You're talking in generalities because when you start talking in specifics it defeats your arguments. Case in point, liberals want to call people names, what names exactly? Right-wing pundits use words like pinhead all the time, words that are not objectively verifiable and are mant simply to bully. Olbermann and Schultz aside, because those two are hypocrites who for some reason decided to emulate such right-wing tactics, any "names" I've heard used on the left are merely descriptive terms.
Merciless may be debateable, but the rest I think are usually applied in an appropriate manner. Personally, I don't see how you can say homosexuals shouldn't have all the same rights as everyone else and still think you're not homophobic, but let's even do away with a simple stance on the issue. Those people aren't homophobic for the purposes of this discussion, but can you say the same about people who think that there should be some compulsory re-education school for homosexuals, or who think that schoolyard bulklying of homosexuals should be encouraged? THey're homophobic, there's no disputing that, and the conservative politicians and pundits of this country play into that hate for votes, I feel comfortable calling anyone who uses suchprejudices for electoral gain homophobic.
Racist is the one I think people dispute far more, and I think they're way off. Sure, race shouldn't be made an issue lackadasically, people shouldn't throw the term around anytime they disagree with someone. However, I think the trend in this country is going the opposite way, any time someone legitiamtely calls out someone else for being racist there's an extreme overreaction, as if any accusation of being a racist is completely unfounded. I think there are plenty of examples, however, of racist overtones with many prominent conservatives. Adnrew Breitbart is probably the best example I can think of, this man is a bona fide raciost and propagandist who has made it his personal mission to smear any and every liberal by any means possible and to try to recreate McCarthy-like hatred and suspicion against anyone on the political left. What happened to Shirley Sherrod was racist, period, and he ended up costing a woman her job because she happened to be a black liberal.
What most people try to argue against are the instances where they think it can be disputed, but how they think so is beyond me. Everyone knows the history of African-Americans being derisively protrayed as apes in this country, they were even considered a lesser species for a while. Given that, I don't know how anyone can think it's in good tastes to protray President Obama as an ape. Even if you still hold that it isn't racist, portraying him in a charicature that includes a lot of racial imagery such as wearing a grass skirt and other tribal garb definitely is racist. Furthermore, I think this birther issue is patently race-driven, no other president has come under this much scrutiny for something that has been disproven and debunked time and time again. Beyond that, the birther movement has now started accusing President Obama of being an affirmative action admission, and saying that he didn't earn his way through school, despite the fact that he graduated manga cum laude. If the birther issue itself isn't race-driven, then the turn it has taken most definitely is. Like the homophobic aspect, even if the issue itself isn't a matter of racism, the crowd it attracts and the willingness ofits ringleaders to play into racial prejudices turns the issue into one of racism.
Here we go again, it's government funded healthcare. One, no it's not. Government funded healthcare is what liberals pushed for before the debate started up, what we got after the debate was not by any stretch of the imagination government funded. What we got was a modified private healthcare industry where the overwhelming majority of health insurance is still going to be bought on the private market. Two, government funded healthcare is not forcing values on you, it's a cooperative venture. Healthcare itself is a cooperative venture, the people who don't use insurance very often pay for the people who do, and then when they need to use insurance more often they are paid for by the people who don't use it as often. Government funded healthcare is simply taking that same dynamic and moving it out of the for-profit realm so that corporations are not getting rich by actively DENYING healthcare to people who need it. That is why the left advocates for government run healthcare, because the point of the healthcare industry should be to provide healthcare, and when it's more profitable to deny people healthcare then the dynamic of the for-profit model in the industry has failed.
Of course looking at the government as an entity seperate from the people leads to the conclusion that taxation erodes liberty, however such an outlook is erroneous. Government is a mutually beneficial entity emanating from the people and given sovereignty by the social contract. Taxation is sued to facilitate programs that benefit memebers of all strata of society, and progressive taxation ensures that the burden is shared equally across all classes.
When do leftists encourage women to be promiscuous? I think it's more that if a woman wants to be promiscuous they celebrate it rather then villify her as society has done in the past. That's not ecnouraging promiscuity, that's simply being supportive of the lifestyle that an individual CHOOSES to live. Leftists are equally supportive of anyone's PERSONAL exposition of their faith, so long as they aren't conducting hate campaigns like that moron Fred Phelps. The left has never tried to silence religious opinions, and they don't want the state to control the church, I have no idea where you're getting that from. As for abortion, you can go around saying that liberals want to kill children when you can objectively prove that life begins at conception, until then enough with the propaganda.
How are we defining strong now? By idiocy in the face of evidence and facts? Joy Behar is an intelligent woman, the women who paved the way for morons like Palin and Bachmann were defined as strong because they were intelligent and not willing to be bullied into not expressing their intelligence. Women like Palin and Bachmann spit on everything those women did for them, they take all the progress women have made through hard work and dedication and act as if having a vagina should shield them from any criticism because anyone who says anything attacking their arguments is trying to disempower them as women. On top of that they crusade against women's rights at the same time, they say things like women should be submissive to their husbands, and they set the entire women's movement back more than fifty years. I don't define strong women as loud women, I define them as intelligent women, dedeicted women, women like Caroline Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Gabriel Giffords, and Nancy Pelosi. I admire women that take the time to make intelligent arguments like Pelosi has done, as opposed to women who go out and consistently make idiots of themselves on TV like Palin. I admire women who worked hard to get a good education, as opposed to people who coasted through college on minimum requirements and decided to take up politics because they failed at everything else like Palin and Bahcmann. I admire women who don't feel like they have to live in their husband's shadow like Clinton, as opposed to a woman who constantly feels like she has to be openly submissive to a screwball idiot like Todd Palin (much as I dislike Caribou Barbie, even with the lowest opinion of her accomplishments, she has done far more with her life than that useless clod ever has). I admire women who don't feel dragged down because they don't fit into society's idealized vision of an attractive woman like Pelosi and Clinton, not people like Palin and Bachmann who actively use their sex appeal for political gain and then trot themselves out as empowering women. The left doesn't like strong women? THe left's women are intelligent, determined, hard-working, and empowered, the right's women are glorified college dropout models who couldn't form a cogent argument of their own if their life depended on it, I'd say the right doesn't like strong women.
Log in to comment