocking of access to children vs. adults who wish to access the content? Is a click-through that "Yes, I am over (13/18/whatever) years of age" sufficient? (Children would never lie about that) What about requiring a credit card number in order to access a website? (Some minors do have credit/debit cards, and some have the ability and willingness to use the cards of their parents) And as a US regulation, it would have no jurisdiction over foreign sites. A question to the COPA supporters: What steps specifically qualify as the adequate blocking of childrens' access? To what extent is it the responsibility of the site operators to police the children (as opposed to the parents, whose job is to provide a proper upbringing and set of values)? How does the act adequately protect the children vs. not being in place? And does this benefit, if any, offset the detrimental effects that it creates?
Going back to your main point, what you deem to be 'Hate,' others consider dissatisfaction due to the inadequate or improper addressing of the issues at hand.
Unfortunately it often boils down to choosing the lesser of two evils, rather than an optimal choice.
Just my thoughts.
Billy, Devourer of Souls | |
footballdude
Premium
join:2002-08-13
Imperial, MO
| reply to kapil
Re: Every Action Has What?
said by kapil  :An Equal And Opposite Reaction. (insert rant here) I present to you, ladies and gentlemen, a textbook example of a thread highjack. | |
Noah Vail
Premium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to Billy_Soul_Devourer
Re: Let's see.....
Well, the Hate is less of a viewpoint and more of a state of mind. Is it extreme? Among the complete population of the US, yes; among the left, no.
A better word than extreme is common. Hatred is an extreme emotion, common among the left.
In my case, it is not a blanket statement, but instead a specific one, because I can easily qualify it.
We'll use your statements about religious people. You used terms like Zealots! and Cramming Morals and Beliefs Down Everyone's Throat!. Would you say that terms like that are best used to describe things that people hate? Most people would. That's why you chose them. As long as people associate those terms with people of faith it self perpetuates. The same techniques were used to slander black men and women a hundred years ago.
It's also telling that your example gave the illusion of specifics without providing any. Can you tell us of a situation where a person of faith crammed a moral and/or belief down a person's throat? You opine that they do it to everyone, so there should be an abundance of examples.
You did speak of a campaign that was so severe, Your Liberty Was Restricted. Restricting Liberty is a pretty serious charge, as any kidnap victim can attest.
And how did that Restriction On Your Liberty manifest itself? It did this by adding 2 mouse clicks to a web page; a situation, both onerous and forbidding! Interestingly, this Restriction of Liberty can be easily circumvented by the youngest of children.
As a side note, it is also telling that Porn is a preeminent standard of the left. Porn is the thing that generated so much passion in you that to be thwarted from it is to have you Liberty Restricted.
This also neatly illustrates why attacks on the Right need to be concealed inside of vagueness and devoid of specifics.
NV | |
aron1231
@charter.com | reply to Noah Vail
you're hatred argument is weak. the incumbent power (right-wing) uses all the tactics you pretend to abhor. education is the first step towards enlightenment. build an argument, not an attack.
this coming from a left-wing Christian. | |
Billy_Soul_Devourer
@verizon.net
| reply to Noah Vail
> Well, the Hate is less of a viewpoint and more of a state of mind. Is it extreme? Among the complete population of the US, yes; among the left, no.
Nice opinion. Would you care to back that up with any examples, showing how the left is full of hate, and the right is not? Some might argue that the right would have just as much hate, if not more so, than the left:
- You don't believe in $RELIGION ? Burn within the fiery depths of hell, you heathen!
- Keep those immigrants out of this country! What do they think, that America welcomes those tired, poor, huddled masses?
- Creationism should be taught in public school science classes. Intelligent design should be given equal time as evolution in a science class, because to focus on evolution (a theory affirmed by using the scientific method) in a Science class and to not give equal time to intelligent design (which does not use the scientific method) is discrimination!
> Can you tell us of a situation where a person of faith crammed a moral and/or belief down a person's throat?
Here's a couple of examples:
- Abortion - individuals that believe abortion is wrong, and employ terrorist tactics towards abortion clinics, doctors, etc., including murder, bombing, and death threats
- Stem cell research - religious opposition to stem cell research has limited advances in the field
> Interestingly, this Restriction of Liberty can be easily circumvented by the youngest of children.
With regards to COPA, that was my point: the legislation provides little benefit (it is easily circumvented by children, as you just said) while creating additional regulations and overhead; as I mentioned earlier, it looked like it was more to mobilize political support for the politicians than actually solve problems.
> As a side note, it is also telling that Porn is a preeminent standard of the left. Porn is the thing that generated so much passion in you that to be thwarted from it is to have you Liberty Restricted.
Nice logical fallacy: I provide an example where a regulation fails to adequately solve the problems it was created to, and that suddenly equates to me being obsessed with porn. What I do not think highly of are the laws which are used mainly to further political agendas while doing little to solve the problems.
Let's try another example, with a similar point:
Video game legislation - Attempting to create additional regulations on video games, such as trying to pass laws to ban the sale of games to minors that "... taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artist, political or scientific value for minors." (Act 441 from Louisiana that was struck down earlier this year) Aside from the fact that whether a game has "literary, artistic, political, or scientific value" is highly subjective, the regulation would not sufficiently solve many problems. A large part of the time it is the parents who end up buying the games for minors; maybe they should take a look at that ESRB rating and game content, and determine whether their child is mature enough to handle it?
What happened to the responsibilities of the parents for raising their children, instead of creating a bunch of useless new laws and expecting the government to raise them?
Billy, Devourer of Souls | |
Noah Vail
Premium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
·RoadRunner Cable
2 edits | Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate-ity Hate! Hate-ity Hate!
SPECIFIC Examples of LW hate? Sure, no problem. These are people close to me, who lean left. The first is my Father-in-Law, whom I love and respect dearly.
He hates Bush. It breaks my heart to see hate in his. How do I know he hates Bush? When he begins his Bush rant, he leaves behind that incredible self control that has always been with him. Everyone of his reasons for hating Bush is a DNC talking point. Bush is Stupid - Bush Lied - War for Oil....you know the litany. It's the same list parroted by CBSNBCABCNYTBBCLATNPRPACIFICAAlJazeraBostonGlobeChicagoSunSentinaletc....
All his reasons for maintaining this destructive anger are all straw men. I can go point by point, careful to stay away from ideological sources, and present some good evidence that what he believes is not true.
He has nothing to refute me. I'm not saying I can't be refuted, I'm saying he has no interest in hampering his hate and anger. Once I knock down his straw man, he'll simply move to the next one and eventually loop back to the first as if we never spoke of it. His first priority is to maintain Bush hatred.
It's exactly the same with his neighbor Larry.
It's the same with Ric (who is a Jeopardy champion and operates a LW OpEd in Arkansas).
It's the same with my Sister.
It's the same with Maureen from church.
It's the same with every leftist I know (I'm really trying to think of an exception, and can not).
It was the same with me when I was a leftist.
I'd rather people governed by THAT character not govern my country.
-----You don't believe in $RELIGION ? Burn within the fiery depths of hell, you heathen!-----
Who on earth ever said THAT to you? Can you quote me a source? I'm still waiting for SPECIFIC examples. BTW that would be a BLANKET STATEMENT.
Evangelical Christians believe that Hell is a forgone conclusion unless you believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah and repent of your sins through Him, like a ball hitting the ground unless something intervenes. Other Christian faiths believe in widely varying degrees of the same thing. Judaism, Hinduism, Taoism, Buddhism, Zoroasterism, etc-ism, believe other things.
Each of those is a Religion. Where's the RW Hate in the above?
----- Keep those immigrants out of this country! What do they think, that America welcomes those tired, poor, huddled masses?-----
That statement comes from the left, therefore it is deceptive. The common belief on the Right is that MASSIVE ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION is ultimately bad for our country.
------ Creationism should be taught in public school science classes. Intelligent design should be given equal time as evolution in a science class......-----
I agree that the ID thing is happening in a few, well publicized cases. I'm not clear where you see RW Hate in this issue. I have however seen anger on the Left toward creationism; the kind of anger that is often an outward manifestation of hatred.
ID was a compromise from the Right. It's an example of how attempting to compromise with the left is so often ineffective. If the schools were equatable on the origin issue, they would present it as follows.
Darwinism states that life and people came to be in this manner.....
Creationism states that life and people came to be in this manner....
They could even give brief histories of ID or the FSM.
However, teaching something other than Darwinism is abhorrent to left leaning school boards. Their singlemindedness smacks of Zealotry. To present the full issue would require tolerance.
---- Abortion - individuals that believe abortion is wrong, and employ terrorist tactics towards abortion clinics....----
Let's see. Here you appear to link 2 things, that are 99.99% unrelated, by the thinnest of threads. We'll bring them forth from the murk and examine.
1st. Individuals that believe abortion is wrong....They certainly do! When asked by CBS/NYT whether abortion "should be available to anyone who wants it," the answers were: 1993 - 49%, 2003 - 35%, 2005 - 28% in the 18-29 yo women group. It seems to me that that group would embrace abortion more than any other. I don't know the entire poll, but would be interested in the full results, if you found and posted them.
Any RW Hate anywhere up there?
2nd. Abortion Clinic Bombings...etc. How many AC Bombings have there been in the last year? How about the year before that? And the one before that?
So how many clinic bombers are we talking about? Uh huh.
And what did that Evil Bush Administration appointed FBI director do when there was one?
Oh yea. Expended thousands of man hours and millions of dollars to hunt them down and bring them to justice.
Gee. It's almost like your NON-SPECIFIC statement was deceptive. Imagine that.
Here's an important difference between the left and the Right. When a RW nut job surfaces, we either hunt them down (Ruldoph, McVey, LaRouche) or keep a fair distance (David Duke).
The Right doesn't embrace it's nut jobs; unlike the left, who places theirs on a pedestal (Jessie Jackson, Virtual Child Porn King Larry Flint, Howard Dean).
------ Stem cell research - religious opposition to stem cell research....-----
YET ANOTHER DECEPTIVE (blanket) STATEMENT from the left. Do we even need to check anymore?
The Right opposes certain types of EMBRYONIC stem cell research. The Bush Administration opposes Federal Funding Research of Certain Lines of stem cells from embryos. That's a pretty narrow group.
And which media outlet is accurately portraying this issue?
-----Nice logical fallacy: I provide an example where a regulation fails to adequately solve the problems it was created to, and that suddenly equates to me being obsessed with porn.-----
No.
What I actually said is that it is telling that Porn was the issue that rose to the top when you were searching for a Restricted Liberty.
I don't believe either you or the Left are obsessed with immersing yourselves in Porn. I do believe that the left is obsessed with the defense of Porn.
I see it as a case where the left observes the Right's objection to Pornography and automatically joins itself with Big Porn; if only to thwart whatever the Right may be up to.
Blindly becoming one with sewage, only to get back at your adversary, sounds like a symptom of hatred to me.
-----What happened to the responsibilities of the parents for raising their children, instead of creating a bunch of useless new laws and expecting the government to raise them? -----
I'm largely with you here. I believe parents are at their best when they directly protect their children from leftist influences, such as Hip Hop and MTV, Welfare Mentality, The Culture of Fashion and Public Schools.
The problem is the hue and cry from left leaning mouthpieces when the Right takes a proactive approach to their community outside of legislation, such as Ad Campaigns or Fostering Religious Environments. Why would the left object to such things unless it was a threat to them?
NV
--
Edited for Redundant Redundancy | |
Noah Vail
Premium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to aron1231
One....More.....Time........
You'd openly declare your faith, but not your identity? That makes sense how? I'll have to take your word on being Christian, but you've provided solid evidence that you are left.
Derogatory Statements without the First Scrap of Proof is an excellent example of left wing hatred at work. Am I accusing you of being hateful? No. I am pointing out that you are behaving as if you were.
Would YOU like to provide a SPECIFIC example of the RW using a tactic that I abhor?
NV
--
Abortion: Improves the Gene Pool! | |
Billy_Soul_Devourer
@verizon.net
| reply to Noah Vail
Re: Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate-ity Hate! Hate-ity Hate!
> SPECIFIC Examples of LW hate? (...)
Close, but not quite what I was asking for. Listing leftist people you know does not sufficiently represent the entire left constituency. Assuming for a moment that every leftist that you have ever known is full of hate and anger, there are still many leftists with different demographics and attitudes. I was asking more along the lines of how hate is common among the left wing, but not the right. There are many people leaning various degrees towards the left, from the far left to just left of the middle. I was curious how such a statement could be applied to that broad spectrum leaning toward the left, but not the right. There are extremists from the entire spectrum, and I'm not seeing any more hate originating from the left than anywhere else. You state how the left embraces those like Larry Flint, while the Right distances themselves from those like David Duke. I'd say that there is no consensus regarding those individuals within their respective camps. There are plenty among the left who don't support Flint, and Duke obviously had enough support to be elected into office.
With regards to religion, I didn't say that all religious people were hateful extremists, but rather that there is a subset of religious people that are zealots. Is there any large religious denomination that can truthfully claim that none of its members have hated or tried to force their beliefs upon others? There are also many conflicts throughout history directly involving religion and those who strongly profess to be of a certain faith: the crusades, Shiites killing Sunnis and vice versa, the trial of Galileo.
> ID was a compromise from the Right.
Many saw it as a guise under which to circumvent the separation of church and state. We're talking about science classes in public schools. Also, many of the opponents weren't opposed to the idea of presenting the viewpoint in general and would have accepted it being a viable topic in a philosophy, religious studies, or other non-science classroom.
> If the schools were equatable on the origin issue, they would present it as follows. (...) However, teaching something other than Darwinism is abhorrent to left leaning school boards.
Not quite. Evolution and the origin of life are two separate issues. Evolution is a theory that describes species changing over time, and the possibility of speciation (the development of new species from existing one) occurring. Evolution has been demonstrated using the scientific method. Explaining the origin of life is a separate matter, and is not a specific component of evolutionary theory.
> Their singlemindedness smacks of Zealotry.
In a science class, is it so unreasonable to present theories that are established on scientific principles? I have yet to see any creationist theories like intelligent design that are unbiased and able to reach their conclusions through the scientific method (Life is complex, so therefore it must have been designed? How is that argument scientific?). Scientific theories are often formulated through objective analysis and empirical research; if results contradict an earlier theory, then scientists will usually try to find an explanation and update the theory. Intelligent design isn't a scientific theory; why should it be in a science classroom? There's not necessarily a backlash against anything other than evolution; it's more like an annoyed response to an attempt at sneaking in creationism through the back door.
> I believe parents are at their best when they directly protect their children from leftist influences, such as Hip Hop and MTV, Welfare Mentality, The Culture of Fashion and Public Schools...
You're entitled to your opinion. I believe that parents should provide their values to their own children and raise them responsibly, leaving others to decide how they run things for themselves.
When you say 'public schools' as 'leftist influences' that children should be 'protected from,' are you referring to all public educational institutions, including universities? Because if so, then I find it interesting that many of those public universities that should be 'protected' against are held in higher regard than a majority of private schools.
> The problem is the hue and cry from left leaning mouthpieces when the Right takes a proactive approach to their community outside of legislation, such as Ad Campaigns or Fostering Religious Environments.
I would say that it depends on how obtrusive those ad campaigns are, and how the religious environments are brought about. If the ad campaigns involve things like calling everyone on the phone like telemarketers (I think this applies to all obtrusive ad campaigns, actually), and the creation of a religious environment involves something along the lines of the intelligent design debate, then I can definitely see why the leftists were being upset. If the campaigns are not obtrusive to everyone not interested in them, then I bet a large percentage of the leftist side would not speak out against them.
> CBSNBCABCNYTBBCLATNPRPACIFICAAlJazeraBostonGlobeChicagoSunSentinaletc....
NPR has a large bi-partisan listening audience, and makes efforts to present more than one side of the issues. Which media outlets would you call objective and unbiased? Which right-leaning media outlets do not 'parrot' right-wing campaigning points or arguments against the left?
With regards to anti-Fox News sentiment: I don't hate them, but neither do I respect their journalistic integrity. They fired two of their reporters for refusing to lie to the public about a milk related issue. The two reporters filed a lawsuit and the judge ruled in their favor. On an appeal, another judge ruled that FOX did not have to tell the truth in its broadcasts. Not exactly a source that I would rely on for accurate and unbiased information.
Billy, Devourer of Souls | |
|
