Why Are Liberals So Condescending?

[dmek25]

i guess the same reasons that Republicans are so radical....

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by dmek25

i guess the same reasons that Republicans are so radical....

Did you read the article? The thread title is the title of the article. It's actually a really solid read.

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by GMScud

Did you read the article? The thread title is the title of the article. It's actually a really solid read.

Maybe he was to busy being condescending and argumentative?

[Trample the Elderly]

Just for you Goat . . . . since you can't tell the difference between a leftist and a right winger.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

Just for you Goat . . . . since you can't tell the difference between a leftist and a right winger.

Excellent video Trample.

[mlmpetert]

Great read.

Ive always hated the “Attack the messenger not the message” type attitude. It just comes across as so wrong and narrow minded to me. I dont understand how Rachel Maddow or Keith Olberman can constantly refer to the Tea Party Movement participants as t-baggers. Arnt they susposed to be journalist to some extent? I guess its just easier to discredit people instead of challenging them.

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

Great read.

Ive always hated the “Attack the messenger not the message” type attitude. It just comes across as so wrong and narrow minded to me. I dont understand how Rachel Maddow or Keith Olberman can constantly refer to the Tea Party Movement participants as t-baggers. Arnt they susposed to be journalist to some extent? I guess its just easier to discredit people instead of challenging them.

Exactly. This is also why it seems the media picks and chooses which "scandals" to expose. Sometimes, it fits their (the media AND Administration) agenda to discredit and ruin certain politicians' careers. Sometimes it would hurt their cause to lose someone so they protect them as long as they can. Pretty much every politician could be exposed for things IF the media was really fair and unbiased, and the President didn't choose to protect certain people. Some can utter a single off-color remark and be run out of town. Others can commit serious crimes, not pay their taxes and gravely insult people with no consequences. It's an ugly game, sadly controlled and led by the liberal media's selective morals. All should be exposed and covered, to let the voters decide who stays and who goes.

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

Great read.

Ive always hated the “Attack the messenger not the message” type attitude. It just comes across as so wrong and narrow minded to me. I dont understand how Rachel Maddow or Keith Olberman can constantly refer to the Tea Party Movement participants as t-baggers. Arnt they susposed to be journalist to some extent? I guess its just easier to discredit people instead of challenging them.

The same way that Fox News spent 2 days on Obama's mustard choice at a burger joint, both parties just nitpick ridiculously. These are the least of our issues; the more the Tea Party goers let Palin seem like their mascot the worse it will be.

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by GMScud

Did you read the article? The thread title is the title of the article. It's actually a really solid read.

Liberals also do not like to clutter their minds wiih FACTS, it distracts them from their goals.


The whole brouhaha over the Tebow commercial before they even knew its content is another example of their "agree with us or you're trash" attitude. It turned out to be a harmless, non-offensive message that EVERYONE should be able to agree with, but since it was from an organization with a "hateful" name like "Focus on the Family", they automatically went into attack mode to censor anything they think they may not agree with...before they even heard it. This is not a unique liberal response. Support their ideas or you're racist/bigot/homophobe/etc, but try to share an idea they don't like, you must be shut up for "spewing hate speech" and "preaching".

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Buster

Liberals also do not like to clutter their minds wiih FACTS, it distracts them from their goals.


The whole brouhaha over the Tebow commercial before they even knew its content is another example of their "agree with us or you're trash" attitude. It turned out to be a harmless, non-offensive message that EVERYONE should be able to agree with, but since it was from an organization with a "hateful" name like "Focus on the Family", they automatically went into attack mode to censor anything they think they may not agree with...before they even heard it. This is not a unique liberal response. Support their ideas or you're racist/bigot/homophobe/etc, but try to share an idea they don't like, you must be shut up for "spewing hate speech" and "preaching".

They also say they are prochoice so why are they upset about someone talking about their choice. The truth is they are really just pro abortion but that does not sound very good.

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by firstdown

They also say they are prochoice so why are they upset about someone talking about their choice. The truth is they are really just pro abortion but that does not sound very good.

CORRECT.


There is no such thing as Pro-Choice. The choice to have sex or put yourself in a position to be in trouble has already been made. A child is alive because of your actions and CHOICES...the child now has a right to live.

You're either for abortion or against it. With a literal life-or-death situation, you can't be inconsistent and try to add variables to the situation, either you're for murdering the child or letting him/her live.

"Pro-choice" is a misnomer if there ever was one. I'm against abortion 100%, but I'm pro-choice in that I won't stop you from making the choices you do, just be responsible and deal with the consequences. Murdering a child because of your irresponsibility or because a baby would be an inconvenience is a heartless act. The emotional effects of an abortion on many could-have-been-mothers is enough proof that they made the wrong choice. There are countless families who would love to have that unwanted child for their own, but can't have their own and the waiting list for an American baby is years long...why? Because we're killing too many babies our of selfishness, immaturity and lack of morals.

[BringBackJoeT]

Originally Posted by Buster

CORRECT.


There is no such thing as Pro-Choice. The choice to have sex or put yourself in a position to be in trouble has already been made. A child is alive because of your actions and CHOICES...the child now has a right to live.

You're either for abortion or against it. With a literal life-or-death situation, you can't be inconsistent and try to add variables to the situation, either you're for murdering the child or letting him/her live.

"Pro-choice" is a misnomer if there ever was one. I'm against abortion 100%, but I'm pro-choice in that I won't stop you from making the choices you do, just be responsible and deal with the consequences. Murdering a child because of your irresponsibility or because a baby would be an inconvenience is a heartless act. The emotional effects of an abortion on many could-have-been-mothers is enough proof that they made the wrong choice. There are countless families who would love to have that unwanted child for their own, but can't have their own and the waiting list for an American baby is years long...why? Because we're killing too many babies our of selfishness, immaturity and lack of morals.

This is an argument against abortion. It does not fare very well, however, in persuasively identifying why the "pro-choice" label is a misnomer, seeing as how you actually label the decision to have an abortion a "choice." A "wrong" choice is still a choice.

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by Buster

Liberals also do not like to clutter their minds wiih FACTS, it distracts them from their goals.


The whole brouhaha over the Tebow commercial before they even knew its content is another example of their "agree with us or you're trash" attitude. It turned out to be a harmless, non-offensive message that EVERYONE should be able to agree with, but since it was from an organization with a "hateful" name like "Focus on the Family", they automatically went into attack mode to censor anything they think they may not agree with...before they even heard it. This is not a unique liberal response. Support their ideas or you're racist/bigot/homophobe/etc, but try to share an idea they don't like, you must be shut up for "spewing hate speech" and "preaching".

It has to do with who focus on the family is. The same reason Tiger got endorsements taken away, because of the image. It's not like he banged the chicks on the golf course wearing only his Tag Heuer.. it's what's behind it.. aka focus on the family being anti-homosexuality, etc