The hypocrital double-standards of the leftists....

Post Reply New Topic

The leftists ,aren't they cute? They're all talk yet no act, they're usually against "westernization" or to be more accurate against "Americanization" and "Globalization" yet they never attack "Russianization" or "Iranization" or even "Islamization".

While reading the news over the net of different backgrounds, I come across different articles written by leftists from different nationalists (some of them are even Americans) who attack any "pro-western" governments in the world , like the New government in Iraq and the actual government in Lebanon.

They picture those governments as "devil's puppets" and as "autocracy" assigned by the 'devil' US. --> This is how they usually try to describe those governments. Yet, they never criticize anti-human rights regimes such as the Syrian baath regime or the current Iranian regime.

What those leftist journalists fail to understand that such government (ie. the Lebanese government) is usually supported by the majority of the country's population , like in Lebanon's case. I support this "devil's pro-west government" it and so many many of other Lebanese.

What's funny that they criticize this government for poverty and lack of basic services in the country such as 24/7 electricity and water. While they never say that this whole corrupted situation was caused by a long deadly civil war and a 30 years of Syrian occupation.

What's even funnier , that they(who are usually secular and liberal) usually subtly praise Islamic fundamental movements such as Hezbollah in Lebanon's case , praising their social and charity role in the society AND they blame the government (which is supported by the majority again) for Hezbollah's growth because the government "isn't doing its job right".

What the leftists omit here that the government's actions were always being opposed by Hezbollah's supporters , slowing down the country's prosperity. Do any of those leftists know that the government would be shot down if they try to collect fees from habitants in Hezbollah-stronghold areas such as the southern suburbs ?

The support for Hezbollah among the Shia community is purely ideological and secterian that has started since 1982 and it has nothing to do with poverty and the government's performance. The "Iranization" is a social and ideological phenomena that exists even among the wealthy Shia communities of the Gulf countries - which are the richest countries in the region - so "Iranization" has nothing to do with poverty or any government's performance.


Leftist have a very weird double-standard view on the world , don't you think so?

No, because I find you're using left as a gross generalization - and not accurately, in my opinion. It may be applicable to local liberal sects in your area, but I don't accept your charge as a whole.


M.

How can you have the stomach of accusing me, a 'leftie', of supporting Islamic fundamentalism? It seems like an absurd claim.

The leftist pundits I read/listen to (and yes, I readily admit to that), don't resemble what you describe, which leads me to believe we're reading/listening to very different sources.

I believe what I believe independent of any pundit or editorial. It just so happens that my beliefs come a lot closer to those of, say, Keith Olberman, Rachel Maddow and ThinkProgress.org than those of Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, or FOX News.

Plus, I find that the former tend to source their stories and admit to mistakes far more readily than the latter.

I find few if any on the left who are anti-democracy. What does make us cringe is democracy-at-the-point-of-a-gun. It is still, possibly, a necessary evil but an evil nonetheless and not something to brag about or cheer.

We especially dislike the cheering that amounts to "Our god beat up their god." Violent fundamentalism in ANY ideology is sickening. To put down another for saying "Our god will bring us victory" by chanting "Our god will bring us victory," well the hypocrisy in that is hopefully self-evident. This is a big reason why we advocate separation of church and state.

As for the denunciation of oppressive regimes, I find it's the left far more so than the right who will call attention to these areas when we (the U.S.) don't have an economic interest (such as we-want-your-oil). Again, it's our approach that tends to differ from the right. Less kill-em-all-let-god-sort-em-out. More of any military plan having an actual, realistic, plan (unlike Iraq where Bush and Company expected a few months of wiping out the bad guys and everything else would magically heal itself).

And a lot more education-of-the-people of these countries. For one thing, statistically, the better educated someone is the less likely they are to be religious. As in violent fundamentalists.

Those are just a few of the left-leaning platforms which I see in my readings and which just so happen to coincide with my left-leaning views. But I imagine you're getting a very different mix of media in Lebanon than we are in the States.

- Jo

I'd respond in a thoughtful manner if your post was thoughtful. It's not. You're basically an idiot.

And I am not a leftist, I am a Libertarian.

You acknowledge that the occupation of your country has had largely negative effects. How can you not extend this to the imperialism of America?

That you have a personal experience with foreign occupation, and you fail to recognize that others are now in the situation your country was in the past, I find that to be hypocritical.

you do know there are other news sources besides FOX right?

Now let's look at some of the hypocritical double-standards of the right:

- Force their way into another country and expect them to become more "American." While at the same time ranting paranoid about the multiple ethnic and religious groups here in America daring to be ... ethnic and religious.

- Claim to be Christian - a religion which supposedly preaches compassion for the sick and poor. While balking at the idea of affordable health care or a welfare system that works.

- Denounce the advocation of violence in the name of Islam, while passively accepting or actively participating in the advocation of violence in the name of Christianity.

- Cry that the constitution is untouchable and the government should get out of our lives ... but support the Patriot Act and other erosion of personal freedoms.

- Would not for a second tolerate another country taking one of our citizens without charges, without access to legal counsel, and torturing them. But have no problem with Bush and company taking people prisoner without charges, without access to legal counsel and torturing them.

- Adore Sara Palin and all her trailer-trash personal life issues such as an unwed teenage daughter with child and immediate family members being arrested for drugs and burglary. But had that been a Democratic candidate?

- Have no problem with John McCain running for president when his birth certificate states clearly that he was born in Panama, not the U.S. But they're still questioning Barack Obama's U.S. birth certificate.

- Had no problem with the Bush administration taking us from the surplus that Clinton left behind into a multi-trillion dollar deficit. But when Obama wants to spend on infrastructure to create jobs and boost the economy, it's 'reckless spending.'


Then there's the BS that the right can make their base swallow:

- Obama's current defense budget was complained about by the right as a decrease, when in fact it is an increase from the Bush budget.

- Their annoying campaign poster boy 'Joe the Plumber,' is not a licensed plumber, and admitted himself days after accosting Obama about his tax plan that he would do better under Obama's tax plan than McCain's, a fact confirmed by countless independent groups. And yet the Republican base was convinced otherwise.

- True to his campaign promise, Obama has just CUT taxes considerably for everyone making less than $250,000/year (which is almost everyone). Yet somehow, the Right has all the Republican working folk all excited about doing tea party protests this week over taxes. Somehow, they've convinced the working men and women who are also Republican that they should be upset about their own tax breaks and that the rich now have to give some tiny percent more of their wealth in taxes.

- Oh, and they've got them all referring to these protests at 'teabagging,' apparently confident that Republicans will never bother to look up the actual 21st century meaning of the word.

Priceless.



*Edit* That's not to say the left doesn't have it's fair share of blowhards, hypocrites and folks who make our side look bad too. But when I look at the sins of one compared to the sins of the other, there's hardly a comparison.

About that Republican "tea party", what they did in Boston was to dump the tea because they were saying that the means the British had gotten the tea with was not good. So they were without tea, it's not like they picked up the tea right after they dumped it. How many of these "tea-baggers" are tearing their checks to pieces? Not many, they're just ranting about it.

That's hypocrisy.

Maybe take this to the thread I just created on the topic, but I'll comment here. I don't think you have a firm grasp of the tea party protests. They definitely aren't helped by the talking heads on FOX, especially Glenn Beck, but there is more to it than that impression would give you.

Although some Republicans have adopted the TPP, it is not a Republican organization. You will find some Republicans that have become disillusioned by their party, but for the most part, you'll find many more members of the Libertarian party and the Constitution party than you will Republicans.

Actually, the original Tea Party in Boston dealt with taxation without representation, so it's a little more complex than you posit. There is reason for people to feel now that there is a similar situation. The income tax is unconstitutional, plain and simple, so that's the tax part. The representation part is a general feeling among Libertarians and Constitutionalists that we are not represented in government (because we aren't).

So while there will be some examples of hypocrisy in the TPP, I feel that you are misinformed on the general scope of the movement, and hence your statements are intellectually unfair.

I look at all sides and I find that the left generally is more accurate. The conserative bloc generally relies on christrain self rightous to make its point. Take gay marraige, the pet cause of the right. The sole arguement against it is religious, as it was during the court case of Loving VS. Virginia.

oh. my. god. no you didnt!

It is incredibly important to distinguish between fiscal conservatives and social conservatives.

Fiscal conservatives just believe in small, efficient government, more power at the state level and less at the federal level. It is the social conservatives that have the Christian thing, the pro-life thing, the anti-gay marriage thing. While there are many that adopt both platforms, most of those are basically hypocrites (arguing for small government when not in power, not caring about government expansion when in power).

Social conservatives, I will absolutely agree with you, are led by emotion over logic. However, and this is key, fiscal liberals do the same.

Fiscal liberals do not understand the old saying "give a man a fish and he will eat for a day, teach a man to fish, and he will eat for a lifetime." They are much more concerned with giving away fish, and much less concerned with teaching those people to fish for themselves.

I was refering to social conservatives but the so called ""fiscal conservatives" got us into this mess.

That's just not true. I think you're referring to people that are not actually fiscal conservatives (though they might claim the title). Basically, no one in the Federal government apart from Ron Paul is a fiscal conservative.

What originally caused this mess was the FED lowering interest rates. Of course there were all the greedy people to help it along, as well as not very intelligent home-buyers trying to get in on the madness.

A true fiscal conservative absolutely DESPISES the FED. We believe in hard assets, REAL value, not fiat currency and manipulated interest rates.

that was my point, those that claim they are "fiscal conservatives" got us into this mess. Take Clinton, a so called "Tax and spend liberal" he gave us a lovely surplus!

When one invades into another country, it is really telling other countries that it's alright for them to invade whenever they don't agree with a standard of living.

As for lefties I don't think they praise Islamic fundmental movements. There are extremeists who think in strange terms of what it means to be "liberal" which can swing the pendulum just as any movement of politics.

Lefties is too general of a term to even label.