What happened to the left?

originally posted by: Thejoncrichton

originally posted by: introvert


Either you are blind or dishonest.

We have heard similar, if not worse, things about Obama, Pelosi, Clinton, etc, for many years.

I'd say most likely you are being dishonest. That seems to be the going trend on ATS these days.

You're being dishonest about the difference in the reach of these claims. On the right you have one network and some AM radio. On the left you have the power of Hollywood, the MSM and even tax payer funded radio.

How can I be dishonest when I made no such claim about their "reach"?

Are you just making stuff up, or are you being dishonest?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You keep saying nuance but I don't think you know what that means, as I've gone into nothing nuanced. I clarified who trump wanted to Jail, slanderers. Not journalists. The fact that you think slander is some nuanced part of journalism is a sad indictment of our press.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I'm sorry but I don't believe you. You let the op's idiocy slide (hell you are the third post in the thread) but were SUPER quick to question my post halfway down the thread. Your intentions are clear.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You keep saying nuance but I don't think you know what that means, as I've gone into nothing nuanced. I clarified who trump wanted to Jail, slanderers. Not journalists. The fact that you think slander is some nuanced part of journalism is a sad indictment of our press.

Then by all means you support jailing Sean Hannity and most of Fox News for slandering Obama right? Heck, let's jail most of ATS for the same.

PS: What you are trying to do here is nuance. I made a generalization and you are trying to correct it with nuance. YOU clearly don't know the definition of the word.

PPS: The word you are looking for is libel, not slander.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I'm sorry but I don't believe you. You let the op's idiocy slide (hell you are the third post in the thread) but were SUPER quick to question my post halfway down the thread. Your intentions are clear.

Ok. But this thread isnt about you or i.....

This thread is funny!

...I think I'm gonna' go steal someone's milk money now and then hide their Batman lunch box under the jungle gym on the playground.

originally posted by: MiddleInsite
a reply to: Dfairlite

1. The left has always believed in boycotts. Nothing new. And boycotts ARE freedom of speech.

2. Joy Behar doesn't speak for the left, she speaks for herself.

3. There was an assault weapons ban from 1994 till 2004. Not a new concept.

4. And Cohen had due process and a warrant was issued. All legal.

And really, are you all that concerned about us liberals? Or is this just another thread to b!tch about the left?

1. Harassment is not free speech. Wanna look up incidents involving people being harassed at work and home because someone didn't like their words. I don't think you wanna compare sides there.
2. Yes, she speaks for herself, but when someone attacks someone's right to practice a religious faith where does that come from? If you're going to go with the knee-jerk Trump reaction trying posting a pic of Jesus and one of Allah on your Facebook page and see which side condemns who the most.
3. How did that assault weapon ban work out lol
4. On what grounds was the warrant issued?

All I see (for the most part) is a lot of self-proclaimed Progressive Liberals who have no concept of what it is.(or was supposed to be). A very "dangerous" and "damaging" misconception of the movement . Perhaps even a continuation of the 60s and 70s extreme radicals such as "Weather Underground".

From one that once "lived the life". Yeah , I been there . Got the scars and the tie dyed T-shirt to prove it.

It was about righting wrongs through Progress via peaceful protests. Not emotions. "Peace out" for a while. Spread that message. We did and it worked.The radicals never got it , and went to prison. What a waste of effort.

It was about Communism in it's purest form . Yet always respected the country in general and it's rule of law. Not Fascism . Live in harmony , not hate.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Whatever, your lumping all left into one category. Also NO LAWS were BROKEN. You are listening to Sean Hannity too much. This is why I rarely comment on Politics on ATS anymore. I don't know who is a genuine ATSer like myself, or a Russian. I do have my thoughts on about 4 of ATSERS, and they are not ATSERS.

Trump will go down as the most corrupt person to ever grace the White House.

a reply to: kurthall

...
Trump will go down as the most corrupt person to ever grace the White House.

Good GRIEF...surely you must be joking!!

That, or you've lost your mind altogether!

And you have proof of this??? Please do tell.

He won't even be close to what you suggest! Get a hold on yourself, man! Consider; Eisenhower, Nixon, Clinton, Bush and Obama...not even close!

Seriously????

ETA...do you even know the definition of "corrupt", even a little bit?

originally posted by: rexsblues

originally posted by: LordAhriman
The "right" only cares about one amendment.

Because it's the last line of defense for all the others.

I frequently see some of he most unhinged authoritarian sentiments expressed by right-wingers on ATS. In the last couple days I've seen people talk about running down protestors in the streets, how left-wing protests should be shutdown by the government, various journalists should be arrested for being critical of Trump and how they believe there should be a purge of the IC with "traitors" put in front of a firing squad.

What I almost never see anymore is those peoples' peers calling them out.

So you'll have to forgive me if I don't count too much on armed right-wingers defending my liberties against #.

a reply to: TrueBrit

While I usually find myself in agreement with you I must say on this one I respectfully disagree.

There may be no one small group that represents all liberals on every topic, but when its time to vote they walk the party line with the rest. Their supports goes to the party that is driven by the many small groups each courting its own segment of the liberal herd.

As for the suppression of free speech, try getting a conservative speaker in to Berkeley. It won't happen. The answer is always the same evasive tactic - you can speak all you want, just not here. That may be, but it is not in the true spirit of free speech.

The Joy Behars of the world may not represent all liberals, but they do have a following. Her words do influence others, sad as that may be. When a civil suit is filed against a school or a town for the word God or a nativity scene at Christmas it is a liberal who is behind it. I have honestly never heard of a conservative filing such an action. If I am wrong please let me know, it is something I would like to address if it is indeed true.

In regards to the second amendment, I truly do disagree with you. You make note of the difference between the Democrat and the average liberal walking down the street in Anytown, USA. I agree with that. However, when its time to vote that average liberal strikes the DNC canvas hard and fast. They talk about assault weapons but the text of the bill is simply semi auto rifles - the mainstay of the shooting world. This is no accident. It is an intentional misrepresentation of intent that uninformed people believe. I still find people who think AR stands for assault rifle.

In one significant respect I believe in the end it is much the same for liberals and conservatives: we vote with the party that most closely represents our views even if we don't necessarily like the candidate or the entire platform. I don't think Trump should be president. But I prefer him to hillary a thousand times over. Its sad that all this really boils down to a choice of our best estimation of what the lesser of the two evils will be.

I respect your opinion mate. Well said as always. But on at least a bit I must disagree this time.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Painterz
There is no 'left' in American politics.

If people use that term to describe themselves and/or another group, and we all agree...then yes there is.

Thats how language works. In real life, not on the blackboard of philosophy.

Democrats and establishment liberals are center right wingers on a global and political science scale. They support right wing economics, not left.

The problem is how right-wing nutjobs perceive the left. Their perceptions are warped by propaganda.

The same can be said about how they view religion, economics, conspiracy, the media, science. Anything, really.

You guys are a mess.

If “the left”—so much as that term means anything anymore—and those who seem to defend that word, would find some principles, promote and defend their principles away from the relativism and post-modernism they are accustomed to, the entirety of the political spectrum would be healthier.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
If “the left”—so much as that term means anything anymore—and those who seem to defend that word, would find some principles, promote and defend their principles away from the relativism and post-modernism they are accustomed to, the entirety of the political spectrum would be healthier.

The same could be said about "the right".

I think the bigger problem is not about Left or Right. It's about honesty.

If we were honest in our conversations and how we receive information, we would have much more productive outcomes.

If we were honest, we would not read disingenuous posts such as yours that do nothing more than perpetuate ignorance.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
If “the left”—so much as that term means anything anymore—and those who seem to defend that word, would find some principles, promote and defend their principles away from the relativism and post-modernism they are accustomed to, the entirety of the political spectrum would be healthier.

The same could be said about "the right".

I think the bigger problem is not about Left or Right. It's about honesty.

If we were honest in our conversations and how we receive information, we would have much more productive outcomes.

If we were honest, we would not read disingenuous posts such as yours that do nothing more than perpetuate ignorance.

Is that a principle I see in the midst of that post-modernist mosh mash? No, it’s just a fake principle, wielded haphazardly and only to seek advantage over your enemies, after which it is thrown back to the winds of your power-hunger and feelings.

This is messed up... post got chopped up and then refused to edit correctly. My sincerest apologies for the confusion.

a reply to: TrueBrit

The Joy Behars of the world may not represent all liberals, but they do have a following. Her words do influence others, sad as that may be. When a civil suit is filed against a school or a town for the word God or a nativity scene at Christmas it is a liberal who is behind it. I have honestly never heard of a conservative filing such an action. If I am wrong please let me know, it is something I would like to address if it is indeed true.

You have never heard of a conservative filing an action to prevent the free expression of faith? Really? How about civil actions against the construction of mosques? I KNOW there have been plenty of those incidents up and down the United States, and not a single one of those, I am willing to bet you five pounds sterling, was initiated by a lefty. And I wonder how many town councils, or county legislators who have denied permits to people intending to build mosques, were lefties? I would say a damned few of them. Realistically speaking, Conservative groups and individuals spend a great deal of time ensuring that American citizens are unable to indulge in religious practice... as long as its not the religious practice that they personally like. Furthermore, what you are talking about in your examples, is largely having to do with an appropriate separation between church and state, whereby a person notes that having in God We Trust plastered all over a public building, denies atheists and people who do not refer to their gods by that name, the ability to engage with the space the same way a Christian would. And THEY happen to be right. It does not deny a person the right to worship and to believe what they believe to remove words from public, government buildings. But it sure as hell does combating any effort that Muslims might make to build themselves worship spaces!

In regards to the second amendment, I truly do disagree with you. You make note of the difference between the Democrat and the average liberal walking down the street in Anytown, USA. I agree with that. However, when its time to vote that average liberal strikes the DNC canvas hard and fast. They talk about assault weapons but the text of the bill is simply semi auto rifles - the mainstay of the shooting world. This is no accident. It is an intentional misrepresentation of intent that uninformed people believe. I still find people who think AR stands for assault rifle.

You are still talking about two separate issues. You have what the DNC does, and who votes for them. You and I both know that the only reason anyone is still voting for the DNC, is because there is no party powerful enough but further left, for people to latch on to in great number. If they do not vote DNC, their other option is to vote for the very people who refuse to banish frackers from cracking open shale, the people who deny that climate change is even a thing, leave alone that it is at least partially caused by mankinds activity, people who own shares in enormous MIC companies, the private prison complex and the intelligence industry...
Come on man! Again I say, I am lefty as they come, and appreciate the fact that American people still have a right to keep and carry arms for their defence, against whatever comes their way. I think its bloody amazing, and I wish we still had that here in the UK, in anything other than a notional, high flier capacity. Given a choice between the DNC and an actually left wing alternative to it, people would vote for the alternative, mark my words.

In one significant respect I believe in the end it is much the same for liberals and conservatives: we vote with the party that most closely represents our views even if we don't necessarily like the candidate or the entire platform. I don't think Trump should be president. But I prefer him to hillary a thousand times over. Its sad that all this really boils down to a choice of our best estimation of what the lesser of the two evils will be.

I respect your opinion mate. Well said as always. But on at least a bit I must disagree this time.

On this you are dead right, and its unfortunate as all hell. I cannot tell you how sad it makes me that good people on the right felt they had to back Trump, or that good people on the left felt that they had no choice but to back Hillary, or that either group felt so appalled by their own parties candidate, that they crossed the aisle in protest. I am certain that there was a great deal of that going on.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
If “the left”—so much as that term means anything anymore—and those who seem to defend that word, would find some principles, promote and defend their principles away from the relativism and post-modernism they are accustomed to, the entirety of the political spectrum would be healthier.

The same could be said about "the right".

I think the bigger problem is not about Left or Right. It's about honesty.

If we were honest in our conversations and how we receive information, we would have much more productive outcomes.

If we were honest, we would not read disingenuous posts such as yours that do nothing more than perpetuate ignorance.

Is that a principle I see in the midst of that post-modernist mosh mash? No, it’s just a fake principle, wielded haphazardly and only to seek advantage over your enemies, after which it is thrown back to the winds of your power-hunger and feelings.

See. More dishonesty.

You say we need to be principled and when one stands up for one or articulates it, you claim it to be fake and continue to assume the motive behind stating that principle to be nefarious is some manner.

I don't think you could have illustrated my point any better. We cannot have decent conversations until people like yourself are honest enough to admit that it doesn't matter what is said to you. You have your agenda and will do whatever it takes to perpetuate it. Even claiming to want one thing and then denouncing it when you get it.

It's like a high maintenance woman that is never satisfied, even when she is given the everything she wants.