BF2S Forums Typical liberal hypocrisy

Not liberals Lowing, Democrats. And there's hypocrisy in every party, I do wish you'd realise it's a political thing rather than right or left thing.

Typical Lowing thread

ColCarnage wrote:

Typical Lowing thread

I've never seen an atypical lowing thread in my life.

Kinda like when Newt put in all those fairness rules and decorum to help the left have a voice even though they were the minoirty party and were bitching about being steamrolled.... What does Pelosi do?  Tossed those rules out the window. Fine by me though.... In 2010 that will come back to bite them in the ass.  Is it me - does her teeth look like the robot skeleton's teeth from Terminator?

Yeah, fuck democracy, move along

lowing wrote:

T1g3r217 wrote:

It's a Fox News article bashing liberalism. That's unexpected? Or fair? Or trustworthy?

Nothing to see here folks, move along.

I was wondering how long it was gunna take for someone to bash the source instead of the accuracy of the article. Not long I see.

Liberals can not argue truth, that is why mis-direction is a must in all liberal debate tactics. Toe to toe, they do not stand a chance because to defend their own bullshit is impossible, so calling you a racist, or attack your source as bias or screaming about generaliziations is all they really have.

This is true, but what you've got to remember, this is D&ST, once your opponent has to resort to personal attacks, against you or the source, as opposed to the validity of the information, it means they no longer have the ability to debate in a logical fashion, in other worlds, you've won.

lowing wrote:

I was wondering how long it was gunna take for someone to bash the source instead of the accuracy of the article. Not long I see.

Liberals can not argue truth, that is why mis-direction is a must in all liberal debate tactics. Toe to toe, they do not stand a chance because to defend their own bullshit is impossible, so calling you a racist, or attack your source as bias or screaming about generaliziations is all they really have.

Stereotyping and slander? I expected more from you.

OT: I never respected Ted Kennedy much; he symbolized the worst of politics: corruption, lies, and political ties as opposed to morals, honestly, and one's work speaking for oneself. However, to generalize the article as "Typical liberal hypocrisy" is overblown; the article is an example of a known corrupt man. What happened to the Watergate scandal or Cheney/Bush's secret facilities? Are those examples of "typical conservative dishonesty"?

My answer is a resounding "no". Politicians get a bad rap because of the nature of their jobs. They as a whole are not bad. The problem is that many in this country place their or their party's power over their own. If humans in general (not liberals or conservatives in particular) were less self-fulfilling, many of these "typical" behaviors would go away.

Unfortunately, they won't, because humans won't change. That doesn't mean that we should start name-calling. It's one person screwing himself over--no need to blame the whole group.

I see a whole bunch of chatter that has nothing to do with the story in the OP.

I assume the links are regarding ted kennedys death bed plea to change the rules back to favor the democrats.

It is a lame move by a lame party. The fact that 90 percent of the replies don't comment on that gives weight to the notion that either liberals can't be reasoned with, or that DST is devolved to the point where more time is spent on the source than the story.

That also is lame.

Fox News is not a legitimate news service.

Harmor wrote:

lowing wrote:

in the US, liberals = democrats.

Not necessarily.

Not all liberals are Democrats.  Some liberals are Socialist.  Fewer are Communists.

Same with Conservatives are not all Republicans.  Some are Libertarian.

You forget that some Republicans are Faschists

lowing wrote:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/28/push-kennedy-successor-stirs-political-storm/


Just goes to show that liberal human hypocrisy knows no bounds, they actually want to repeal a law that they themselves put in place because now that law does not benefit them.

Fixed

Last edited by Turquoise (2009-08-28 19:46:57)

Narupug wrote:

You say what is happening is "hypocritical" and I for once agree, the facts are right.  What you fail to realize is that the point of the government is to serve the will of the people, and the will of the people is not to put a Republican in that Senate seat.  I acknowledge that Romney was elected by the people of Massachusetts, but he mainly won because of his fame for being part of the Salt Lake Olympics and because he ran on an extremely moderate platform.  Once he got into office Romney was less then popular and had he had to appoint a Senator, he would have appointed a Republican because of party affiliation.  A Republican would have gone against the will of the People of Massachusetts.  Now that party politics does not need to be worried about interfereing with the appointment of a reputable person the seat, the law can be repealed.  It might not end up being repealed, it still might end up as an interim election.

This is not the reason given by the democrats at the time. there reason was it should be up to the voters to decide not the governor.


Well is it up to the voters to decide or not? Per the democrats, it all depends on who favors them at the time.