Jump to content

The Insane Rationalizations, Bigotry And Out Right Hypocrisy Of The Left


Mr King

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 19.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Murph

    2161

  • Mr King

    1523

  • rmgill

    1379

  • Ivanhoe

    1362

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

As Mark Steyn pointed out, George Zimmerman is considered white and Elizabeth Warren is Native American. Reality was left stranded behind on a dusty whistlestop long ago, while the train chuffs on. Choom Choom, I suppose.

 

--

Soren

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If this is a black chick then I am Shaka Zulu!

 

 

 

 

 

I think she is native American. Look at her high cheekbones.

 

Ah yes the Elizabeth Warren level of Native Americanism. I hope she remembered when applying for college!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The lefts heartburn over Bill Marher's recent criticisms of Islam gets me. When Bill Maher called Sarah Palin a "dumb twat" and a "cunt" then turned around and donated a million dollars to Obama's Super Pac, the same left rushed to his defense saying it was ok because he was a "comedian". So using that logic, if he was a comedian then, and anything goes under comedy, especially under the 'war on women", what is he now? People also seem to forget why his original show got canceled in the first place. I am not giving the right any breaks here, they have a stupid habit of holding scum like Bill Maher up when they happen to agree with them, while all other times they are dismissed as utter buffoons or worse. Bill Maher has one agenda - ratings. His schtick is he is edgy, when all he is, is just a manipulative asshole, who knows controversy brings him and his show publicity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I miss the more pointed and accurate commentary of Christopher Hitchens. Sure, he was a red, but he at least had consistent views on rights, the survival and good of the west and called things very consistently.

 

Also, I miss William F Buckley.

Edited by rmgill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I miss the more pointed and accurate commentary of Christopher Hitchens. Sure, he was a red, but he at least had consistent views on rights, the survival and good of the west and called things very consistently.

 

Also, I miss William F Buckley.

At the end of the day Christopher Hitchens was a smug arrogant asshole. That doesn't mean he wasn't consistent with this views, it just means he was a consistent smug arrogant asshole. You don't not have to insult people, especially those you are trying to reach, to make your points.

 

William F. Buckley was the antithesis of Htichens. He had his views, he explained his views, and unless you were being purposely obtuse and provocative, he suffered fools in silence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I miss the more pointed and accurate commentary of Christopher Hitchens. Sure, he was a red, but he at least had consistent views on rights, the survival and good of the west and called things very consistently.

 

Also, I miss William F Buckley.

 

I miss the more pointed and accurate commentary of Christopher Hitchens. Sure, he was a red, but he at least had consistent views on rights, the survival and good of the west and called things very consistently.

 

Also, I miss William F Buckley.

At the end of the day Christopher Hitchens was a smug arrogant asshole. That doesn't mean he wasn't consistent with this views, it just means he was a consistent smug arrogant asshole. You don't not have to insult people, especially those you are trying to reach, to make your points.

 

William F. Buckley was the antithesis of Htichens. He had his views, he explained his views, and unless you were being purposely obtuse and provocative, he suffered fools in silence.

 

 

Ah the esoterica of two of the most smug and arrogant folks around, Only a argument that TN could have.... :D :D :D :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

William F. Buckley was the antithesis of Htichens. He had his views, he explained his views, and unless you were being purposely obtuse and provocative, he suffered fools in silence.

 

 

Even he lost his temper with the New Left & the Alinskyites; didn't he basically tell Gore Vidal if the tried to deal he 'Nazi' Card on him he would knock his 'queer ass' out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the end of the day Christopher Hitchens was a smug arrogant asshole. That doesn't mean he wasn't consistent with this views, it just means he was a consistent smug arrogant asshole. You don't not have to insult people, especially those you are trying to reach, to make your points.

 

William F. Buckley was the antithesis of Htichens. He had his views, he explained his views, and unless you were being purposely obtuse and provocative, he suffered fools in silence.

 

Point being that both of them were VERY good at bringing out points, clearly, with great detail and offering a countermeasure to the idiotic points someone else was making.

 

This is the best example that springs to mind in Hitchens' case. He's far more fair in his application of what was and was not right or wrong, especially among leftists. When compared to folks like Chomsky, find his logic to be consistent and his principles to be unwavering.

 

Edited by rmgill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And in case it's not clear, the problem I have with MOST liberals and who I can at least accept in the case of Hitchens is that they will vehemently support things like women's rights and other modern concepts and then discard them entirely in their desires to be seen as fair, something Hitchens NEVER seemed to do this. Hitchens ALWAY saw himself as a member of the west and never seemed to discard basic republican concepts where it came to confrontations with totalitarian regimes.

Simply put, Hitchens makes, at least to me, rational rationalizations founded upon consistent points and beliefs.

Comparatively, someone like Chomsky is one of the ripest examples of the sort of libearl who will cling to pluralistic concepts and then abrogate them entirely so long as it allows for his revolution. Hitchens never seemed to do this.

I've had to find new authors to read/view. Thomas Sowell is interesting as is Theodore Dalrymple (aka Anthony Daniels).

Edited by rmgill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Netanyahu has his faults (And from what I read in other places, some of those statements are accurate), but the sheer number of times that Bibi has caught The Grown-ups in Charge flat-footed since 2008 makes the complaints sound more like sour grapes.

 

Best of all are the complaints from the wonks that Netanyahu acts like he's the mayor of Jerusalem instead of the prime minister of Israel are too rich. Have they looked at their boss' political job history?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A "Gay Activist" who is determined to establish a State controlled State speaks out: http://thefederalist.com/2014/10/28/sally-kohn-shows-how-the-liberals-got-so-illiberal/

 

"But the real point of this is that Sally Kohn and her ilk now get to determine for you what your “legitimate” beliefs are."

 

You see that around here - the Progressives *feel* something should be a certain way and facts or laws be damned, it needs to be that certain way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...