Top 10 Liberal Hypocrisies.....

Ok. I put it clearly. You're explaining me a case of war and possible traition and there is such nonsense like political correctness. So if you want to refer to political correctness refer to other case, not a such absurd situation.

And please explain me better, what you mean with political correctness. Say that you're a xenophobist if you say that all islamic people are terrorists or something like that, then that's true. You are a xenophobist. Like or not. That is what you are. Do you want to defend the free speech? Then eat free speech. And if I say that your ideas are racist, fascist and xenophobic you must tolerate that in name of your free speech. Or only are you able to say what do you think? And I am not able to say what i think about your ideas?

And this you is generic, doesn't mean that you defend that.

 

You almost had some valid points, but the thread is absolutely retarded, especially the end conclusion in the OP.

 

Here's an interesting description of political correctness:

I prefer one of the Urban Dictionary's "definitions" -

Or, better yet: this

[I'm outta here till this afternoon or tonight. Have a great day.]

 

In the technical sense, I am a conservative, but at least these self-proclaimed "liberals" respect my right to do with my body as I please, such as have an abortion if I'm a woman or marry a man if I'm gay. (I'm neither, but the point remains).

Pseudo-conservatives like the OP want to take away certain civil rights.

 

Okay, so now that basically everyone agrees with these top 10 liberal hypocrisies, is there anyone in particular that a liberal might find to be not true? I thank you for #11, but I'm a little surprised there hasn't been more lib hypocrisies to add to the list; need I be the one to do all the work here in exposing liberal madness?

 

ummm not everyone does agree. Did you even read through the responses?

Other than the some of the conservatives chiming in with a "huh huh huh, stupid liberals" type response, you've had several people go through your list and explain why they were bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

Any response to those? Or did your eyes only go to the posts that let you give yourself a pat on the back? You've also had people who might stand on you with some issues call you clueless, and say that your OPs conclusion is retarded.

 

I guess I need to have a better understanding of your definition of basically. Because it appeared to me after reading every post since your OP that hardly anyone agreed with your list. I suggest you read back through the posts and try again with some of the actual hypocrisies that do exist.

 

Seems like delusion to me

 

While I agree there are one or two points where the assertion is a bit weak, the Op is absolutely right in the main.

There has not been such a clear and concise break out of these issues ever that I know of. I commend you for the forethought and courage to post it.

Nor can it escape my notice that the majority of responses are without anything to support them, a knee jerk reaction without research or much forethought.

I would have more respect for the left and perhaps learn more if their assertions were substantiated. The only time its happened in recent years, though, has been in the stem cell debate where a clear, rational and scientific case was made.

Congratulations on a great post.

 

Not all liberals are pro abortion. For me abortions in the 1st trimester are fully ok and to protect the mother from death. A embryo in his early stages is not a Human child.
Capital Punishement is just ethical problematic, who has the right to decide who lives and who dies. What gives us the right to take another humans live?.

Actually most of todays technology was developed by public funded Science programs or the millitary. The basics of the Internet were developed by the US military and the World Wide Web was developed at CERN.
And most liberals do not oppose a "free market", which is an illusion because our market was always regulated to some extend. Liberals belive that stricter regulations need to be placed on some Markets like the financial.

Here again is a misconception, liberals are pro civil rights, a muslim has as much rights as a christian, a jew or an Homosexual. Liberals don't endorse the ideas of those groups just that they have the same rights as anyone else.

Uhm Evolution is basic fact of Live, it is not a Live Style or an ideology. I think the reason for trying to save endangered species is because we are the reason they are nearly extinct. Also keeping ecosystems alive is important to the quality of our environment. We should not be concerned about the health of the planet, Earth will survive us. But we need to be concerned with an environment that is sustainable and will provide a good living space for future generations

It's not about anti Christian. It's about giving every religions the same right and making sure that the state does not endorse any religion. And Christianity wasn't a very tolerant religion and still isn't in many ways. And for your information Djihad should be translated as "inner Struggle" not as "Holy War", the Koran gets miss used by warmongerers and despots. The Bible was used to justify genocides and wars. And don't forget the old Testament is very very violent.

Interstingly enough, of the Countries with high educational standard most have a working public Shool system. Private schools are only open to a elite few (not necessary based on intelect but on money) percent of the population.
Choice is nice but for a good general education public schools are a necessity. and the west needs a broad base that has very good education, because we can't compete in the production business with cheap labor of the emerging countries. Therefor we need an advantage in other areas like education

Hate is a natural feeling and all Humans feel it and yes both sides spew hateful and unnecessary insults.

Here you used a bad strawman. Palin was / is an incompetend politician that made stupid statements and portrayed a woman stereotype that fits in to the 50's and 60's but not in a modern world.
Let me put it this way you dislike Obama, so you are against family values, Obama is a working father that has two kids and a wife that looks out for the kids.

 

Both political perspectives have their own pet list of the other side's hypocrisy. Both of these lists are probably composed of various degrees of exaggeration. Both would grant some set of "rights" that the other would argue aren't rights at all. For example, the Right holds up private property as a basic building block of American society. On the other hand, the Left has no philosophical difficulty in empowering a central authority to take from those it decides has too much, and distributing it to others that it decides has too little. One side believes that reward should be based on merit. The other believes in governmental patronage. Each is keenly aware of the hypocrisies of the other. Each would give and take away "rights" according to their underlying approach to government's role in society and the lives of individuals. I prefer the side that takes away least.

 

They don't believe in private property in the least bit. Most "right wingers" want to socialistically fund aggressive wars, and don't even believe that people own their own bodies, considering that if I'm gay and I want to get married to a man, I can't, and if I'm a woman and I want an abortion, I can't, according to most "rightists".

If you don't even want me to own my own body, then why should you own your money? Is that just? No, it's not. It's either everyone owns their own property or no one does. Be consistent.

This is largely true, yes.

Why don't you have the balls to say "I don't belong to either side and wanna just follow my OWN BELIEFS"???

Neither the "left" nor the "right" are ethical IMO.

 

If you are comparing the color of the skin yes, but if the comparison is about whether or not they are fruits, it is very much on target. Whether or not an animal or a certain stage of a fetus has a consience is what we are comparing. If it is because the lack of brain formation that causes animals to have a consience or not, then it is very adequet to compare them to each other.

That consience thing is also why liberals are a condradiction between the death penalty and pro abortion. They are so willing to kill off a baby that hasn't done anything to harm anyone on the assumption it doesn't have a consience they can measure with science. But are anti-death penalty against those that have shown to have no consience because the criminals own actions. "It is mind bottling".

 

Without the **** [which limits freedom of speach] I agree with you. If we only allow that which we agree with not only are we denying the rights of another but preventing the possibility of learning anyrthing.

It is the thin edge of the wedge toward a completely controlled environment, propaganda and "newspeak".

I am astonished at the local university which, while claiming to be a vanguard of civil rights will not allow pro life posters while pro-abortion posters and advertisements for [for profit] abortion clinics are everywhere. I am not pro life, but if only one side of any given issue is allowed we already are in propaganda country.

Unfortunately it appears to be a growing trend among the left.

 

Adult chimpanzees almost certainly, in fact, I'm going to say they do certainly, have (much) more of a conscience than even a newborn or 6 month old, let alone a fetus.

Do you think they have rights to liberty? No. Why? Because you're being hypocritical when you say "this conscious entity has rights and this one doesn't".

I can show you several things which demonstrate that chimps, gorillas and orangutans definitely are intelligible conscious creatures.

And lastly, this doesn't mean that I think non-human animals should have rights. Why? Because unlike you, I at least admit that my political ideologies are ultimately based on pure selfishness, and that I want only humans to have rights because of the fact that I'm human.

 

NO, and no. The fetus is not human neither conscience until after the 4 months. There is no killing a baby, because that is not a baby. That is no human.

And there is no hipocresy. Where is the hipocresy, the greates is be anti-abortion and be in favor of death penalty.

But, if you can't prove, and you can't that a fetus is a child, then there is no hipocresy. Because you are aborting, cancelling something that will become a child. But it is not.

 

So, you believe that huh? Does that mean a new born or 6 month old can be killed cause they don't have what can't be measured?

Who is "they"? Sorry.

And I can show you the opposite.

When you can show that animals have the inovative thought to improve their lives and not just a new way to do something essential to survival, I will agree with you.

 

reps given for trying to get your arms around the hypocricy which is liberalism

 

Yes. Apes, especially chimps, are very similar to humans socially, albeit less intelligent and with less impulse control if you correct for developmental stage. Some of them can communicate with sign language and learn to love a person and express it via language; a rudimentary and non-sophisticated kind of ape sign language, but it's direct communication nevertheless. And an adult chimp has more intelligence than a fetus.

So, if you're going to be consistent, should a fetus or chimp die first?

Apes.

umm..what the hell? The machinery of all vertebrate brains is fundamentally identical to humans. What differs is the relative amount of intelligence and compassion of different sorts. But some individual apes can show great compassion and actually express it via a form of sign language!

Now, be consistent. Is a fetus, which doesn't yet have the neurological ability to know any languages nor compassion, more entitled than a creature that does have the neurological ability for these things, simply because of having human DNA?

This is getting off topic, but what about the fact that in order to restrict (or hypothetically, enforce) abortion, you have to assume that the woman doesn't own their own body? A fetus isn't a separate entity, but is directly dependent and in fact nutritionally part of, the woman's body.

 

everyone knows Liberal=Hypocrite....amongst other things.

 

That doesn't show intelegence. Our dumbest human is still smarter than the smartest ape. Communication =/= inteligence.

Chimp.

Still doesn't show inteligence. Apes don't have communication through sign language without years of help from humans training them. My 10 month old can sign, and I have only worked with her for past month.

The human always has the potential to be smarter than the chimp. Killing a person that hasn't developed yet just because of the stage of development doesn't mean it isn't murder.

The woman chose to have the pregnancy when she opened her legs looking for a "good time". Now don't go into the rape cases cause that is a totally different subject, I am focusing on those women that had sex with full knowledge of what they were doing ultimately leads to pregnancy. Every birth control says that it is not 100% effective, so the woman always knows there is that potential.

 

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Makeing-fun-of-people-who-can-count-past-10-without-takeing-off-their-shoes/373220242216?sk=wall

 

Contradiction # 666 - Voting Democratic is the Smart choice.
*************************************
I guess no one has heard Sean Hannity's or Howard Stern's
Man on the street { Streets of New York City } interviews of the
typical Obama voter.Some of them so brick stupid they thunk Dick
Cheney was Obama's V.P.

 

1 - I don't see contradiction there - you kill a to be criminal and no further crimes are comitted. but I agree that abortion is a terrible thing.
2 - Internet would be in the hands of the people if not for capitalism - it was invented using tax payers money by military research.
3 - yep. just like neocons/Bushists who are anti gay yet anti Iranian "human abuses" of pedophiles and gays
4 - agree
5 - do you mean like in schools? do they do the muslim thing in schools now? if they just do the christian i can understand to ban it because it discriminates against other beliefs. i agree with democrats in this case, but if they allow islamic rituals in schools, then you're right.
6 - I somewhat agree, but there's no clear answer
7 - Same exact hypocrisy exists on both sides, unarguably. just like bushists were against clintons foreign intervention yet did nothing but intervene in the middle east and other places
8 - ok, this is a joke thread. thx for wasting my time

 

This is all pure bull(*)(*)(*)(*); an undeveloped newborn/infant/fetus doesn't have the reasoning ability of an adult chimp. That's obvious to anyone that knows a single thing about apes.

This is a vital organ (figuratively speaking) of the issue. In this case it's not about what *could* be, it's about what *is*.

Are you a conservative? If so, you should not be thinking about what *could* be, you should be thinking about what *is*. For instance, if someone carries a gun, they *could* shoot up a place. Would you support forcing their gun away from them if they carried one, whether in their home (they could get out and go to the neighbors and shoot them up), or elsewhere?

If not, why? It's because they haven't actually done it yet. Just like with fetuses; they're not actually intelligible yet, so even if they *could* be at a later time, that doesn't matter.

This is the heart of the issue. The main reason why I support abortion is because people who need to have abortions, usually shouldn't be having kids in the first place.

Actually, my anger lies with people who shouldn't have kids, who don't get abortions. But that's another story