I saw this on RDW
It was fascinating.
I think this is the cycle most people go through....start off liberal as a emotional youth, then turn conservative as time goes on.
This person made a very calm, logical argument supported with examples of why the switch occurred.
Anyone who is open minded enough to read it and comment, please do.
If you are just going to spew hate filled crap, don't bother on this one. This column was written way to well, and deserves more respect than that.
Anyone who would just dismiss this as crap or any of the other liberal playbook words you like to throw out, shows the lack of ability to think, reason or try and listen to what others have to say. I thought the liberals here atleast tried to listen to others point of view, but lately I am very unsure.
Monday, June 26, 2006
Leaving the Left
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
15 comments:
That's not too far from my story.
"I was wrong. The Left got nuttier, more extreme, less contributory to the public debate, more obsessed with their nemesis Bush - and it drove me further away."
Yeah, when people started supporting Cindy Sheehan, Hugo Chavez, Ahmadinejad just because they were "standing up to Bush," I knew it was time for me to leave. You can visit Kos, mydd, DU and so forth to get a glimpse of how tinfoil the Dems have become lately.
I try my best to avoid party lines and pundit commentary when on here, since I support neither the right nor left. However, I do my best to thorn whomever resorts to crappy reasoning, or illogic or jingoism when supportting their opinions. This dude is all of the above. Not only does he resort to misinformation, but avoids penetrating the truth as much as possible.
1) Tipper Gore didnt just want labels, she wanted censorship and limiting of accessibility. Also, she was a liberal. At lease have the balls to admit that a liberal did what you couldnt.
2) Giuliani is classic Con. He doesnt care about the constitution or peoples rights, as long as his agenda gets worked and everything has the appearance of being ok.
3) Like this guys personal references are a just cause for anyone changing political views. Its crap logic and lame reasoning. Get different friends, dummy.
4) Ahhh, yes...when it comes to a Con, it must be vitriol and jealousy form teh left, and not that the guy was a shithead. Those poor boys having to put up with scrutiny and the constitution. Now, all those Libs that have to go through it, it must mean they are guilty.
5) Of course FL didnt rig the election. Its inconceivable that your brother would make sure you got elected. Those Bush boys have reputations of the highest order, after all.
6) Yes, the left did get nuttier. They have almost caught up to where the right went in the 90's.
7) Once again, avoiding the issue that he is a liar, and had no actual strategy for containing and exitting either country. The Soviet Union was in Afghanistan for 10 years without fully controlling it. We have been there for 4 1/2 without fully controlling it. And as you can see by the worlds events, the Taliban and Al Qaida havent been crushed.
In summary, I dont even think this is a legitimate story. I think its a Con who wanted to try and convince himself or just add to the existing rightist BS out there. Most of the guys logic is so bad, that if it is true, he is a complete dope. He doesnt say anything new, or anything logical. He only repeats all the stupid Con platitudes.
rhyno, you really are a liberal...
rhyno--
Under the Giuliani regime, murder in NYC plummeted from 2000 a year to about 500 a year. Giuliani's policies are still saving the lives of 1,500 people a year. Libertarians, like their socialist Democrat friends will criticize this because they believe in the inherent rationality of man and doubt the efficacy of law and order. Man was born free, they think, and our social institutions make him evil.
Socialists and libertarians see foreign policy the same way. They think that the Americans are the problem. Both groups doubt that a fascist movement has been gaining strength in the Islamic world over the last 30 years. There simply aren't supposed to be people who are demagogic, irrational, authoritarian, and insanely murderous in our universe. If we leave people alone, the rationality of man will prevail in the last chapter. So libertarians and socialists tell us.
well done once again...its so easy to see for an educated man
And conservatives believe in the inherent "goodness" of corporations and don't mind foregoing the rule of law, the rights of individuals, and the common good in order to protect the corporations and those who whore for them.
Game,
I made a statement exaclty like Jason's. How come his was OK and mine was pathetic.
Uh, I dont know a single Libertarian who thinks the US people are the bad guys. The gov't, yes. The country or its people, never. This 'story' is a lifetime Con who thought it would be cool to write a story and get some attention for himself. Oh, I dont begrudge you those facts, either, jason. The problem with Cons like Giuliani is that its all facade. Nobody changed in NY, only the crime. Its only a matter of time before they break loose even worse than before. See, its the common fallacy of the right that the gov't can somehow protect its people from themselves. It cant. The best it can do is punish the people who commit crimes(notice I didnt say do something wrong). Unless a criminal is a dip who tells someone ahead of time what they are going to do, the gov't cant keep that person from carrying out his plan. Ever. All those rules are only to create the illusion of justice....after the fact.
There, does that sound Libertarian enough for you game?
he talked about FACTS like the old mayor on NYC..and they pertain to the story I presented...so nothing close to the same
I guess, but I want to focus on what you said...
Why did crime go down so much in NY if it didn't have anything to do with Rudi???
You stop people from committing crime by making them believe they will be punished and that when they are they will not like it...
that is it...
criminals love liberals because liberals (for some reason) get mad when we go after criminals...examples:
1. fighting terrorism...wiretaps, bank records
2. for some reason, it is always Democrats in every state fighting tougher sentences for child molesters...
3...they always fight tougher laws for criminals, especially when it seems to target blacks...like in Milwaukee...people in the black neighborhoods and down by the lake turn milwaukee streets into Iraq every day, shooting guns in the street, parking cars right in the middle of major roads, and Dem's are pissed because they cops want to tow their cars...
Jim--
I mentioned that libertarians and socialists believe man was born good and institutions make him evil. You then go on to preach about the evils of free enterprise. Is this supposed to be a rebuttal? If anything, it sounds like an affirmation of what I mentioned.
Rhyno--
Under your theory, it should make no difference in cities whether they have a Republican tough-on-crime mayor or not.
In 2004, New York City had a rate of 2,801.6 crimes per 100,000 people in 2004. Compare that to
Dallas (Democrat): 8,959.7
Detroit (Democrat): 7,903.7
Pheonix (Democrat) 7,402.3
San Antonio (Democrat) 7,346.8 i
Houston (Democrat) 7,194.8
Philadelphia (Democrat) 5,470.5
Los Angeles (Democrat) 4,376.0
Guys, I know, I know, this is a lie. This is horseshit. I guess the truth is that if we had less cops on the street and smaller sentences for criminals, we'd get less crime.
Forgive me if I remain incredulous.
slam dunk, kaboom
Your statistics are meaningless, jason. There is no standard definition of crime throughout your sample. You cant even compare them, logically. Either pick out what constitutes a crime across ALL the cities, or its meaningless. Then, you would need to go back and find out the crime percentages just for that measure for each city. Then, go back and test the sample for significance. If you dont do all those things, its just jumbled crap.
Now, for those who think Giuli was so fantastic, take this example. They made it a law to sleep in a public place so they could make everything look better by cleaning out the bums. Then, they started rounding up the bums and shoving them into places they wouldnt be seen. Once they were there, they quit hassling them. So, crime goes WAY down because they dont bother with the bums(who are commiting a crime by sleeping in a public place), but nothing changed beause the bums are still out sleeping in public places. Just not places that anyone cares about....
Also, they made it illegal to own a pornshop in certain parts of town that tourists and stuff would normally go to. So, crime went way down cuz they kicked out a bunch of businesses that had been entrenched for decades. Now, they didnt pull the licenses for those businesses, they only made them move. Nothing changed but the location of them.
Now, there is some logic here, cuz without the attraction of bums and pornshops, there is less crime in CERTAIN parts of New York. As long as they clean up the parts that are the most visible, the average will go way down through crap like I previously mentioned.
Also, there is NO correlation between yougher prisons or whatever, and the rate of crime. Nor is there any correlation between the number of police, and the rate of crime. Its a glaring fact discussed in any criminal justice or sociology program.
tougher
oh, and game...its a BS article. All he does is hit all the junk buzzwords of the Cons. There is nothing realistic there, only a tall tale written to make himself and other Cons feel righteous.
No Jason, I made a statement just as outrageous as yours. Can you stand it?
Post a Comment