Leftists Will Be Leftists
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand's comments on the pro-life cause and its advocates are illustrative of the left's increasing extremism, militancy and disturbingly intolerant and authoritarian mindset.
Someone asked Gillibrand if having a litmus test for judicial nominees would threaten judicial independence, as she has promised to only appoint justices who would affirm the Supreme Court case of Roe v. Wade, which created -- out of whole cloth -- a constitutional right to abortion.
"I think there's some issues that have such moral clarity that we have as a society decided that the other side is not acceptable," said Gillibrand. "Imagine saying that it's OK to appoint a judge who's racist or anti-Semitic or homophobic ... asking someone to appoint someone who takes away basic human rights of any group of people in America. ... I don't think those are political issues anymore."
"And we believe in this country in the separation of church and state, and I respect the rights of every American to hold their religious beliefs true to themselves, but our country and our Constitution has always demanded that we have a separation of church and state," she continued. "And all these efforts by President Trump and other ultra-radical conservative judges and justices to impose their faith on Americans is contrary to our Constitution, and that's what this is. And so, I believe that for all of these issues, they are not issues that there is a fair other side. There is no moral equivalency when you come to racism, and I do not believe there is a moral equivalency when it comes to changing laws that deny women reproductive freedom."
What a treasure trove of otherworldly statements! You have to wonder whether this longer-than-long-shot Democratic presidential fantasist actually believes these things or if she is just desperate to outflank her rivals to the left.
Contemplate the arrogance of asserting that society has reached moral clarity in saying that it is wrong to change laws that deny women reproductive freedom. Polls show that Americans are equally divided on the abortion question, so who does Gillibrand have in mind when she says "society"? Does she live in an impenetrable bubble, or does she have such contempt for those who disagree that she doesn't consider them valued members of society?
She seems to be saying that the pro-choice half of America has decided that the other half "is not acceptable." This inference is not a stretch, considering that leftists consider most of us "deplorables," and that they declare a consensus on other factual and moral questions to discourage further debate. They foreclose, by fiat, debate on climate change and many cultural issues. If you disagree with any of the left's politically correct pronouncements, even if they have been established for only five minutes, you are not only unquestionably wrong but also irredeemably evil. So absolute is the leftists' position on these "settled questions" that the questions can't even be considered political.
This is dangerous thinking, but it is how leftists think. They take a position, grow increasingly entrenched and then declare a societal consensus. Consensus doesn't mean that almost everyone agrees but that everyone who matters, or who is reasonable, does. This is a neat circular trick. Proclaim, for example, that the pro-life position is so manifestly wrong that anyone who disagrees -- even if dissenters equal proponents in number -- is unreasonable and immoral.
Next consider her statement that no one who "takes away basic human right of any group of people in America" should be appointed to the court. The basic human right to which she refers is a woman's "reproductive freedom." You would expect that a right that constitutes a "basic human right" would at least be clearly stated, rather than shrouded with deceitful euphemism. "Reproductive freedom" in pro-abortion parlance has nothing to do with reproduction. Abortion only occurs when reproduction has already occurred. Reproductive freedom means the right to kill an unborn baby, which is quite the antithesis of reproduction. It is destruction. More important, it ignores the basic human right to life of the unborn baby.
Gillibrand is correct about one thing. There is abundant moral clarity on the abortion issue. With certain exceptions, which are debatable, it is wrong to kill an unborn baby. But unlike the Gillibrand left, conservatives aren't likely to declare dissenters as societal outcasts or their views beyond debate.
Finally, there is the left's ongoing misinformation about the so-called separation of church and state. While the Constitution's First Amendment Establishment Clause prohibits the federal government (and state governments via the incorporation doctrine) from establishing or unduly supporting a national religion, it does not prohibit people from supporting or opposing laws consistent with their faith. I support laws against murder, theft and other things based on my Christian beliefs. Secularists support and oppose laws based on their beliefs. All groups are free to do that without violating the Establishment Clause, and if you deny them the right to advocate for or oppose laws based on their respective worldviews, then you violate their First Amendment right to free speech and possibly the right to the free exercise of religion.
It is ironic that people so confused about basic constitutional issues and fundamental moral questions presume their absolute moral superiority on such questions and declare them beyond debate. But leftists will be leftists.
Tags
Who is online
38 visitors
“And so, I believe that for all of these issues, they are not issues that there is a fair other side. There is no moral equivalency when you come to racism, and I do not believe there is a moral equivalency when it comes to changing laws that deny women reproductive freedom."
What a treasure trove of otherworldly statements! You have to wonder whether this longer-than-long-shot Democratic presidential fantasist actually believes these things or if she is just desperate to outflank her rivals to the left.
Contemplate the arrogance of asserting that societyhas reached moral clarity in saying that it is wrong to change laws that deny women reproductive freedom. Polls show that Americans are equally divided on the abortion question, so who does Gillibrand have in mind when she says "society"? Does she live in an impenetrable bubble, or does she have such contempt for those who disagree that she doesn't consider them valued members of society?
She seems to be saying that the pro-choice half of America has decided that the other half "is not acceptable." This inference is not a stretch, considering that leftists consider most of us "deplorables," and that they declare a consensus on other factual and moral questions to discourage further debate. They foreclose, by fiat, debate on climate change and many cultural issues. If you disagree with any of the left's politically correct pronouncements, even if they have been established for only five minutes, you are not only unquestionably wrong but also irredeemably evil. So absolute is the leftists' position on these "settled questions" that the questions can't even be considered political.
This is dangerous thinking, but it is how leftists think. They take a position, grow increasingly entrenched and then declare a societal consensus. Consensus doesn't mean that almost everyone agrees but that everyone who matters, or who is reasonable, does. This is a neat circular trick. Proclaim, for example, that the pro-life position is so manifestly wrong that anyone who disagrees -- even if dissenters equal proponents in number -- is unreasonable and immoral.”
Only the racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic bigots that were defined in the "basket of deplorable's" comment. I know not all conservatives are like that, so if the other half, the non-deplorables, would just stand up and condemn those racist pieces of shit, condemn the Nazi's and white supremacists, maybe we could all move back towards the middle and come to some consensus on basic mutually beneficial legislation.
That comment should be taken to mean that you believe (Based on [NOTHING)deleted] and other conservatives some progressives are racist sexist homophobic Islamaphobic xenophobes, too...
So Very Telling.
Which, based on the reactions of NT liberals, seems to include everyone to the right of Bernie Sanders. [deleted]
Why in the world would any self respecting racist sexist homophobic Islamaphobic xenophobes ever be Democtats?
The word "too" means "also" which would normally indicate "in addition to yourself". Perhaps you should be more careful expressing yourself if that was not what you intended to convey because that is how your comment would be construed by reasonable persons...
Because they see women, people of color, and ethnic minorities as incapable of achieving success or justice without the intervention of a benevolent Democratic government. The notion that such people need help based on what they are is - by definition - racist, sexist, xenophobic, etc., i.e. bigoted. Their bigotry is tied to the desire for power.
There's nothing wrong with advocating for people who have been treated unfairly and I think the Democratic Party has done a better job overall on that front in recent decades than the Republican Party has. However, in politics, we often see people cross the line from compassion and justice-seeking into paternalism, prejudice, and bigotry.
That's how we can have Democrats remark on how articulate Barack Obama is. They were excited because they figure you don't normally see that quality in a black candidate. Racist.
That's why when we talk about controlling migration from Mexico, a Democrat thinks racism is happening. He thinks "Mexican" is a race. He doesn't understand that Mexico is made up of many ethnic backgrounds. They also don't realize that every president Mexico ever had looked as white as any president the US ever had (Obama notwithstanding).
When we talk about getting people off of food stamps, Democrats seem to think there are no white people impacted by that.
[Deleted]
Drivle.
Not often enough.
Denying women reproductive freedom is almost entirely motivated by paternalism, prejudice and bigotry and is being perpetrated exclusively by GOP majority legislatures.
So then what is the motivation for Republicans remarks on how articulate Obama is? Conservative media characterized Obama as articulate ad nauseam.
Oh and BTW, if characterizing a black candidate as articulate is racist, what is it when characterizing a white candidate as articulate?
Since when did the compliment of remarking that someone is articulate become inherently patronizing or racist?
Would you prefer it to be called xenophobia or does ethnic discrimination sound better to you?
So you think that Democrats are stupid.
Mexico is made up of many RACIAL backgrounds too. In FACT, the vast majoiryt of ethnic HISPANICS are multiracial. THAT is why HISPANIC is a self identified ethnicity. THAT is why the term 'non- Hispanic whites' is used in demographics.
Oh and BTFW, in PRACTICE, Mexican IS a race, as proven by the studies of the Arizona 'papers please' legislation that found that stops were based on 'racial profiling', i.e. not being 'white or black'.
Yet NONE of them would self identify as such...
They do? What lead you to that conclusion? Do you actually think that elected Democrats don't recognize what percentage of their white constituents are on food stamps? How about the Democratic mayors y'all diss ad nauseam? Think they're clueless about the racial makeup of poor people in their cities/towns.
Your comment is a plethora of partisan clap trap.
Good points and well said.
True enough.
Actually that is what so many but not quite all urban secular progressive bi coastal and Chicago leftists do such as the one that is the topic of the seeded article.
Lefties appear to use minorities and women as pawns in their quest for power and exploit them unashamedly.
Yup, Like LBJ said : "I'll have those n*****s voting Democratic for 200 years.".
Guess you skipped the part where I praised the Democratic Party. Typical.
At least I know how to spell "drivel."
[deleted]
Let me be extremely clear. I have been called, "articulate" before and what crossed my mind is a person who speaks in a manner which does not digress often in a single discussion. Thus, being an articulate speaker is a positive statement about the speaker. Nothing more.
That some republicans, some conservatives, and stubbornly some others, used the word, articulate, to beat Joe Biden with as just another in a series of gaffe phrasings from the man simply demonstrates the low-ceiling we have in our political communications - that a single word can be manipulated to do so much harm.
We need more political grow and development in this country. We come off like children playing with (political) fire all the time now.
One last thing, Barack Obama is articulate and has taken great effort to be so.
Of course. He is a well educated man and speaks as you expect a person with his education to speak. The implication often is that he - or some other person of color - speaks well "for a black guy." That's when we have a problem.
Because for the most part that is exactly what they were and still are.
Nope. I read that part and I include it in my characterization.
Oh that really hit home Tacos!. /s
If you've got something worthwhile to say, please proceed, but if that's all you've got, move on...
Actually, we have a problem when people ASSUME that it was meant to mean 'for a black guy'.
And it is in misconstruing the devil's work is continuing. Many politicians use vernaculars, catch phrases, adages, and idioms which are regionally beloved; and, these are always seeking a way out into worldly expression.
Plenty people are not articulate. For example: President Donald Trump who has a deliberate speaking style which puts on display an overabundance of words. Trump has unintentionally an artificial team of translators of his statements built-in his presidency. Sadly, Trump's way of speaking with cause widespread destruction to his legacy when historians try to decipher the: whats and whys of our 45th president.
Joe Biden in context did not mean Barack Obama "speaks well for a black guy" — at the least, Biden meant Barack checks off Biden's personal set of boxes as a man who moves discussions forward consistently. (If I may be so bold to interpret.)
Thank you for your attention to this, Taco. It is noted.
[deleted]
Townhall has become as much of a cesspool as your other favorite sources American Thinker and Conservative News.
I have to laugh at the tortured logic in this article about "consensus". We have for three years heard "conservatives" claim to have a majority for Trump when he has never come close to having a majority of Americans supporting him.
All polling shows a majority of Americans believe abortion should be legal , and has for many many years.
Abortion Poll: Majority Wants To Keep Abortion Legal, But With ... - NPR
That you are sick of me is a point of pride for me. I wear it as a badge of honor. [deleted]
You seeded an article that whines that the pro choice people are not the majority. That is actually the underlying premise of the article.
Then we see a poll from a few days ago that shows 75% of Americans support keeping Roe in place.
You dont have a leg to stand on, not that that has ever stopped you before.
The seeded article argues that Roe should be reversed and appears to be saying so on the basis that it doesnt have true support. `
I havent seen any polls in the past 30 years that show an equal breakdown on both sides of whether or not abortion should be legal. The majority has always favored keeping Roe in effect.
[Removed]
The comment is nothing more than a lie
If we were going by popular vote there would be no abortion after the first trimester and there would have to be a good reason to have one.
Do you realize that is a deflection?
Since your seed didn't even make that ridiculous claim, you have the burden of proof.
Please proceed...
It sure as fuck is since both the seed nor John's comment are about the percentage of Americans want to keep abortion legal vs. the percentage that want to make it illegal.
Your comment doesn't address that topic.
That's the part of the polling that John didn't give us. But since you asked here it is:
"In some years, including this one, more Americans may identify as pro-choice than pro-life, but more than six in 10 of those who say they are pro-choice (61 percent) join the three-quarters of all Americans in wanting abortion restricted to – again, at most – the first trimester. So do about six in 10 Democrats (59 percent), eight in 10 independents (78 percent) and nine in 10 Republicans (92 percent)."
Thanks for the oppurtunity.....As always, It's been my pleasure!
Exactly.
I just reread the seeded article. I don't see anything in there acknowledging that the actual consensus is that Row V Wade should stay in place.
The writer rather fumblingly tries a little sleight of hand in claiming that pro-choice acts as if they have a consensus on their side, but the article never has a word of realization of the fact that 3/4 of Americans support Roe. The article talks about how abortion is murder. That is not a consensus position.
A consensus only counts if the people's elected representatives enact law. If that had happened I am certain we wouldn't be so divided over the issue. The fact is that the SCOTUS used a right of privacy, which isn't mentioned in the Constitution to essentially enact legislation. But, what the hell, it extended new rights, so it was a real feel-good decision!
Perhaps it would behoove you to recognize that a poll isn't necessarily a reflection of the 'popular vote'.
So you still have an opportunity to support Xx's claim with data that's actually relevant.
actually it’s not. It is 100% truthful.
The data was relevant. Next?
What will it take for you and religious people like you to keep your religious beliefs out of my uterus, my life, and my bedroom? Your god doesn't exist so you cannot claim to be enforcing its mythological mandates.
The Bible does not oppose abortion, but you continue to ignore this fact. The bible says that you are not a person until you breathe air, which happens at birth. Is this another passage of the Bible that you have removed from your copy and your beliefs?
Less than two seconds to prove you wrong.
Seems that the Democratic Presidential candidates and the DNC are all against the Hyde act; and pro federally funded abortions.
Well then we can just have an online poll instead of an election, right Xx?
You wish you could have had that on November 8, 2016! We’ve never had an actual national election regarding abortion in this country.
You haven't the vaguest fucking idea what I wish Xx.
That's because we have never had an actual national election for anything except the presidency Xx.
THAT'S why the issue wouldn't win the 'popular vote'.
We don't vote on constitutional issues or rights in the US because it would be an example of the tyranny of the majority. The minority do not have to seek the majority approval for permission for their equal rights. This is why the Bill of Rights exists to guarantee everyone equal rights, especially when they may be a minority or hold a view that is not approved by the majority.
There is absolutely nothing that you can say or do to achieve what you desire of us. Also the seeded article never made opposition to termination of the life of ones own son or daughter an issue of religion.
Actually the election for the president is 48 states and a district having 49 separate non cumulative elections for all the electoral votes of that state and district and 2 states allowing the electoral vote of each of its districts go to whoever wins the given district with 2 EV’s going to whoever wins statewide. There is no such thing as a national popular vote for President and there never will be one that means anything.
What do you believe that I desiring of you or other religious conservatives?
This is an irrelevant reply.
Amen
No need to attack the source. I thought we all agreed that as long as "Media bias/fact check" had the source within the bounds of reasonable sources, (with the description included) they would be ok to use. I happen to think the "Media bias/fact check" has a leftist slant, but i'm forced to accept it. You have cited it when you wanted to dispose of "Judicial Watch", which for some insane reason is rated as over the line by "Media bias". So let's either accept every bit of the standard being used by NT or petition Perrie to change the standard.
you are correct in what you say and it gets worse over time as they re rate stuff constantly and what was ok yesterday isn’t today and the source they rate never changed anything. There are at least half a dozen sites that were fine here last year that since the beginning of this year no longer are and nothing about those sites changed at all. What Limbaugh said about the left and so called consensus above in the seeded article so applies to MBFC.
I didnt make a comment about Media Bias Fact Check, why did you?
I'll describe XX Jefferson's deplorable sources any way I like.
The first two paragraphs of the article claim Roe v Wade decision is illegitimate, and then claims that his view has public support.
The vast number of Americans want Roe kept in place.
It's a shitty article from a shitty website.
As I pointed out with "Judicial Watch", which is out of bounds, there is no valid reason for excluding it. All JW does is utilize the Freedom of Information Act to get documents released to the public. One might want to argue that all of Judicial Watch's targets are left wing targets, but everything that JW gets published is documentary!
So, again why is JW out of bounds?
The other thing I question is the degree of the ratings themselves. The Washington Post is described as having a "left-center bias." It's only "left-center"? Give me a break!!!
The vast majority want some restrictions on abortion. Aborting up to the due date on any aged female is too extreme, even for most liberals.
Because you called "Town Hall" a cesspool along with two other publications. As long as Media Bias say's they are within bounds, they are ok.
I'll describe XX Jefferson's deplorable sources any way I like.
You keep calling them deplorable and one gets the impression that your'e trolling.
The first two paragraphs of the article claim Roe v Wade decision is illegitimate, and then claims that his view has public support.
Yup, the entire "Pro-Life" movement grew out of that outrageous decision!
The vast number of Americans want Roe kept in place.
Really? Then why weren't the people's elected officials ever allowed to vote on it?
It's a shitty article from a shitty website.
Say's you, for the third time!
That's the part John didn't mention
I think it's safe to say that JW is feared within the beltway and might just be the primary reason for Hillary's private server.
Perhaps you can point out were John suggested that Townhall be excluded?
If you can't, your comments about ratings are strawmen.
Are you under some delusion that there are no restrictions on abortions?
Why do you keep spewing crap that's been proven to you is utterly false?
Talk about "strawmen", John called Townhall a cesspool. I interpret that as a discrediting and a dismissal of the source.
Your'e the old wordsmith, you don't interpret it that way?
Why on earth not?
If the article argued that a majority wants access to abortion with some certain restrictions such as late term, the article might have a point.
Right at the start the article argues that the Roe decision was created from whole cloth, in other words it should be overturned. That ended any opportunity for the writer to talk honestly about "consensus".
That applies to a lot of Christian conservative groups as well that SPLC and or MBFC poorly rate. They fear us. I think it awesome that the more poorly rated some of our groups are, the more powerful they have become within our government. Concerned women for America, Alliance Defending Freedom, Family Research Council, FAIR, CIS, etc. and others. Our leaders have key positions within in the executive branch, state department, we have our spokespersons testifying before Congress and on congressional staffs, our members argue cases before the Supreme Court and are appointed to lower courts. They try to marginalize us and now through the efforts of members of congress and the President, indirectly, we govern them. Oh the rich irony! deleted
It used to be that attacking the seeder or the source was not allowed....
That's not a valid argument in your opinion? Many legal scholars claim just that including those who are in favor of legal abortion. Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg criticized the decision!
“My criticism of Roe is that it seemed to have stopped the momentum on the side of change,” Ginsburg said. She would’ve preferred that abortion rights be secured more gradually, in a process that included state legislatures and the courts, she added. Ginsburg also was troubled that the focus on Roe was on a right to privacy, rather than women’s rights.
Roe vs. Wade was created from whole cloth, was/is and forever will be as long as it is in force illegitimate, and should be overturned.
Maybe, but it's highly unlikely.
From a scientific standpoint, you'll lose.
From a religious standpoint, you'll lose. (And can't pass laws based on religion anyway)
From a legal standpoint, you'll lose.
The only possible argument left is a "moral standpoint". And since you cannot legislate morals, you'll lose there too.
.
Add to all of that, the SCOTUS over turning it's own rulings is EXTREMELY rare.
Have you got some scientific evidence of when life begins? If that's what you are referring to, I'd like to see it.
Oh FFS, Tex, just stop with the strawman bullshit.
Your interpretation is evolving before my eyes.
So was a 'dismissal of the source' or a reason that it should be 'excluded' Vic?
Aw shucks Vic.
Which interpretation? Your first one or your second one?
I KNOW what I wrote Tex, hence my statement that your reply:
Is a strawman.
NOWHERE in either of the sentences I posted do I even hint that "the vast majority want no restrictions whatsoever on abortions" OR "that most liberals want abortion up to the due date".
So NO I WASN'T saying that and YES, arguing that I did is a strawman.
Whenever another member posts a strawman, I intent to call it out as such. In short, I won't stop.
Dred Scott and Plessey v Ferguson were similar equally horrible and wrong Supreme Court decisions that they eventually overturned.
The point is that the writer is not arguing that a consensus should be respected. He or she is arguing that Roe should be overturned. Elsewhere in the article the writer talks about the fact that there are an "equal" number of those who are pro choice or pro life. That is NOT true when you are talking about Roe v Wade. 75% of Americans support the Roe v Wade decision.
Once the writer said that Roe is not a legitimate decision he lost the ability to claim that an equal number of Americans support his position. That is simply not true.
I ASKED:
Why do you keep spewing crap that's been proven to you is utterly false?
READ MORE CAREFULLY Tex.
Obviously not since your comment is utter BS.
True. She thought her private server would be beyond the reach of FOIA requests from Judicial Watch and other honorable watch dog organizations. Of course it wasn’t protected from foreign intelligence agencies. It was only to protect her against us Americans whom she noted as her enemies by calling us deplorables.
And we won’t stop expressing our viewpoint and or opinions/beliefs no matter how vigorously you protest our words here. We will only up the ante and double down in response to your straw man accusations.
Your desperate need to misrepresent the content of my comments is irrational.
You are deliberately refusing to recognize the function of a question mark. Again, irrational.
Please proceed and take your supercilious comments with you.
Who are these 'we' you speak of Xx?
BTFW, I can't help but notice that you failed to express a viewpoint. Opportunity missed?
What 'strawman accusations' are those Xx? Please be specific when you 'up the anti and double down in response'.
[deleted]
[I have tied to be patient with you, but any more of this nonsense, and you will find yourself on another long vacation. This site has community standards, and if you don't like them, then find another community.]
There is no elective abortion past 24 weeks. This is known as the age of fetal viability. You have been told this numerous times by numerous people but you continue to repeat this partisan falsehood.
There is no elective abortion past 24 weeks
Not that facts matter in this debate, but that’s 100%false.
And American Thinker and Conservative Daily News? Other than that you disagree with their news and opinions, what was wrong with them? Besides nothing.
What state allows elective abortions beyond the point of fetal viability? If it were elective beyond that point of viability, a woman would not need the permission of doctors(s) to proceed.
Colorado, Oregon and others which you can look up if you'd like
Survival @ 25 weeks is about 50% and over 50% have 'moderate to severe' disabilities. Premature births [before 37 weeks] cost the US about 30 Billion every year. I can't imagine what the numbers would be if they required intensive medical intervention for all aborted fetuses and extremely premature babies.
Those are not elective abortions because they would violate the current SCOTUS standard because they require an extenuating medical circumstance after 26 weeks.
Violate the current Scouts standard
1. You fundamentally misunderstand the current SCOTUS standard. It doesn't put any requirements on states to restrict abortion.
2. I have no idea what your source is. Please point out the Colorado statute you are referencing. Guttmacher institute says it has zero restrictions.
A state cannot place undue restricts on the availability of abortion up to the point of fetal viability, which is 22-26 weeks.
This is from Guttmacher,
yes. That's what I said. you said the opposite above. Per your link:
states may prohibit abortion after fetal viability. There's no requirement that they have to prohibit any abortions, which is what you claimed the Supreme Court does.
With regards to Colorado, I assume your source is referring to what abortion providers publicly announce the age they will perform abortions up to..
Here's Findlaw's page for Colorado, which confirms Guttmacher:
"Colorado does not have any law restricting a time limit on when an abortion maybe obtained."
[deleted]
If you are comparing yourself to windmills, I would argue that at least windmills provide useful functions.
The best point of the seeded article,
“She seems to be saying that the pro-choice half of America has decided that the other half "is not acceptable." This inference is not a stretch, considering that leftists consider most of us "deplorables," and that they declare a consensus on other factual and moral questions to discourage further debate. They foreclose, by fiat, debate on climate change and many cultural issues. If you disagree with any of the left's politically correct pronouncements, even if they have been established for only five minutes, you are not only unquestionably wrong but also irredeemably evil. So absolute is the leftists' position on these "settled questions" that the questions can't even be considered political.
This is dangerous thinking, but it is how leftists think. They take a position, grow increasingly entrenched and then declare a societal consensus. Consensus doesn't mean that almost everyone agrees but that everyone who matters, or who is reasonable, does. This is a neat circular trick.”
The English language itself has become a tool of mind control for the left. Notice the tightly controlled language used whenever leftists speak on issues ie: "the right of a woman to control her own body", "climate change" (in place of their old "global warming"), or even their use of "the First Amendment" (to prohibit religious practices or symbols which they dislike), (moreover they are no longer so fond of the specific freedom of speech contained in it.)
They also use the term pseudoscience, questionable, “hate” as defined by the SPLC, and propaganda to limit or question our stated opinion, our views, values, ideas, and those of sources we prefer such as Judicial Watch, Alliance Defending Freedom, Heartland Institute, Concerned Women for America, Breitbart, World Net Daily,The Stream, American Thinker, etc. and more. And yet so many further to the left are fine because they don’t oppose human caused climate change consensus or evolutionary theory.
Yup, and let's not forget they re-named themselves "Progressives" LMAO!
Indeed. That goes in historical cycles between liberal and progressive. One term gets sufficiently discredited and they switch to the other for a time.
I think we can begin to draw a line between the old fashioned liberals who used to believe in Civil Liberties and equality and Progressives who believe in special groups, special interests, retribution, reparations and victimology
Frank Luntz weaponized language on behalf of the GOP. The proliferation of his methodology throughout the W Administration proved it's effectiveness. For the Democrats NOT to acknowledge that and use it to their own advantage would be political malpractice.
Why do you have a problem with accurately describing an aspect of an issue?
Partisan clap trap.
I'll leave that to others to decide.
partisan clap trap would be the use of terms such as pseudoscience, hate, questionable, and propaganda as a method of content control against others ideas and belief preventing those who would dare to presume to disagree with their so called consensus on any given issue from expressing ourselves through the sources that promote our ideas and beliefs.
This is why it is a waste of time to talk with you. Some of the things being discussed go beyond your desire to frame them in your favor. 75% of the people is a consensus. The consensus is behind Roe.
Your descriptions of what you feel "leftists" do to you is irrelevant to that.
Now Democrats only count as people?
Per a Harris poll last month a majority want it overturned or modified.
Utter bullshit Xx. The term 'partisan clap trap' doesn't 'control against' ANYTHING.
BTW, neither do the other terms you cite.
And the words at the beginning of the thread are the labels that MBFC uses to describe websites that share with us here the identical viewpoints we have to make sites that are basically expressions of ourselves as individuals off limits here.
The article was more than about Roe. It was about leftists who form a variety of various consensus on a series of issues from Roe to climate change to evolution to whatever else they decide and then try to make all opposition to their view points out of bounds, off limits for further discussion. They use terms like pseudoscience, questionable, propaganda, hate as they define them to limit discussion, control content, call others names, and try to make an echo chamber for themselves. The way I see it David Limbaugh was calling out the internet social media sites and while he’s likely never heard of it, described MBFC and it’s users perfectly.
you realize that what you quoted we’re not my words by my quote of a snippet of the seeded article and I not only stand by those words I identify with them to my inner core as if I’d originally said them.
Emphatically.
The portion of this article displayed in the window (above) is one-sided 'noise.' It is emblematic of what busybodies do when they establish a cause and refuse to let it die once it has proven it has no basis for consuming 'oxygen' any longer. The Pro-Life Movement is a 'dead thing walking' — fall down into the grave at its feet already.
Leave girls and women, their doctors, and science to solve the problem and dilemma of reproduction. Politics makes a weak (and 'disturbed') mid-wife!
The pro life movement is alive and well despite what a certain senator from New York might think. Gillibrand is a political chameleon changing her positions on the issues to meet the viewpoint of a majority of her current constituents. Be a state rep or congress person from a rural NY district say and act one way. Get appointed to a senate seat for the whole state, do a 180 on everything she said she believed. Run for President in an ever extreme left tilting party, push the envelope further and deny her original views were ever legitimate in the 1st place. What a cheap trick she is.
Are you saying the right hasn't gone to the right? GWB was extremely popular with the repubs but just 8 years later, Jeb runs for president, a virtual clone of his brother and the right wouldn't even consider him, "too far the left", "he's a liberal"!!!!, (which applies to anyone that doesn't toe the conservative party line).
Yea, trump has never done that... /s
The issue wasn’t whether Jeb or George were conservative. All the candidates were. They are. The issue was establishment vs populist base. All of the front runners in the GOP primary were non establishment. Trump, Cruz, Carson, Fiorina.
Trump is not the topic of the seed. Reread the title and seeded article.
Cruz was a Senator and only the frontrunner for a week after he CHEATED to win Iowa.
Carson and Fiorina were NEVER frontrunners.
Actually Carson did briefly lead in the polls. Cruz ran for the senate as an outsider and still courageously acts like one. The four I named were the top four in many of the polls and Rubio moved up after Fiorina and Carson dropped out. Rubio attempted to have one foot in both the populist and the establishment side and that might work well for him in 24 as one half of a Haley Rubio ticket in either order.
You said frontrunner, not top four in the polls Xx.