Why I Parted Ways With The Right

[otoc]

Originally Posted by otoc

This pretty much sums it up for me. So yes, call me what you wish/need, for I'm not on the right these days. Over my life of an independent voter, I've crossed the party lines many times. During my time at TLR, I've stepped up to the plate to help a right wing blogger protect their right to free speech. But now, the equation of what seems to be the rally of the right completely evades me. Have fun with this and try to keep it clean while talking about your opinions of your views and not that of any poster here. The original link to the opinion below is
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/arti...comments/#ctop

Why I Parted Ways With The Right

Opinion | Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 6:49:45 pm PST

1. Support for fascists, both in America (see: Pat Buchanan, Robert Stacy McCain, etc.) and in Europe (see: Vlaams Belang, BNP, SIOE, Pat Buchanan, etc.)

2. Support for bigotry, hatred, and white supremacism (see: Pat Buchanan, Ann Coulter, Robert Stacy McCain, Lew Rockwell, etc.)

3. Support for throwing women back into the Dark Ages, and general religious fanaticism (see: Operation Rescue, anti-abortion groups, James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Tony Perkins, the entire religious right, etc.)

4. Support for anti-science bad craziness (see: creationism, climate change denialism, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, James Inhofe, etc.)

5. Support for homophobic bigotry (see: Sarah Palin, Dobson, the entire religious right, etc.)

6. Support for anti-government lunacy (see: tea parties, militias, Fox News, Glenn Beck, etc.)

7. Support for conspiracy theories and hate speech (see: Alex Jones, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Birthers, creationists, climate deniers, etc.)

8. A right-wing blogosphere that is almost universally dominated by raging hate speech (see: Hot Air, Free Republic, Ace of Spades, etc.)

9. Anti-Islamic bigotry that goes far beyond simply criticizing radical Islam, into support for fascism, violence, and genocide (see: Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, etc.)

10. Hatred for President Obama that goes far beyond simply criticizing his policies, into racism, hate speech, and bizarre conspiracy theories (see: witch doctor pictures, tea parties, Birthers, Michelle Malkin, Fox News, World Net Daily, Newsmax, and every other right wing source)

And much, much more. The American right wing has gone off the rails, into the bushes, and off the cliff.

I won’t be going over the cliff with them.

[Bearded Frog]

um okay... and what flavor was the kool-aid? The amount of people and issues you just considered "the right" almost makes it a new term... The problem is many of the people and issues you listed conflict and disagree with each other completely...

Also supporting a dissenting opinion on the global warming •••••••• is actually all about being in favor of science. Being a climate change whacko who shuts out the other scientists and facts makes you the one who is hurting science.

Your problem other than the fact that you have just basically spewed the current wave of propaganda artist's talking points is that you're doing exactly what they want. Which is grouping everything together so it looks like anyone who isn't a hope and change addict is some sort of racist hate-mongering biggot who cant wait to go to chuch to hate on some science. Problem is that the majority of people who disagree with the radical left and Obamamania don't subscribe to any of that.

The positive about that type of talking is that it actually manages to bring libertarians and republicans together if only to respond to shit like that.

[otoc]

^^^why is it when an opinion like the one I posted from Charles is countered with delusional mind altering drug depictions when that opinion differs from your own?

[Frank1946]

Parted with the "right"? You were never with the "right".

[AeroSim]

It took me a while to learn this lesson, but I had to separate what works from my feelings. For example, I could be a fiscal conservative but not accept- even stand up to- all their hatreds. I could give aid to the poor and disenfranchised without being Mother Teresa or picking up their hatreds as well.

I learned early on the power of fear and hatred- that's how you can fight wars sometimes without any real reason given. Politics abuses those feelings- to the hilt. Conservatives are racist facists, and liberals are bigoted communists.

But I also came to understand that money is really a good thing and that helping someone out can win victories that artillery can't.

Despite my criticisms of outsourcing, I have to also concede that we are making a positive difference in those countries and unreported goes the civil unrest in China that seeks to be free of their totaletarian government and the equivalent unrest in India that seeks to overthrow the corruption. Yet I also see the imbalance and unfairness of trade imposed by both sides that threatens to impoverish us in the process.

So ask yourself: Why did Aero wind up voting for Ralph Nader last election?

Because Aero saw that two political partiies abused stereotypes to further the same agenda I didn't really understand at the time. I just knew that Nader at least could see the trade and outsourcing problem quite clearly where both Republicans and Democrats where too cowardly to take it on- and swept it under the rug. They both voted together for TARP- a betrayal of We the People- and failed to address the problems that brought it on. It bought us some time, but because it fixed nothing, be prepared for far worse soon.

I'm convinced that a lot of the hatred espoused by both parties have been exploited for party gain and further blinded us from the real problem, enemies and traitors of the nation.

[Dutchcedar]

Originally Posted by Frank1946

Parted with the "right"? You were never with the "right".

Bingo.

A bit from Ace on the LGF guy...

Ten reasons he's parting ways with the right. Let me save you some time:

1) The right is a bunch of stupid haters.

Repeat x10.

Eh. I am only linking the traffic-whore drama-queen since the whole left side of the blogosphere just linked him (following Markos), so my contribution is trivial.

Over my life of an independent voter, I've crossed the party lines many times. During my time at TLR, I've stepped up to the plate to help a right wing blogger protect their right to free speech.

And you have some black friends too, right?

As transparent as polished glass.

[Dutchcedar]

Originally Posted by otoc

This pretty much sums it up for me.

Originally Posted by otoc

^^^why is it when an opinion like the one I posted from Charles is countered...

Which is it? Is it someone else's opinion that you share or is it just someone else's opinion?

Originally Posted by otoc

Over my life of an independent voter, I've crossed the party lines many times.

Out of morbid curiosity, how often would an independent voter vote if he never "crossed the party lines"? Or, in simpler terms, how many elections have independent candidates? And since the independent voter has no party, isn't it fair to say that every time he votes for a person affiliated with a party, he's "crossed the party lines"?

[otoc]

Originally Posted by Dutchcedar

Which is it? Is it someone else's opinion that you share or is it just someone else's opinion?Out of morbid curiosity, how often would an independent voter vote if he never "crossed the party lines"? Or, in simpler terms, how many elections have independent candidates? And since the independent voter has no party, isn't it fair to say that every time he votes for a person affiliated with a party, he's "crossed the party lines"?

What exactly is your problem here? Or do my words only bring a need for you to simply argue. My words were selected carefully and I don't see what issue, morbid or otherwise, that opens up such questions.

For example Dutch, to vote across party lines somehow requires independant candidates? Or to say I share an opinion makes you feel the need to jump in, and ask questions that don't resemble the original thought simply to post another response? Sorry not in the mood for games today. I know we differ in opinion no matter what I write here.

[Bearded Frog]

Originally Posted by otoc

Ahhh, so I am delusional even though I haven't done any of what you write here. And based on what I read of Charles, his opinion wasn't an automatic one either.

Um but ya did :\

You associated "the right" with all of that. Well technically Charles did but then you agreed with him so you did as well.

[tucker]

3. Support for throwing women back into the Dark Ages, and general religious fanaticism (see: Operation Rescue, anti-abortion groups, James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Tony Perkins, the entire religious right, etc.)

9. Anti-Islamic bigotry that goes far beyond simply criticizing radical Islam, into support for fascism, violence, and genocide (see: Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, etc.)

Maybe I don’t get it but aren’t those two statements kind of contradictory?

It seems to me Muslims are notorious for doing exactly what you state in question #3. Does that mean it’s acceptable in one case and unacceptable in the other case?

[ai5000]

^^^Nah the Muslims are cool because they aren't Christians, so they get a free pass. Speaking of genocide, am I to assume the original author hasn't heard of Darfur?

[otoc]

Originally Posted by Bearded Frog

Um but ya did :\

You associated "the right" with all of that. Well technically Charles did but then you agreed with him so you did as well.

Yes Charles went down a list with examples of people and groups who have identified themselves with the right. I did not see either him or me take it to the degree of absolutes where everyone who might identify themselves as being on the right need be grouped as a uniform entity. What I find interesting is while you mention being a libertarian you chose to say I am delusional and defend the attributes mentioned in his list. Which is fine. But notice that in spite of a difference of opinion I have not mocked you.

[otoc]

Originally Posted by tucker

Maybe I don’t get it but aren’t those two statements kind of contradictory?

It seems to me Muslims are notorious for doing exactly what you state in question #3. Does that mean it’s acceptable in one case and unacceptable in the other case?

Not to me. To not blend all because of the actions of others. To respect all yet choose our religion. To see how lobbying of beliefs as legislated law is different from what religion we choose to follow. To me there are differences to the points you make. While I choose not to be a Muslim for how women are treated the fact that certain Christian beliefs are being interjected into our legislative system is no different and very different in my mind.

[Bearded Frog]

Originally Posted by otoc

Yes Charles went down a list with examples of people and groups who have identified themselves with the right. I did not see either him or me take it to the degree of absolutes where everyone who might identify themselves as being on the right need be grouped as a uniform entity. What I find interesting is while you mention being a libertarian you chose to say I am delusional and defend the attributes mentioned in his list. Which is fine. But notice that in spite of a difference of opinion I have not mocked you.

You can try to go down that path if you want but you will fail. What Charles did is describe "the right" and then give examples of people who are apparently on "the right" who he thought fit each example. Therefore he describing what he believes what "the right" is. You can try and pretend you aren't grouping people on "the right" into these catergories but you are if you agree with this man's statements.

I am a libertarian, and I do think you are delusional. I am not defending all of that list in fact I am disputing the truth of most of it. The only part of that list that I would actually defend is #6 to an extent, which is actually a huge part of being a libertarian as well. I also think ManBearPig (aka climate change/global warming/global cooling etc) is •••••••• and a waste of time and tax payer money in order to gain power and redistribute wealth.

[otoc]

Originally Posted by Bearded Frog

You can try to go down that path if you want but you will fail. What Charles did is describe "the right" and then give examples of people who are apparently on "the right" who he thought fit each example. Therefore he describing what he believes what "the right" is. You can try and pretend you aren't grouping people on "the right" into these catergories but you are if you agree with this man's statements.

yes Charles used the term "the right" and listed his examples of individuals and subsets. Only you feel that a description of a political stance without specifically stating all means all, even when I write that it doesn't to me. Fine. You apparently believe these groups have not associated themselves and their beliefs as current right thinking. Or is it you simply refuse to accept my statement that agrees with you that it can't possibly mean everyone. So since this debate only allows you to have realistic views I must be delusional to you, right? Er, correct?

Originally Posted by Bearded Frog

I am a libertarian, and I do think you are delusional. I am not defending all of that list in fact I am disputing the truth of most of it. The only part of that list that I would actually defend is #6 to an extent, which is actually a huge part of being a libertarian as well. I also think ManBearPig (aka climate change/global warming/global cooling etc) is •••••••• and a waste of time and tax payer money in order to gain power and redistribute wealth.

Yes you have made it clear I am delusional and now I understand it is because you won't give the same break you give your own view and ability to see subsets. While you attack the notion that someone might feel this way, you are doing it because you are a libertarian and allowed to generalize certain views to right thinking, appently ignore others here, and in a libertarian stance of allowing individual thinking you call me delusional because mine is different. You are not defending the mentioned groups or people other than #6 where you are with Jim Hansen in your blended take of political reaction and the science that gets us there. Well at least you and Hansen agree on carboncapping. As to the science, if you joined in on that debate thread it is obvious that we are in disagreement as to what scientific study is. But again I'll respect that. Even with your constant need to call me delusional and refusal to accept my statement that specifics don't mean everyone or that everyone he listed would agree with each other. Or for that matter that to point out how ridiculous the right has become because of these vocal ones, it doesn't justify the left's take on things as a group. So why is the libertarian taking such offense over this?