Why does the left feel the need to attack others all the tim

Page 3 of 14 [ 218 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 14  Next

sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,181
Location: US

11 Apr 2015, 12:19 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
sly279 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
As far as the left attacking others is concerned, is that perhaps in large part the left defending certain groups like gays, blacks, women, etc. by attacking homophobes, racists, and misogynists?


yes cause anyone who disagrees with the left are homophobes, racists, and misogynists.

yep no blind hatred lying there. just the classic if you disagree with democrats you're a racist comment.


But people who oppose LGBT rights are clearly homophobes, and those who oppose civil rights for racial minorities are clearly racists. There's no way to get around the moral defects of those standing against civil liberties.


opposing forced vaccinations doesn't make people anti gay . get it through your head not everyone is so party loyal like you to the point they blindly follow the party line exactly.

the left supports gay's civil liberties while opposing gun owners civil liberties. they also oppose christians libiteries. the left is a giant hypocrite. they only do what they do for votes.

right back at you on the bold part. maybe if the left stopped picking and choosing what liberties should matter they'd be more moral.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

11 Apr 2015, 12:20 am

Aprilviolets wrote:
sly279 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
As far as the left attacking others is concerned, is that perhaps in large part the left defending certain groups like gays, blacks, women, etc. by attacking homophobes, racists, and misogynists?


yes cause anyone who disagrees with the left are homophobes, racists, and misogynists.

yep no blind hatred lying there. just the classic if you disagree with democrats you're a racist comment.


Some people tried to hold a rally against sharia law and FGM the other day, but the loony left turned up and caused a riot spitting, hissing and throwing horse dung calling them racists and islamaphobes. :roll:


Sharia law, in America?!?!


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,181
Location: US

11 Apr 2015, 12:20 am

turns out one doesn't need a church to be married, though theres a bunch that marry gays. do most people even get married in churches anymore?



sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,181
Location: US

11 Apr 2015, 12:20 am

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Humanaut wrote:
sly279 wrote:
...the left always has to feel like they have to control everyone else.

True. They believe government control is the solution to everything. They are essentially totalitarians, and if they are not kept in check it will end in communism, nazism, or some other disaster.

If that is true, why doesn't The Right let gays marry? It's their freedom to marry if they choose. Why is it The Right always cries about individual liberty but is completely paranoid and intolerant about same sex couples and marriage? If you cater a gay wedding, it doesn't mean that you are the one who actually performed the ceremony wedding them. It's just an excuse for The Right to declare they want to control who gets married and who doesn't.

A lot of times when The Right complains about certain laws, it's laws keeping people from being abused or endangering their health due to actions of others. They want us all to endure abuse and pollution until we can no longer breath, have chemical burns on our arms and faces, and have to wear a gas mask to go outside. It's all so the ones doing the abusing can be free to abuse and if someone has the audacity to say, "Hey, I don't want your lead in my water," you accuse them of being totalitarian or Nazis just for speaking up and demanding a better living environment.


suppose if you cater to nazis killing jews then you aren't any way part of genocide right? oddly the world took a different view post ww2. don't support things you disagree with. if a gay hair cutter can refuse to service a anti gay person then why can't an anti gay person refuse service to gays. you can't have your cake and eat it too. you can't say do as I say not as I do.

build a wall around california, everyone who wants to live there gets vaccinated mandatory and leave the rest of use alone. we'd rather take risks with freedom then have no freedom and limit the risk a tiny bit for fake security feeling.



ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

11 Apr 2015, 12:22 am

sly279 wrote:
turns out one doesn't need a church to be married, though theres a bunch that marry gays. do most people even get married in churches anymore?

I think it's a great idea, quit charging for a marriage license and keep your nose out of marriage. Let the churches do it. Best idea I've read all day. I would be all for the gov staying out of all of them and just let individual churches marry. That sounds like the ultimate solution to this dilemma to me.

If the government wasn't involved in the first place, it wouldn't be an issue.



Last edited by ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo on 11 Apr 2015, 12:27 am, edited 1 time in total.

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

11 Apr 2015, 12:25 am

sly279 wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Humanaut wrote:
sly279 wrote:
...the left always has to feel like they have to control everyone else.

True. They believe government control is the solution to everything. They are essentially totalitarians, and if they are not kept in check it will end in communism, nazism, or some other disaster.

If that is true, why doesn't The Right let gays marry? It's their freedom to marry if they choose. Why is it The Right always cries about individual liberty but is completely paranoid and intolerant about same sex couples and marriage? If you cater a gay wedding, it doesn't mean that you are the one who actually performed the ceremony wedding them. It's just an excuse for The Right to declare they want to control who gets married and who doesn't.

A lot of times when The Right complains about certain laws, it's laws keeping people from being abused or endangering their health due to actions of others. They want us all to endure abuse and pollution until we can no longer breath, have chemical burns on our arms and faces, and have to wear a gas mask to go outside. It's all so the ones doing the abusing can be free to abuse and if someone has the audacity to say, "Hey, I don't want your lead in my water," you accuse them of being totalitarian or Nazis just for speaking up and demanding a better living environment.


suppose if you cater to nazis killing jews then you aren't any way part of genocide right? oddly the world took a different view post ww2. don't support things you disagree with. if a gay hair cutter can refuse to service a anti gay person then why can't an anti gay person refuse service to gays. you can't have your cake and eat it too. you can't say do as I say not as I do.

build a wall around california, everyone who wants to live there gets vaccinated mandatory and leave the rest of use alone. we'd rather take risks with freedom then have no freedom and limit the risk a tiny bit for fake security feeling.


If someone is abusive, anyone has the right to refuse service rather than put up with it. That goes for anyone regardless of who they are. I believe everyone should respect everyone else, first priority. That would solve a lot of problems.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

11 Apr 2015, 12:26 am

sly279 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
sly279 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
As far as the left attacking others is concerned, is that perhaps in large part the left defending certain groups like gays, blacks, women, etc. by attacking homophobes, racists, and misogynists?


yes cause anyone who disagrees with the left are homophobes, racists, and misogynists.

yep no blind hatred lying there. just the classic if you disagree with democrats you're a racist comment.


But people who oppose LGBT rights are clearly homophobes, and those who oppose civil rights for racial minorities are clearly racists. There's no way to get around the moral defects of those standing against civil liberties.


opposing forced vaccinations doesn't make people anti gay . get it through your head not everyone is so party loyal like you to the point they blindly follow the party line exactly.

the left supports gay's civil liberties while opposing gun owners civil liberties. they also oppose christians libiteries. the left is a giant hypocrite. they only do what they do for votes.

right back at you on the bold part. maybe if the left stopped picking and choosing what liberties should matter they'd be more moral.


Seriously, when have Christians and gun owners been discriminated against as gays and blacks have been? Neither of these groups ever face hatred and violence in their everyday lives like gays and blacks have.
And as for me being blindly partisan - - I suggest you get to know me, rather than relying on second hand, prejudiced opinions by who I call the "usual suspects."


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

11 Apr 2015, 12:32 am

sly279 wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Humanaut wrote:
sly279 wrote:
...the left always has to feel like they have to control everyone else.

True. They believe government control is the solution to everything. They are essentially totalitarians, and if they are not kept in check it will end in communism, nazism, or some other disaster.

If that is true, why doesn't The Right let gays marry? It's their freedom to marry if they choose. Why is it The Right always cries about individual liberty but is completely paranoid and intolerant about same sex couples and marriage? If you cater a gay wedding, it doesn't mean that you are the one who actually performed the ceremony wedding them. It's just an excuse for The Right to declare they want to control who gets married and who doesn't.

A lot of times when The Right complains about certain laws, it's laws keeping people from being abused or endangering their health due to actions of others. They want us all to endure abuse and pollution until we can no longer breath, have chemical burns on our arms and faces, and have to wear a gas mask to go outside. It's all so the ones doing the abusing can be free to abuse and if someone has the audacity to say, "Hey, I don't want your lead in my water," you accuse them of being totalitarian or Nazis just for speaking up and demanding a better living environment.


suppose if you cater to nazis killing jews then you aren't any way part of genocide right? oddly the world took a different view post ww2. don't support things you disagree with. if a gay hair cutter can refuse to service a anti gay person then why can't an anti gay person refuse service to gays. you can't have your cake and eat it too. you can't say do as I say not as I do.

build a wall around california, everyone who wants to live there gets vaccinated mandatory and leave the rest of use alone. we'd rather take risks with freedom then have no freedom and limit the risk a tiny bit for fake security feeling.


But by that logic, a racist business person could refuse service to blacks, as they had during segregation days.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

11 Apr 2015, 12:33 am

sly279 wrote:
kraftiekortie wrote:
Vaccinations were created for a reason:

to prevent SERIOUS DISEASES.

If we don't vaccinate, we'll be back to square one. Kids would get polio again, as well as all those other lovely diseases like diphtheria.

Talk to someone who lived in the era before polio vaccination. You'll change your tune right fast!

people should not be FORCED to take them though that is what I disagree with. I get vaccines, I will fight to the death against forcing people to get them. just as I would for gay rights.

not everyone does it now and theres no polio. so this is just a emotional reaction trying to pass a law. laws should never be based on emotional overreactions.


I think that you fail to appreciate just how bad some of these diseases were and that measles, which was supposed to have been eradicated in the United States in 2000 via mass immunization but is now making a comeback due to declining vaccination rates in certain parts of the country, and so fail to understand how important vaccines are. (It has been said that vaccines are a victim of their own success.) Measles, I must tell you, is a particularly serious, potentially fatal disease that can permanently debilitate a person.

Also, your use of the word FORCED is misleading. It appears that you have generally ignored my posts which made clear just how mass vaccination is achieved. I am not going to explain how it is any more. I've already done it in the other thread. If you keep ignoring my posts, then that is YOUR problem.


_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin


ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 68
Gender: Male
Posts: 39,637
Location: Long Island, New York

11 Apr 2015, 12:33 am

Center to most what we call the American "progressive" world view these days is the belief that progressives are more intelligent then the "right wingers" or" tea partiers" etc.. Anybody who disagrees with them does so for three main reasons, they are racist or some other "ist" , they were brainwashed by some sort of propaganda and too dumb to know it, they are directly being paid off. Being able to have a mind of their own rarely enters into it. This dovetails into what was written above. What we called "liberal" in the 1960's and 1970's was optimistic, idealistic for the working-middle class. Now "middle America" is looked upon with anything from suspicion to contempt. A lot of the reasons for the change is reactive and I have a very harsh view of the "the right" but this is a thread about "the left". What I wrote above is not necessary about professional politicians in the Democratic party or people on WP (many who by definition are outsiders from the two American mainstreams or literally not American). Support for
government regulations(actual regulations are often for different reasons) have gone from generally helping people to controlling them for there own good. Outside of the true old style left is there any genuine pro union people left?. There is not Scott Walker type complete open enmity towered unions on the left but genuine support has dried up.

I see elements of the control them for their own good because they are to stupid to understand in neurotypical Autism Politics. Autism Speaks started, headquartered New York , Judge Rotenberg Center Massachusetts (90+ percent of prisoners from and supported by New York State and arguably most New York City's progressive mayor ever New York City Sends $30 Million A Year To School With History Of Giving Kids Electric Shocks) . Anti Vaxx has a foothold in the wealthy "liberal" enclaves of California (in odd alignment with conspiracy theorists from the right).


_________________
“Self Acceptance is a process not a performance”
“You are autistic enough. And you always have been”

Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity.


Last edited by ASPartOfMe on 11 Apr 2015, 12:47 am, edited 4 times in total.

sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,181
Location: US

11 Apr 2015, 12:38 am

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
sly279 wrote:
turns out one doesn't need a church to be married, though theres a bunch that marry gays. do most people even get married in churches anymore?

I think it's a great idea, quit charging for a marriage license and keep your nose out of marriage. Let the churches do it. Best idea I've read all day. I would be all for the gov staying out of all of them and just let individual churches marry. That sounds like the ultimate solution to this dilemma to me.

If the government wasn't involved in the first place, it wouldn't be an issue.


i don't think it should be evolved at ll other than to acknowledge two people are together and should have the stuff that comes with it. like being able to go in hospital room with SO, sharing name if wanted, all that stuff.

if gays want to be married religiously and their church won't do tit then clearly they are in the wrong church. that group of people don't like nor accept them so why are they going there. I wouldn't go there either. I won't go to a church that is anti gays, that doesn't seem to be following Jesus's teaching. we're suppose to love our follow man. God made them gay, who am I to question his plans.I just accept and love them like anyone else.

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
sly279 wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Humanaut wrote:
sly279 wrote:
...the left always has to feel like they have to control everyone else.

True. They believe government control is the solution to everything. They are essentially totalitarians, and if they are not kept in check it will end in communism, nazism, or some other disaster.

If that is true, why doesn't The Right let gays marry? It's their freedom to marry if they choose. Why is it The Right always cries about individual liberty but is completely paranoid and intolerant about same sex couples and marriage? If you cater a gay wedding, it doesn't mean that you are the one who actually performed the ceremony wedding them. It's just an excuse for The Right to declare they want to control who gets married and who doesn't.

A lot of times when The Right complains about certain laws, it's laws keeping people from being abused or endangering their health due to actions of others. They want us all to endure abuse and pollution until we can no longer breath, have chemical burns on our arms and faces, and have to wear a gas mask to go outside. It's all so the ones doing the abusing can be free to abuse and if someone has the audacity to say, "Hey, I don't want your lead in my water," you accuse them of being totalitarian or Nazis just for speaking up and demanding a better living environment.


suppose if you cater to nazis killing jews then you aren't any way part of genocide right? oddly the world took a different view post ww2. don't support things you disagree with. if a gay hair cutter can refuse to service a anti gay person then why can't an anti gay person refuse service to gays. you can't have your cake and eat it too. you can't say do as I say not as I do.

build a wall around california, everyone who wants to live there gets vaccinated mandatory and leave the rest of use alone. we'd rather take risks with freedom then have no freedom and limit the risk a tiny bit for fake security feeling.


If someone is abusive, anyone has the right to refuse service rather than put up with it. That goes for anyone regardless of who they are. I believe everyone should respect everyone else, first priority. That would solve a lot of problems.


you assume just because someone is anti gay they are abusive. you can be nice to others while disagreeing with their lifestyle. if christians strongly against gay marriage can't refuse service then a hairdresser can't refuse to serve the christians either. fair is fair. so either no one can discriminate or everyone can?
double sidedness upsets me so much.



Humanaut
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,390
Location: Norway

11 Apr 2015, 12:44 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
...a racist business person could refuse service to blacks, as they had during segregation days.

Yes, unless the racist business person is black.



eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

11 Apr 2015, 12:49 am

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
eric76 wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
eric76 wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
eric76 wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Humanaut wrote:
sly279 wrote:
...the left always has to feel like they have to control everyone else.

True. They believe government control is the solution to everything. They are essentially totalitarians, and if they are not kept in check it will end in communism, nazism, or some other disaster.

If that is true, why doesn't The Right let gays marry? It's their freedom to marry if they choose. Why is it The Right always cries about individual liberty but is completely paranoid and intolerant about same sex couples and marriage? If you cater a gay wedding, it doesn't mean that you are the one who actually performed the ceremony wedding them. It's just an excuse for The Right to declare they want to control who gets married and who doesn't.


My personal opinion is that marriage is a religious issue and the government should not interfere. I am aghast at those on the religious right who want to turn over control of religious issues to the state.

I have no idea what you are talking about with "If you cater a gay wedding ...". What would catering have to do with controlling who gets married?

Tell me, please, who were the first two people to get married? And, if you will kindly recall, it wasn't too long ago, The Right were planning to stick their noses into The Marriage issue by forming committees on saving marriages that were ending in divorce. It was The Right who wanted to get involved in saving marriages. They sure didn't seem too concerned about leaving it to the Church then, did they? There was a Marriage Initiative in this very state I live in designed to keep people marrying and preventing them from divorcing, all done through government and the state so you can bet The Right has no qualm with this particular issue and, apparently, believes it is the government's job to get men and women married and keep them that way. It is only when a Democrat is in the White House do they start acting like government has no business in marriage, or when it's ssm.


When are you going to gain some reading comprehension. You act like I was trying to defend the right on this.


It's The Right who want the state to butt out of marriage, right? They don't want the government saying who can and cannot marry, they want religion to decide it.

So, let me ask this again, who were the first man and woman to marry and pray tell what religion were they and tell me how you know they were genuinely the very first ones and then tell me who it was to join them in matrimony?


What? In what country do you live?

I don't know about elsewhere, but the religous right in the US wants the government to keep gays from marrying instead of leaving it up to religion.

There was even a Constitutional Amendment in Texas a few years ago defining marriage as being between a man and a woman. Does that sound like wanting religion to make the decision? Not hardly. And for what it's worth, I do think that it should be up to religion, not the state, and voted against the amendment.


So your suggestion is the state should stop issuing marriage licenses because even for church marriages that have nothing to do with the state, they must issue a license first. Your solution is for the state to stop issuing licenses and religious folk of all kinds marry others? Actually that isn't a bad idea at all.

State wants to blame divorce for all the problems in society but simple matter is the problems stem from not enough money. The main reason people divorce in this state is financial so it's easy to see the solution. Bring more money into the state, put it in their pockets, and everyone's happier. Give them more opportunities to acquire that money. It's not divorce that is the problem, it is lack of funding.


How much would you like to inflate the money supply?

Zimbabwe made everyone wealthy and look where that got them.



ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

11 Apr 2015, 12:51 am

sly279 wrote:

you assume just because someone is anti gay they are abusive. you can be nice to others while disagreeing with their lifestyle. if christians strongly against gay marriage can't refuse service then a hairdresser can't refuse to serve the christians either. fair is fair. so either no one can discriminate or everyone can?
double sidedness upsets me so much.


Most the time it is a non issue because someone who is anti gay wouldn't have a gay hairdresser in the first place and if he is getting his hair cut by a gay and neither talks about it, neither would know, would they? If he starts bashing gays in front of the hairdresser, the hairdresser could say it is verbally abusive and not have to cut the man's hair.



eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

11 Apr 2015, 12:52 am

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
sly279 wrote:
turns out one doesn't need a church to be married, though theres a bunch that marry gays. do most people even get married in churches anymore?

I think it's a great idea, quit charging for a marriage license and keep your nose out of marriage. Let the churches do it. Best idea I've read all day. I would be all for the gov staying out of all of them and just let individual churches marry. That sounds like the ultimate solution to this dilemma to me.

If the government wasn't involved in the first place, it wouldn't be an issue.


So you finally see the wisdom of leaving religious decisions up to churches and not letting the state usurp the right to make those decisions.

Good.



sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,181
Location: US

11 Apr 2015, 12:52 am

beneficii wrote:
sly279 wrote:
kraftiekortie wrote:
Vaccinations were created for a reason:

to prevent SERIOUS DISEASES.

If we don't vaccinate, we'll be back to square one. Kids would get polio again, as well as all those other lovely diseases like diphtheria.

Talk to someone who lived in the era before polio vaccination. You'll change your tune right fast!

people should not be FORCED to take them though that is what I disagree with. I get vaccines, I will fight to the death against forcing people to get them. just as I would for gay rights.

not everyone does it now and theres no polio. so this is just a emotional reaction trying to pass a law. laws should never be based on emotional overreactions.


I think that you fail to appreciate just how bad some of these diseases were and that measles, which was supposed to have been eradicated in the United States in 2000 via mass immunization but is now making a comeback due to declining vaccination rates in certain parts of the country, and so fail to understand how important vaccines are. (It has been said that vaccines are a victim of their own success.) Measles, I must tell you, is a particularly serious, potentially fatal disease that can permanently debilitate a person.

Also, your use of the word FORCED is misleading. It appears that you have generally ignored my posts which made clear just how mass vaccination is achieved. I am not going to explain how it is any more. I've already done it in the other thread. If you keep ignoring my posts, then that is YOUR problem.


nope I just don't believe in forcing people to do as you want. you think i don't see the reason for vaccines. I do I feel unsure about them as they keep making more and more and more. i know the drug company make billions of them and I don't trust their greed. the hpv had problems with it mistakes and errors were made. why are you so fast to trust greedy drug companies. if they found a cure for all illnesses that only needed to be used once and all future kids would have it in their system. they would burn it and make one that is required daily. this is who you put your full blind trust into.

the post made it seem like it was going be forced to everyone kids, adults all of them.
i will get my kids vaccinated for some things, after lots of research. i will not have them forced to get the ones I decided against.