The Dogma of the left.

[RickWhite]

One thing has become clear from the many posts I have read on this board. Liberals have a one track mind.

To be a Liberal one needs only start with a few simple dogmas. Equality, is perhaps the largest and blaming society is another. From these two dogmas, the Liberal can derive an answer for any question in life.

Liberals have no need for insight into life, the human condition, other complex social dynamics, or nuance. The only insight they require is the ability to link, however loosely, every problem to their social dogma.

Mention anything about the problems of inner city youth to anyone but a Liberal and that person considers a plethora of causes and factors. The Liberal on the other hand already knows that inequality and society are to blame and thinks only about how they can link the problem with the dogma of their playbook. For the Liberal it is a simple matter of connecting the dots with the shortest line.

When a non-Liberal brings up a highly abstract point such as the problem of negative social proof, the effect of a chaotic environment and the high rate of broken homes in our inner cities the Liberal has a simple way of avoiding these issues - they simply demand "proof." When you say that teenage boys in the ghetto see big time drug dealers driving fancy cars and want to be like them - the Liberal has an easy cop-out - "prove it." When a thinking person points out that gym shoes are more important to many young black men than education, the Liberal asks for studies and data and then considering your point defeated they go on to blame their obsession with expensive gym shoes on Corporate America who forces them to buy things they don't need.

It is very simple - think only about how to link every issue to the standard Liberal dogma and obfuscate all legitimate discussion with the claim that nothing can be true unless there are studies that prove it.

And speaking of proof, the proof in this thread will be the Liberals themselves as they post asking for examples and "proof" of everything I am saying as if it can not possibly be true without it.

Either that, or they will respond with their one other weapon of debate - their other dogma about Conservatives and how they fit xyz stereotype and base all of their views on the Bible or on old racial prejudice. Whether they are making unreasonable requests for proof or simply launching ad-hominem attacks, the result is the same. Obfuscate the core concepts of the issue and tie everything back to the talking points. God forbid they would ever attempt any real analysis.

The thought process is incredibly simple - unfortunate but simple.

 

[hanimmal]

To be a Liberal one needs only start with a few simple dogmas.

Equality, is perhaps the largest and blaming society is another.

The only insight they require is the ability to link, however loosely, every problem to their social dogma

Mention anything about the problems of inner city youth to anyone but a Liberal and that person considers a plethora of causes and factors.

lol don't even need something funny for this one.

When a non-Liberal brings up a highly abstract point such as the problem of negative social proof, the effect of a chaotic environment and the high rate of broken homes in our inner cities the Liberal has a simple way of avoiding these issues - they simply demand "proof."

When a thinking person points out that gym shoes are more important to many young black men, the Liberal asks for studies and data and then considering your point defeated they go on to blame their obsession with expensive gym shoes on Corporate America who forces them to buy things they don't need.

lol did you go off some medication? Do you not think that maybe white kids like gym shoes too?

It is very simple - think only about how to link every issue to the standard Liberal dogma and obfuscate all legitimate discussion with the claim that nothing can be true unless there are studies that prove it

And speaking of proof, the proof in this thread will be the Liberals themselves as they post asking for examples and "proof" of everything I am saying as if it can not possibly be true without it.

Either that, or they will respond with their one other weapon of debate - their other dogma about Conservatives and how they fit xyz stereotype and base all of their views on the Bible or on old racial prejudice. Whether they are making unreasonable requests for proof or simply launching ad-hominem attacks, the result is the same. Obfuscate the core concepts of the issue and tie everything back to the talking points.

But I thought you were in favor of talking points, which is why your disdain of providing stats to prove your argument?

God forbid they would ever attempt any real analysis.

Don't provide data to back your shit up, but "God forbid they would ever attempt any real analysis", and somehow it is our fault for calling you out on your assumptions?

The thought process is incredibly simple - unfortunate but simple

Says the person that wants to not back things up with facts and statistics.

 

[RickWhite]

Wow, the poster above even has a library of cartoons to use in EXACTLY the manner I predicted.

Way to prove my point!

Notice the clear obfuscation above with the gym shoe example. As if the point of the post was about fucking gym shoes - classic Liberal deflection.

Man you are like dip shit Liberal sheep manna from heaven. Way to walk right into it.

 

[upnorth2505]

Just one question. If someone does not agree with all that you say 100%, does that make them a liberal?

 

[anhedonia]

Go get fucked dude. You come on here just to spout your inflammitory right wing squawk? Ive noticed people like you are a dime a dozen on this forum. So have fun being a dipshit. Provoke people to your hearts content.

 

[hanimmal]

Wow, the poster above even has a library of cartoons to use in EXACTLY the manner I predicted.

Way to prove my point!

Notice the clear obfuscation above with the gym shoe example. As if the point of the post was about fucking gym shoes - classic Liberal deflection.

Man you are like dip shit Liberal sheep manna from heaven. Way to walk right into it.

lol I love that you don't realize I did them because of your post. They are about as relevant as the dribble you posted.

When a thinking person points out that gym shoes are more important to many young black men, the Liberal asks for studies and data and then considering your point defeated they go on to blame their obsession with expensive gym shoes on Corporate America who forces them to buy things they don't need.

The example of the shoes was perfect, because you chose to look at race like it is somehow a relevant reason to look at a issue, and the fact your question is stupid. "More important" is a lead in to what? A white person, than food, than cloths? I mean seriously, when you say stupid shit like that, you should understand it is purely to get a response.

And you are a racist hick that just is angry. Way to walk into it everyday of your life.

Are you going to quit responding to this thread because you are going to get called out too?

 

[FlyLikeAnEagle]

One thing is clearly obvious; right wingers have WAY to much time on their hands.

 

[ChChoda]

"The dogma of the left"...

Go get fucked dude. You come on here just to spout your inflammitory right wing squawk? Ive noticed people like you are a dime a dozen on this forum. So have fun being a dipshit. Provoke people to your hearts content.

One thing is clearly obvious; right wingers have WAY to much time on their hands.

The hypocrisy is stunning. You've got 'em nailed, rick.

 

[figtree]

this is the same tactics as ole Glenny Becky, put out the ole racial remarks, bigoted remarks, and then state that its not racist or bigoted. if your head is in reality you would understand the UNDERTONES of the right. it all boils down to anything different than them is evil, or they want you to think that at least.

Lets see...... 1 simple question to see if you are a discriminator or not.
Do we as citizens of The United States of America have the right to marry who we want?

Nice one there hanimal, notice how if you call them out with a few facts (even if they are done with cartoons, ever heard of satire?), they get their panties all in a bunch.
Oh and by the way, your use of BIG words does not make you any smarter, just makes you look like your TRYING to look smarter.

 

[anhedonia]

You sure do rick. I guess my comment makes me a liberal by default. That is how you guys play this game, right?

 

[upnorth2505]

The only dogma I see is to have an 8 year disaster called Bush and say we need more of it! The re-puke-icants have not done a thing to get us out of Bush's disaster. They say NO NO NO NO. That is not dogma?

 

[ChChoda]

Lets see...... 1 simple question to see if you are a discriminator or not.
Do we as citizens of The United States of America have the right to marry who we want?

Nope. Marriage laws are dictated by states, as it should be. If you don't like the law, shun the institution. It's what we Americans do. Flaunt the law as an individual, or, change the law through the election process, as an electorate.

By the way, everyone is a discriminator. That's why we don't consolidate power in the hands of the few. That's the genius of our Constitution.

 

[ChChoda]

The only dogma I see is to have an 8 year disaster called Bush and say we need more of it! The re-puke-icants have not done a thing to get us out of Bush's disaster. They say NO NO NO NO. That is not dogma?

No, NO NO NO NO is not dogma. It's a position established on a case by case basis. Nationalize business? NO Tax the producers into submission? NO Allow the statists to regulate emissions which our own bodies expel? NO Destroy the world's best health care system? NO.

NO NO NO NO!

 

[CrackerJax]

It's something i have definitely noticed as well. Liberals don't seem to understand human nature or even what human nature actually means. They believe it to be something that can be changed.

Humans serve themselves first, then their families, then their neighborhood and so on outward. Keeping that intact guarantees a happy productive citizen in the modern world.

Liberals muck up the order however and keep trying to inject the outermost rim of duty to the forefront ... govt.

This always ends up with unhappiness, which is why most liberals need to be bribed with govt handouts to stay loyal. But it also enslaves them to the govt. It's a trap that only the sharpest can escape from. Most don't....and end up bitter, because to be a liberal is to be dissatisfied 24/7, and that's no way to go through life.

Rowing against the current of human nature will wear you out.

 

[Man o' the green]

To be a Liberal one needs only start with a few simple dogmas. Equality, is perhaps the largest and blaming society is another. From these two dogmas, the Liberal can derive an answer for any question in life.

Liberals have no need for insight into life, the human condition, other complex social dynamics, or nuance. The only insight they require is the ability to link, however loosely, every problem to their social dogma.

It is very simple - think only about how to link every issue to the standard Liberal dogma and obfuscate all legitimate discussion with the claim that nothing can be true unless there are studies that prove it.

I must agree with most of what you say, however ..
When I think of liberals, I'm not talking about someone with a democrat point of view, but one that blindly follows ideology, and this goes for the right as well. For indoctrination, the left has the educational system, the right has the religious system. Both are extreme and not particularly useful in solving real-world problems.

I don't think that liberals are the only group that uses these tactics to silence legitimate debate, for example :

----
To be a right-winger one needs only start with a few simple dogmas. Faith, is perhaps the largest and blaming society is another ( for not being religious enough ). From these two dogmas, the right-winger can derive an answer for any question in life.

Right-wingers have no need for insight into life, the human condition, other complex social dynamics, or nuance. The only insight they require is the ability to link, however loosely, every problem to their religious social dogma.

It is very simple - think only about how to link every issue to the standard christian dogma and obfuscate all legitimate discussion with the claim that nothing can be true unless it can be supported by scripture.
----

Some of the attacks on the thread starter are perfect example of what was said about liberals and debate, unfortunately, proving his point.

My point, and I believe many others as well, are tired of the extremes dominating the conversation, and believe in something that is not left or right, but libertarian or anarchist instead. That we have one huge problem right now : the size and scope of government. This puts us at odds with the liberals currently in power, but does not make us republicans, conservatives, or religious right.

The constitution is a remarkable document, the first amendment being as important as any foundation we have. The right should respect this. In a similar way, the left should respect the tenth amendment.

I'm convinced that the liberal or progressive ideology of the current federal government is taking us on the wrong path, but that doesn't mean I like the republicans. It's only because the liberals are the ones making the stupid decisions right now.

 

[CrackerJax]

A liberal right winger?

I'd like to meet one.

I'd put them under glass and keep them in my living room as a conversation piece.

 

[Illegal Smile]

what do you think it is that makes some threads, like this one, amusing while others......... aren't? I think the best threads are those in which the posters aren't taking any of it very seriously at all. I try to do my part.

 

[Rob Roy]

Nope. Marriage laws are dictated by states, as it should be. If you don't like the law, shun the institution. It's what we Americans do. Flaunt the law as an individual, or, change the law through the election process, as an electorate.

By the way, everyone is a discriminator. That's why we don't consolidate power in the hands of the few. That's the genius of our Constitution.

The Supreme Court is a consolidation of power. They are unelected and as hard to remove as dogshit from the bottom of a pair of running shoes.

If marriage laws shouldn't be dictated by the Federal level, why is it better to let them be dictated by a smaller level of bureaucracy like a State? I like where you are headed and would suggest going a bit further...wouldn't it be best if the parties agreeing to the marriage and only them were the ones making the rules concerning their marriage?

 

[ChChoda]

The Supreme Court is a consolidation of power. They are unelected and as hard to remove as dogshit from the bottom of a pair of running shoes.

If marriage laws shouldn't be dictated by the Federal level, why is it better to let them be dictated by a smaller level of bureaucracy like a State? I like where you are headed and would suggest going a bit further...wouldn't it be best if the parties agreeing to the marriage and only them were the ones making the rules concerning their marriage?

The supreme court is a separation of power. Being appointed by the President, their appointments are the direct result of election results. Hence Sotomayor.

What is marriage? A contract between two people, or, a contract between two people, and government? If it is the latter, the privileges granted by this contract need to be stipulated. Who better to stipulate the benefits, and the requirements required to extract those benefits, than the electorate of each state, individually. Or would you prefer that the government negotiate directly with the affected parties, the "couple" to be married, and form the contract on a case by case basis? Or that the feds make one rule for all states?

 

[Illegal Smile]

The Supreme Court is a consolidation of power. They are unelected and as hard to remove as dogshit from the bottom of a pair of running shoes.

If marriage laws shouldn't be dictated by the Federal level, why is it better to let them be dictated by a smaller level of bureaucracy like a State? I like where you are headed and would suggest going a bit further...wouldn't it be best if the parties agreeing to the marriage and only them were the ones making the rules concerning their marriage?

I happen to agree that the government should not be part of contracts between adults and that contracts providing for civil unions should be available to anyone. But that is not the same as marriage.