How to tell you are talking to a leftist.

Published on June 6, 2005 By Island Dog In Politics

I have read so many posts and blogs from the fanatical left wing people, and I have found the same rhetoric in almost all of them. So let's take this time to dismiss some of the more "popular" conspiracies, rhetoric, and lies of the lefties. If you read a post with the following comments, then you know it's pointless to argue because they will believe nothing else.

Bush "stole" the election, or he was "appointed" by the Supreme Court.

This has to be one of the most popular here on JU. Our two resident radicals love to bring this one up. As with most liberal claims, both are just false. Bush won the 2000 election fairly and legally. Even after his re-election the left still can't get over this fact. In a recount in 2000 done by the major newspapers and media here in Florida, Bush was shown to have gotten the majority of votes even if a full recount was done. Just get over it, Bush won both times.

The U.S. is now a "police state".

This is another popular one, and happens to be one of the most ridiculous. I would bet every liberal who says this has no idea what a real "police state" is like. Let's remember something. You are free to travel this country. You are free to criticize the government. You are free to post the nonsense of how much you hate on this board. If there was a "police state", none of this would be happening. I would like to tell the liberals to go visit a real "police state", that is if you can get access. If they can get there I would also encourage them to publically denounce the government and see how they are treated. Go live there for a couple of months, and then tell me if that reminds you of the U.S.

Fox News or the liberal line "Faux News".

This is the tell tale sign of arguing with a liberal. There isn't much more rage you get out of a leftie when you tell them something about Fox News. Liberals ignore the polls, public opinion, and overall proof of a liberal lean in todays media, but will argue for hours how Fox News is the "puppet of the administration". Now when you ask for proof of Fox working for the Bush administration they bring up the same points everytime. First they start with Bill O'Reilly. I watch O'Reilly and he is far from working for Bush. He is one of people in the media who is taking Bush to task on things like immigration, and not in a nice way. The next they mention Sean Hannity. Yes Hannity is part of the right, but he's also a commentator, not a news reporter. There is a difference, but that doesn't matter. Commenting and analyzing the news is not the same as reporting it.

These are the top 3 liberal lines that you will find here. Please feel free to add your own.

Comments (Page 4)

gothcartman

on Jun 09, 2005

When you forbid a person to pray at a public event, or even mention the God they believe in, what have you done to their rights? If a group of kids choose to pray around the flagpole, or someone mentions Jesus Christ at the opening of a ceremony--how does that infringe on the "rights" of non-believers?

well, now these are all places where taxpayer dollars are involved in government business and thats when it stops being okay.

I hear stuff I don't believe every day, we all do. For instance, I don't believe that using a certain deoderant will increase my sex appeal, but I am exposed to the commercial repeatedly. No matter how many times I see it, I'm not going to believe it. I'm simply not interested, so their claims are dismissed and I barely even notice it when I see it anymore.

Now before some moron points out the obvious, that religion and deodorant commercials are not the same, let me assure you that I know they arent. But the concept I'm trying to point out is the same, it does you no harm to see or hear these deodorant ads, you simply disregard them.

Deoderant isn't protected by the conststution and people haven't nearly the same convictions in deoderant as they do religion. neither did the founding fathers. Their convictions were on freedom of riligion. So they most certainly aren't even the same concept.

That being the case, where's your tolerance, lefties?

Wheres your tolerance of my atheism? of my desire to not hear religious terms/words/phrases at tax-funded govenment functions? What if i worshiped Satan?

what kind of tolerance would you be having then? If I was folding the flag at YOUR navy ball and said "the sixth fold will represent the holy number 666 and will be folded in reverence for the almighty Satan? What would you have to say about THAT?

zinkadoodle

on Jun 09, 2005

--And thousands upon thousands of iraqi's were killed by that one man...now...no more...

Great! We're killing them instead. How utterly righteous we are.

zinkadoodle

on Jun 09, 2005

Uhm, no, we are killing the insurgents who are killing Iraqi citizens who dare apply to be policemen, or innocent civilians who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Big freaking difference, thought I'd point that out to you.

Well, thank you for pointing that out. I guess our bombs only killed insurgents? Wrong. I guess our incursions into cities only killed insurgents? Wrong. One thing you're right about is that innocent civilians happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I contend that had Bush not invaded Iraq, and allowed the weapons inspectors to do their jobs, and allowed the no-fly zones to continue working, as we had Saddam stopped, then the thousands and thousands of innocent Iraqis would not have been caught in ours or the insurgents' crossfire. There would have been no crossfire to be caught in.

Saddam was a killer. No doubt. But, we invaded Iraq for his past killings; killings that we turned our backs on when we did business with him. Why all of a sudden, after the killing had already stopped, did we have to go in and take him out? There was absolutely no reason, other than some sense of breast beating on Bush's behalf for his father's "failure", and let's not forget the oil.

Thank you, LW, for pointing that out. But you couldn't be more wrong.

drmiler

on Jun 09, 2005

#55 by zinkadoodle
Thursday, June 09, 2005

Uhm, no, we are killing the insurgents who are killing Iraqi citizens who dare apply to be policemen, or innocent civilians who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Big freaking difference, thought I'd point that out to you.

Well, thank you for pointing that out. I guess our bombs only killed insurgents? Wrong. I guess our incursions into cities only killed insurgents? Wrong. One thing you're right about is that innocent civilians happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I contend that had Bush not invaded Iraq, and allowed the weapons inspectors to do their jobs, and allowed the no-fly zones to continue working, as we had Saddam stopped, then the thousands and thousands of innocent Iraqis would not have been caught in ours or the insurgents' crossfire. There would have been no crossfire to be caught in.

Saddam was a killer. No doubt. But, we invaded Iraq for his past killings; killings that we turned our backs on when we did business with him. Why all of a sudden, after the killing had already stopped, did we have to go in and take him out? There was absolutely no reason, other than some sense of breast beating on Bush's behalf for his father's "failure", and let's not forget the oil.

Thank you, LW, for pointing that out. But you couldn't be more wrong.

YOUR the one who couldn't be more wrong if you tried! Saddam's killing had NOT stopped prior to us going in! Proven fact that the no-flys were not working! Or have you conveniently forgotten they were shooting at our planes? And just an FYI...Saddam was NOT allowing weapons inspectors back in. So that kinda shoots you theories in the foot, don't it?

drmiler

on Jun 09, 2005

You know how you can tell your talking to a leftie? Their lips are moving!

Gideon MacLeish

on Jun 09, 2005

Let me tell you in my experience, people who refuse to show ID, or play stupid about their ID's, usually have something to hide, such as a warrant.

Bingo. And there's the presumption of guilt that many law enforcement personnel assume. Oddly enough, it's the same presumption of guilt conservatives protest in not wanting gun registrations (the argument goes that the only people who won't register guns are those who have something to hide).

I routinely refuse to carry ID or money with me. It's not because I have anything to hide, but because I have the RIGHT to travel without having to PROVE my innocence to anyone (driving is another matter...as a PRIVILEGE, one of my responsibilities in exercising that privilege is to have proof of my legal entitlement to drive. I have no problem with THAT).

How does an ID check potentially lead to a police state? Let me see: a family is wrongfully accused of child neglect or abuse. They try to find an attorney in their area, but find that they must travel 200 miles to find someone who will take their case. They attempt to board the bus, but the CPS caseworker has called ahead and put a "stop" on their right to travel. After checking their paperwork, the parents are detained, and their children are taken from them.

Scenario number two: checkpoints at the entry to major cities requiring documents of all occupants of your vehicle prior to entering the city. Because you failed to bring the birth certificate for your 4 week old baby, and the social security number has not arrived, you are detained and your prints and the baby's prints scanned through the databases until your innocence can be determined

BOTH scenarios are well within the realistic reach of a government that requires ID checks for "free" travel within the city. The staunch support that you and other Republicans show for increasing scrutiny to prove one's innocence underscores whyl, as a vehement opponent of the left, I do not find a home in the GOP.

-----

on Jun 09, 2005

Add the greeks, the Italians and the egyptians to that list! Oops forgot one. British intelligence

--SAS is British Intellegence....

-----

on Jun 09, 2005

Great! We're killing them instead. How utterly righteous we are

--Your Ignorance is showing...

because Christianity invented Satan.

--The modern satan,but a satan like figure was around well before christianity...

I contend that had Bush not invaded Iraq, and allowed the weapons inspectors to do their jobs, and allowed the no-fly zones to continue working, as we had Saddam stopped, then the thousands and thousands of innocent Iraqis would not have been caught in ours or the insurgents' crossfire

--Hussein would still be mass murdering,you don't think those mass graves are fake do you....the n/f zones were crap, they were useless, And their is a difference between accidental(wrong place,wrong time) and intentional deaths...ok....

zinkadoodle

on Jun 09, 2005

Nope, it doesn't. The killings that Saddam were perpetrating were nothing different or exceptional or spectacular, given what other dictators around the world were doing. So, big deal. We had no business singling his regime out for our bombing frenzy just because he was a bastard. And, in the process we took out lots of innocents who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. We bombed cities to capture one man. So, little whip, I really don't see why I should debate either whether someone was "intentionally or unintentionally" killed. Dead is dead, and we killed them, for no good reason.

Secondly, the no-fly zones were working, in that his planes were not allowed to fly there. The fact that they were shooting at our planes is again no reason to bomb the living hell out of Iraqi cities. Besides, they never shot down a single one of our planes, which were flying over their air space which we were patrolling. I'm not surprised they were shooting at us. Again, no reason for the US to bomb Iraq.

Third, Saddam had denied the inspectors access. You are right. But, when we started pushing against their shoving, Saddam relented, and did allow the inspectors back in. It was Bush that ordered them all out, and wouldn't let them finish the job. Bush said that bombing Iraq would be a last resort, but it wasn't. It was planned months, if not years ahead of time, and they were going to invade Iraq no matter what. Bush lied. That really is what bush does best. He lies like a rug.

Just because I don't buy into your believing the Bush dynasty lies, does not equate to whatever "theories" I may have. You really don't have to be so condescending, drmiler, to debate an issue, you know. How about just debating on it's merits, instead of resorting to insults? Or, is that beyond your capability? Just asking......

zinkadoodle

on Jun 09, 2005

BOTH scenarios are well within the realistic reach of a government that requires ID checks for "free" travel within the city. The staunch support that you and other Republicans show for increasing scrutiny to prove one's innocence underscores whyl, as a vehement opponent of the left, I do not find a home in the GOP.

I cannot agree with you more. Do you consider yourself an independent or a libertarian, or both? Just curious, really.

-----

on Jun 09, 2005

We had no business singling his regime out for our bombing frenzy just because he was a bastard

If you logically think about it,iraq was the easiest "Bastard" led country,example....North Korea: can't eaxctly incade them considering their vast number of military,it would just cost more lives,Iran: again,it would be irrational to invade,since some progress is being made with them, Iraq: was BS'ing us all the way...there is no denying it...Sudan: the US has helped,guess who finally got the UN to do anything about the Darfur problem...hmmm...guess...yep, the US.

we killed them, for no good reason.

Freedom's not a good reason...they deffinantly seem to be better off without Hussein...but hell,what do i know... [sarcasm]

drmiler

on Jun 10, 2005

Secondly, the no-fly zones were working, in that his planes were not allowed to fly there. The fact that they were shooting at our planes is again no reason to bomb the living hell out of Iraqi cities. Besides, they never shot down a single one of our planes, which were flying over their air space which we were patrolling. I'm not surprised they were shooting at us. Again, no reason for the US to bomb Iraq.

So what your saying is it was okay for them to shoot at our pilots and planes just so long as they didn't hit them? And just how long do you think it would have taken until they did?

It was Bush that ordered them all out, and wouldn't let them finish the job. Bush said that bombing Iraq would be a last resort, but it wasn't. It was planned months, if not years ahead of time, and they were going to invade Iraq no matter what. Bush lied. That really is what bush does best. He lies like a rug.

Just maybe you should try reading a little more and comprehending what you read. From USA Today. Kindly SHOW me where it says Bush ordered them out?

U.S advises weapons inspectors to leave Iraq
VIENNA, Austria (AP) — In the clearest sign yet that war with Iraq is imminent, the United States has advised U.N. weapons inspectors to begin pulling out of Baghdad, the U.N. nuclear agency chief said Monday.

Weapons inspectors, shown here searching a test site in February, have been advised to leave Iraq.

Link

Island Dog

on Jun 10, 2005

What evidence to the contrary? All I hear and read is deny, deny, deny with absolutely no evidence at all. However, the fact remains that Iraq has oil. The US wanted it. They drummed up this evidence about WMD's, which turned out to be false, and actually a full-blown lie, then backtracked and said that the reason for war was that Saddam was a bad guy. Well, there are lots of bad guys out there. None had oil that would have been "easy" to take, except Iraq.

What evidence have you provided? Nothing. Your only basis for this conspiracy theory is, Iraq has oil. How long did it take you guys to come up with this one?

I wish people would remember that bush lied about the WMD's, that it was all over the internet that the Niger documents were forgeries before we invaded Iraq, and therefore the bushies knew it was a lie, but advanced the lie anyway.

That theory has been debunked already.

I wish people would remember that we armed saddam during the Iran/Iraq war because he was our buddy. I wish people would remember that Cheney was shaking saddam's hand a few years before we invaded.

The U.S. did not arm Saddam. That is one of the biggest lies around. The top suppliers of weapons to Saddam was France (how suprising) and Russia.

I wish people would remember that during the SOU speech, his #1 reason for invading iraq was to prevent a "mushroom cloud", because he had WMD's.

That's just false.

Island Dog

on Jun 10, 2005

And I contend that if we left Saddam alone he would have......

Continued to scam the U.N. with oil-for-food therefore killing thousands of Iraqis by denying them food, etc.

Worked with allies from France and other countries in lifting sanctions so he could openly continue his weapons programs.

Continued to kill thousands every month and put them in mass graves.

Rightwinger

on Jun 10, 2005

You know, I've been a Christian forever, and attend church as regualarly as possible. Never once in my 37 years have I ever grabbed someone off the street and dragged them forcibly into church with me, and I've never heard of that happening.
I have, however, been told that I can't, by law, pray or worship in a public-funded place or building.
Isn't that pretty much the same thing as dragging someone into church and forcing your beliefs on them?
Besides, my taxes go to pay for that public-funded place or building, too.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!