Now We Know The Truth About Accusing the Right of Being Racists

[boedicca]

In your opinion.

Given my experience with my own opinion and the poor representation your posts make of yours, I'm quite happy sticking with mine.

Just sayin'.

Just sayin' again??? I don't know why you constantly add that phrase to your posts. It's stupid.

Then it should resonate with you, dearie.

 

[Foxfyre]

I retract it. I mistated your position. You blame liberalism for all the social problems you mentioned, poverty, drug abuse, domestic violence etc.

Tell me how is liberalism responsible for domestic violence?

I can't wait.

First you will have to defend your statement about who I blame for all the social problems I have mentioned. You several times now have stated what I think, what I want, who I blame, etc. etc. etc.

For somebody who claims to be so open minded, you sure do have a tendency to label people or accuse them of things they never said.

Did you read the excerpts of Dr. Sowell and Dr. William's essays? What did you think of them? Is there any possibility that since they've both lived it, researched it, studied it, and looked at it from every possible angle, that they are right?

As for domestic violence, I do have a great deal of expertise and hands on experience working with victims and abusers, and it deserves its own thread due to the complexity of the subject.

It the cart before the horse. You claim liberalism is the cause of the social problems and not a response to them.

How is liberalism causal in domestic violence?

You're still doing it. You're saying what I claim when I have made no such claim. Try choosing something I actually said and discuss that please. You might try a direct quote in context please.

I have said that liberalism has resulted in many unintended negative consequences and has a very poor track record for success that doesn't include unintended negative consequences. That is a far sight from blaming liberalism for all social problems.

Domestic violence results from many many factors and can and does occur in all races and all socioeconomic groups. But poverty, drugs, alcoholism, crime are prevalent components that exist with a whole lot of domestic violence. And as has already been expressed in previous posts, poverty, drugs, alcoholism, crime etc. are a component of some of the unintended legacy of some liberal programs. Again to get into more detail, that deserves its own thread.

And just to clarify that since you have a strong tendency to read things into my posts that i did not say, I am not saying that liberalism is the cause of all domestic violence.

Did you read the excerpts of Dr. Sowell and Dr. William's essays? What did you think of them. Third time the question has been asked now.

 

[Sky Dancer]

First you will have to defend your statement about who I blame for all the social problems I have mentioned. You several times now have stated what I think, what I want, who I blame, etc. etc. etc.

For somebody who claims to be so open minded, you sure do have a tendency to label people or accuse them of things they never said.

Did you read the excerpts of Dr. Sowell and Dr. William's essays? What did you think of them? Is there any possibility that since they've both lived it, researched it, studied it, and looked at it from every possible angle, that they are right?

As for domestic violence, I do have a great deal of expertise and hands on experience working with victims and abusers, and it deserves its own thread due to the complexity of the subject.

It the cart before the horse. You claim liberalism is the cause of the social problems and not a response to them.

How is liberalism causal in domestic violence?

You're still doing it. You're saying what I claim when I have made no such claim. Try choosing something I actually said and discuss that please. You might try a direct quote in context please.

I have said that liberalism has resulted in many unintended negative consequences and has a very poor track record for success that doesn't include unintended negative consequences. That is a far sight from blaming liberalism for all social problems.

Domestic violence results from many many factors and can and does occur in all races and all socioeconomic groups. But poverty, drugs, alcoholism, crime are prevalent components that exist with a whole lot of domestic violence. And as has already been expressed in previous posts, poverty, drugs, alcoholism, crime etc. are a component of some of the unintended legacy of some liberal programs. Again to get into more detail, that deserves its own thread.

And just to clarify that since you have a strong tendency to read things into my posts that i did not say, I am not saying that liberalism is the cause of all domestic violence.

Did you read the excerpts of Dr. Sowell and Dr. William's essays? What did you think of them. Third time the question has been asked now.

You're right. There have been a few unintentioned negative consequences of some well meaning social problems.

Sowell and Williams make good points.

You win. Uncle.

If I have to choose between being right or being happy I choose to be happy.

 

[Foxfyre]

You're right. There have been a few unintentioned negative consequences of some well meaning social problems.

Sowell and Williams make good points.

You win. Uncle.

Happy?

I wasn't looking to win anything. I was having a discussion. A discussion is never necessary if everybody agrees on everything or sees everything the same way.

A 'few unintentioned negative consequences'? How many are a few?

You seemed to be saying earlier that welfare was in response to the negatives that Sowell and Williams think came mostly after welfare/social programs were initiated. Do you still think that? Or do you agree with Sowell and Williams that liberal social programs have been more detriment than help?

 

[Sky Dancer]

I'm through arguing.

 

[Immanuel]

I'm through arguing.

How can we have a rational discussion if you won't participate?

Without you holding up your end of the bargain, who knows what radical lefty, we might get?

Immie

 

[Sky Dancer]

I'm through arguing.

How can we have a rational discussion if you won't participate?

Without you holding up your end of the bargain, who knows what radical lefty, we might get?

Immie

I'm tired of arguing. You guys can do my part.

 

[MaggieMae]

Of course it can't be done.

A little bit of totalitarian control always leads to the accretion of more totalitarian control.

Just look at the growth in the size of our government over the past 18 months and the expansion of power over areas that were formerly the private sector. That's just a start.

Oh please...because he wants to level the playing field a little better? That's the only part of Marx's ideology that Obama embraces. It's hardly been a Democratic administration that has determined the expansion of the haves and the have-nots; ironically, by reverse Marxism, the rich have gotten richer and the poor have gotten poorer under Republican administrations. That you can't see that is pathetic.

He not only embraces Marx's concept of a level playing field but he embraces Marx's concept of using government to force commerce and industry and the more prosperous among us to level it. In the process the government becomes bigger and more encompassing until it becomes the central power itself and the people are powerless to resist it.

The fact that he is aided and abetted by a far left leaning media only makes his agenda that much easier to carry out.

The problem that Marx never understood was that despite the most noble of motive initially, once total power is achieved, those who hold it never volunarily give it up.

Which is why we have a brewing war between the government and the majority of the people right now. God willing, it will remain a battle of wills and the right values will win out.

You and others on the right continue to believe that you have a "majority" opinion. Step outside your tightly woven boxes for a change and realize that YOU DO NOT. At worst, the country continues to be divided roughly on a 50-50 basis, and unfortunately for you, the polls swing back and forth depending on the weekly economic news, this past week showing Democrats with a slight edge over Republicans.

Election 2010, Politics, Daily Election Tracking, Race for Congress, Generic Ballot

Tom Friedman hit the nail on the head the other day when he said "I view every poll result now as a question of do you have a job or how is your 401k doing?"

 

[MaggieMae]

Regardless of all the arguments made in the last 53 pages my original comment still stands.

This shows the outright dishonesty of the liberal media in their own words and shows they are willing to lie through the media to silence their opposition.

Kudos Journolist LOL

I guess all the people so dedicated to "fair and balanced" have forgotten this. Why is one liberal website whose members represent the so-called "liberal media" any worse than the members from the uber right who have their own agenda?

This includes a summary, and the cast of real characters many of whom are ex-Fox reporters/journalists:
Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism (2004)

You can watch the entire video here:
OUTFOXED : Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism

Just sayin'...

ROFLMAO
outfoxed was pure liberal propaganda and total BULLSHIT

Can you prove that? Among hundreds of contributors to the documentary, these were former Fox employees:

Frank O'Donnell, Former Fox News Producer, Washington DC
Dave Burnett, Former Fox News Reporter, Washington DC
Diana Winthrop, Former Fox News Producer
Larry C. Johnson, Former Fox News Contributor
Jon Du Pre, Former Fox News Anchor-West Coast Bureau
Clara Frenk, Former Fox News Producer
Dave Korb, Former Freelance Fox News Writer
David Hnatiuk, Former Fox Music Supervisor

 

[MaggieMae]

Then don't watch it.

she doesnt


makes me wonder how she can say ANYTHING about it

I wonder about that too. But then again, none the idiot leftist surprises me. They are in fact quite predictable.

And you're not? Next you'll be calling us hypocrites, and you're not.

 

[Immanuel]

I'm through arguing.

How can we have a rational discussion if you won't participate?

Without you holding up your end of the bargain, who knows what radical lefty, we might get?

Immie

I'm tired of arguing. You guys can do my part.

Ah, but not as good as you.

I see Maggie's joined the discussion, but haven't read her post.

Maggie is an excellent relief pitcher when she doesn't start. At least there is still hope to continue this discussion.

I do understand your frustration and desire to end the discussion. There always becomes a point when you feel like a discussion is going around and around in circles and nothing gets accomplished.

Immie

 

[Lonestar_logic]

There's a reason people of color vote Democratic.

Because the Democrats promise them entitlements, whereas the Republicans expect personal responsibility.

 

[Sky Dancer]

How can we have a rational discussion if you won't participate?

Without you holding up your end of the bargain, who knows what radical lefty, we might get?

Immie

I'm tired of arguing. You guys can do my part.

Ah, but not as good as you.

I see Maggie's joined the discussion, but haven't read her post.

Maggie is an excellent relief pitcher when she doesn't start. At least there is still hope of continue this discussion.

I do understand your frustration and desire to end the discussion. There always becomes a point when you feel like a discussion is going around and around in circles and nothing gets accomplished.

Immie

I won't be back.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I can agree with that.

The Democrats cater to the poor, needy and the downtrodden. They cater to them with promises and sometimes they even follow through.

I don't think they necessarily care any more for them than Conservatives/Republicans do, but I think the message is easier to sell coming from the liberal/Democrat perspective. The Democrats believe that Welfare is the answer to saving the poor. Republicans believe it to be much of the problem. Conservatives/Republicans believe in the hand up rather than the hand out. Who is right? Personally, I think the hand up is better in the long run.

But, how do you sell the Conservative/Republican message to the single mother of five who is struggling to make ends meet? You don't. Even if in the long run she would be better off being out from under Welfare.

Immie

More importantly, those kids would benefit from seeing Mom (and/or preferably Dad) getting up, getting cleaned up, getting dressed, going to work, and bringing home a paycheck.

Welfare does help some people for sure, but in the process it has diminished and destroyed many wonderful private charities who were more effective and efficient in doing that and did it without destroying the black family etc. The legacy of helping some is obvious in single mothers who have never been married, destruction of most of the nuclear family, making the men irrelevent or a detriment to the family, an abysmal school drop out rate, and whole neighborhoods so dangerous and crime ridden that life expectancyis significantly reduced.

And honest appraisal of government welfare has to look at those statistics with an open mind, and acknowledge that none of those conditions existed, except in rare incidents, before welfare went into effect.

Helping people sounds so wonderful and unselfish and noble and it's easy to get caught up in the semantics and ignore the results of unintended consequences.

With all due respect. I have been a social worker my whole professional life. Welfare is a temporary and needed helping hand for children and families.

It's not the evil you portray. It's not destroying families. Poverty, drug abuse, domestic violence, and crime destroy families.

Explain generational welfare.

 

[boedicca]

I'm through arguing.

How can we have a rational discussion if you won't participate?

Without you holding up your end of the bargain, who knows what radical lefty, we might get?

Immie

Well, it looks like the one we got is Maggie.

Sky! Come back!

 

[Lonestar_logic]

she doesnt


makes me wonder how she can say ANYTHING about it

I wonder about that too. But then again, none the idiot leftist surprises me. They are in fact quite predictable.

And you're not? Next you'll be calling us hypocrites, and you're not.

No I'm not predictable.

 

[DiveCon]

I guess all the people so dedicated to "fair and balanced" have forgotten this. Why is one liberal website whose members represent the so-called "liberal media" any worse than the members from the uber right who have their own agenda?

This includes a summary, and the cast of real characters many of whom are ex-Fox reporters/journalists:
Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism (2004)

You can watch the entire video here:
OUTFOXED : Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism

Just sayin'...

ROFLMAO
outfoxed was pure liberal propaganda and total BULLSHIT

Can you prove that? Among hundreds of contributors to the documentary, these were former Fox employees:

Frank O'Donnell, Former Fox News Producer, Washington DC
Dave Burnett, Former Fox News Reporter, Washington DC
Diana Winthrop, Former Fox News Producer
Larry C. Johnson, Former Fox News Contributor
Jon Du Pre, Former Fox News Anchor-West Coast Bureau
Clara Frenk, Former Fox News Producer
Dave Korb, Former Freelance Fox News Writer
David Hnatiuk, Former Fox Music Supervisor

yeah, and you've never heard of disgruntled former employees bashing the former employer
LOL

 

[MaggieMae]

Here's the basic fact: A cabal of leftwing journalist conspired to suppress news and accuse innocent people of racism as a diversionary tactic.

There is no equivalent incident on the right.

Ya think?

On the team: The stunning hypocrisy of Journolist's critics - Joe Conason - Salon.com

Specific, orderly, disciplined, ideological coordination -- and not the freewheeling blather to be found on Journolist -- has been proceeding every week for nearly two decades at the "Wednesday meetings" convened by lobbyist Grover Norquist in the Washington offices of Americans for Tax Reform.

As David Brock, who had attended those meetings, explained a few years ago in the Republican Noise Machine:

Every Wednesday morning in Norquist's Washington offices, the leaders of more than eighty conservative organizations -- including major right-wing media outlets and top Bush White House aides -- convene to set movement priorities, plan strategy, and adopt talking points. Norquist seems a cross between a Communist Party boss and a Mafia don as he presides over these strategy sessions ...

Conservative media turned out in full force for the weekly strategy meetings convened by right-wing activist Grover Norquist -- Peggy Noonan and John Fund of the Journal, representatives from National Review and the Washington Times, and a researcher for Bob Novak all checked in. The right-wing writers considered themselves part of the conservative movement "team," as Norquist put it ...

And then, from the conservative "American Spectator" regarding Journolist:

Perhaps it is appropriate to give the last word to the American Spectator's John Tabin, who has written a striking dissent from the right-wing hysterics over Journolist:

Since 1993, Grover Norquist has held an off-the-record meeting every Wednesday where conservative activists, policy wonks, and government officials exchange ideas about policy and politics. Sometimes journalists attend. Depending on a particular journalist's ideological and partisan disposition -- which can vary quite a lot given the state of our media landscape, which includes both 'straight news' reporters (i.e. people who attempt to hide the almost-always-left-of-center opinions that shape their journalistic choices) and opinion journalists with various worldviews and temperaments -- journalists may be there to get ideas that will influence how they think about issues, or they may just be there to get perspective on how conservatives are thinking about the issues of the day.

The Wednesday Meeting has periodically been the source of breathless fear-mongering on the left about the all-powerful conservative conspiracy to control media narratives. This is, of course, absurd. Much of the hyperventilating over Journolist is equally absurd ...

 

[MaggieMae]

Bull.

Great comeback. Fact is both parties are guilty of the name calling and the cussing. I'd go so far as to say the left is worse.

I don't know if the left is worse. But sometimes I think that's all the left has. Those on the right can articulate why they hold the opinions that they do and can defend them without name calling if they have to. I'm not sure many on the left can do that. Very few accept when challenged to do so.

So it's okay when someone like Boedicca, when she runs out of debate points, decides to call me Maggie Maggot. I suggest you not make sweeping assessments if you haven't actually read some of the insulting remarks made by members of your own club.

 

[DiveCon]

Here's the basic fact: A cabal of leftwing journalist conspired to suppress news and accuse innocent people of racism as a diversionary tactic.

There is no equivalent incident on the right.

Ya think?

On the team: The stunning hypocrisy of Journolist's critics - Joe Conason - Salon.com

Specific, orderly, disciplined, ideological coordination -- and not the freewheeling blather to be found on Journolist -- has been proceeding every week for nearly two decades at the "Wednesday meetings" convened by lobbyist Grover Norquist in the Washington offices of Americans for Tax Reform.

As David Brock, who had attended those meetings, explained a few years ago in the Republican Noise Machine:

Every Wednesday morning in Norquist's Washington offices, the leaders of more than eighty conservative organizations -- including major right-wing media outlets and top Bush White House aides -- convene to set movement priorities, plan strategy, and adopt talking points. Norquist seems a cross between a Communist Party boss and a Mafia don as he presides over these strategy sessions ...

Conservative media turned out in full force for the weekly strategy meetings convened by right-wing activist Grover Norquist -- Peggy Noonan and John Fund of the Journal, representatives from National Review and the Washington Times, and a researcher for Bob Novak all checked in. The right-wing writers considered themselves part of the conservative movement "team," as Norquist put it ...

And then, from the conservative "American Spectator" regarding Journolist:

Perhaps it is appropriate to give the last word to the American Spectator's John Tabin, who has written a striking dissent from the right-wing hysterics over Journolist:

Since 1993, Grover Norquist has held an off-the-record meeting every Wednesday where conservative activists, policy wonks, and government officials exchange ideas about policy and politics. Sometimes journalists attend. Depending on a particular journalist's ideological and partisan disposition -- which can vary quite a lot given the state of our media landscape, which includes both 'straight news' reporters (i.e. people who attempt to hide the almost-always-left-of-center opinions that shape their journalistic choices) and opinion journalists with various worldviews and temperaments -- journalists may be there to get ideas that will influence how they think about issues, or they may just be there to get perspective on how conservatives are thinking about the issues of the day.

The Wednesday Meeting has periodically been the source of breathless fear-mongering on the left about the all-powerful conservative conspiracy to control media narratives. This is, of course, absurd. Much of the hyperventilating over Journolist is equally absurd ...

yeah
and i agree that any hyperventilating is absurd
i dont see much of that over the journolist so much as showing the utter hypocrisy of it