The Angry Left

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by mactastic, May 23, 2006.

  1. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #1
    As someone who is often accused by posters here of being a member of 'the angry left', I thought I'd post this piece that discusses the issue.
    Essentially if you dissent, your a member of 'the angry left'.
     
  2. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #2
    iow, everything is going according to plan.
     
  3. iGary Guest

    iGary

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    Randy's House
  4. FFTT macrumors 68030

    FFTT

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Location:
    A Stoned Throw From Ground Zero
  5. IanF0729 macrumors regular

    IanF0729

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2005
    Location:
    Baltimore, Maryland; Washington, D.C.
    #5
    Phase 2 - have lithium slipped into Democrat's water supply.

    :rolleyes:
     
  6. CorvusCamenarum macrumors 65816

    CorvusCamenarum

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Location:
    Birmingham, AL
    #6
    Whereas if you disagree with the left, you're a nazi, neocon, right-wing, money-grubbing, big business-loving, intolerant, cold-hearted bastard. :rolleyes:

    I believe it was George Washington who warned us about the dangers of politcal parties, and a two-party system specifically (or was that Jefferson?).

    *Disclaimer* I am in no way, nor will I ever be, affiliated with either party. I think they both suck. Both sides occasionally say something that makes sense, yet for the most part they're both way out past the center field fence.
     
  7. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #7
    It's going to take a lot more than lithium. And it can't just be for Dems, the rest of us want some too.

    If you aren't angry, you aren't paying attention.
     
  8. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #8
    I hate it when they call the Left angry!!

    It just gets me so pissed off!!!!! :mad:

    ;)
     
  9. mactastic thread starter macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #9
    Roll your eyes all you want, but I would like to see you produce an op-ed from a newspaper with the stature of the WSJ that has called anyone on the right a Nazi, a money-grubber, or a cold-hearted bastard. You up to the challenge?
     
  10. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #10
    I would too. Show me this article.
     
  11. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #11
    I've issued this challenge before, but never had any takers. I'm willing to accept liberal pundits blabbering on a cable news networks. Even including this cesspool of political discourse, you'd be hard pressed to come up with anyone on the Left casting aspersions in the dark and mendacious manner that's become a reflex action on the Right. This statement isn't intended as a moral defense of the Left, btw, but as a reflection of the times. The Right believes it now holds fee title to the political debate. Any time any group gets to this point in their power arc, they're likely to cast all caution and judgement to the wind.
     
  12. FFTT macrumors 68030

    FFTT

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Location:
    A Stoned Throw From Ground Zero
    #12
    I'm sitting pretty much right in the middle and disgusted with
    the whole situation.
     
  13. Boggle macrumors 6502

    Boggle

    #13
    Sorry mactastic, your challange rests on a logical falicy b/c the poster's comment was not stating that "all Leftist Ideological publications state that Right Wing Ideological subscribers all are...etc. etc. etc." He was simply stating that ppl whose political philsophies are so diametrically opposed are often given to demonizing mischaracterizations of the opposition's beliefs. And what's more you already knew that b/c you've definately had experience with rhetorical construction (as anybody who's read your posts could discern).

    And just b/c the guy doesn't know about 1st and 2nd party systems of government in America's early history doesn't invalidate the concept that idealogues on both sides of the spectrum perpetuate conflict with inflamatory propoganda about the opposition.

    However, I completely support your sentiment. The closest article I know of was in that british newspaper last month (no time to find link, meeting ppl for lunch) and that doesn't come very close to the mark. Plus he was forced to print an apollogy.

    But seriously mactastic, there is such a thing as grace in victory.
     
  14. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #14
    Oh snap!.
     
  15. mactastic thread starter macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #15
    If that's true, then the statement I was responding to is a "logical fallacy" because if he truly meant that "ppl whose political philsophies are so diametrically opposed are often given to demonizing mischaracterizations of the opposition's beliefs" then he wasn't responding in any way to the point I was making.

    I have no idea what you're on about here...

    Or here...

    Or here...

    Was I rude? Tactless? I wasn't the one rolling my eyes...
     
  16. CorvusCamenarum macrumors 65816

    CorvusCamenarum

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Location:
    Birmingham, AL
    #16
    Actually I was making an attempt at satire/sarcasm which apparently didn't go over as intended. As a general rule, I try not to put too much stock into anything that boils down to "members of party X are bad because they want to _______", but as we all well know, for the most part, that's all it is these days. I'd love to see some real, honest, rhetoric-free debate in Washington about how to move this country forward in a way that benefits all of us. Then again, I'm still an idealist at heart.

    What about the early party systems do you think I don't understand? Are you referring to the fact that before the days of running mates, whomever got the 2nd highest vote count became Vice President, because the original idea was to have who the voters thought would be the two most qualified men for the job? Or something else?
     
  17. mactastic thread starter macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #17
    My point had nothing to do with blanket statements from party X saying that all members of party Y are like Z. I'm pointing out the hipocrisy of a party and media elite who have no problem smearing a veteran themselves, then turning around and acting indignant when a veteran from their side is treated unkindly.

    If you would like to vent about the opposite, by all means feel free to start your own thread, or at least provide a counterpoint with examples. I'd be willing to look at a presentation that came to a similar conclusion about the left, but all you provided was a snarky "well everyone does it" response. Not what I'd expect from someone who claims to want a rhetoric-free discussion.
     
  18. Boggle macrumors 6502

    Boggle

    #18
    I thought I got the satire, but I was more trying to say that mactastic was deliberately misconstruing your statements to make a stronger rhetorical point, that allowed him to skirt your intentions and attack a weaker position that wasn't what you were actually saying, but was a plausable interpretation of your words.

    My apologies, I shouldn't have posted w/ no time to edit. It was your attribution of the policy of not wanting a two-party system to Geroge Washington. His issue was not just the two-party system (b/c he acknowledged that factions w/in even a 1 party system would amount to the same thing). He didn't want ANY political parties, and he believed (pretty strongly according to papers I've seen - mostly scans from his journals from the Mt. Vernon Estate) that a more centralized government was needed @ the formation of the USA in order to prevent another power from exploiting vulnerabilities in a young USA just recently barely surviving a terrible war.

    Short story long, you were being overly specific w/ Washington's opinion by applying it to the two party system, and I was WRONG to say you didn't know about early American government. Again, I shouldn't have posted something like that w/o time to edit.
     
  19. Boggle macrumors 6502

    Boggle

    #19
    No, but I do think you were being disingenous w/ your interpretation of his statements. The rolls eyes emote does say "sarcastic" on it, so I thought his satirical but not offensive tone was clear. I'd be more specific in my repsonces but there'd be quotes all over this blasted post so...as I said in my previous post, I was short on time, and shouldn't have put my two cents in w/o having had time to edit. Therefore, as I felt it necessary to apollogize to him, so I do to you. I shouldn't have become involved when I had no time to really digest the info b4 posting. Sorry about that.
     
  20. mactastic thread starter macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #20
    With all due respect, was the point of post #6 not "well the left does the same thing to the right"?

    Or did I miss something?
     
  21. Boggle macrumors 6502

    Boggle

    #21
    I don't think that was his aim, but as said in the two previous posts. I didn't really have time to digest the info, and trying to go back and rehash it now has a good chance of only confusing matters so I'm letting my apollogies stand.
     
  22. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #22
    i can't help but thinking that adopting a national language would solve all this miscommunication.
     
  23. mactastic thread starter macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #23
    Ok, so with all the confusion and the I-said versus the I-really-meant that's going on here, I'll just have to ask the question:

    Is it a sign of anger to dissent? Is it a sign of anger to dissent publicly to a government official?
     
  24. Boggle macrumors 6502

    Boggle

    #24
    Not to me. My dissent is usually done to express disagreement, and make my opinions clear. I always thought that expressing opinions in favor of or against all levels of government was one of the responsibilities of US citizenship. If you live in the USA and want representation you have to speak out with your vote on election day AND your voice the rest of the time. You can't sit quietly back (though it seems many do) and expect to find a candidate in every election who represents the ideas important to you.
     
  25. CorvusCamenarum macrumors 65816

    CorvusCamenarum

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Location:
    Birmingham, AL
    #25
    No harm, no foul.

    That speaks for itself, and quite well.

    No of course not. I would argue that dissent is expected and required, because without a contrary point of view there can be no debate. The original point I was making was that instead of a real debate, deciding what's best for everyone, and getting it done, both sides of the aisle have resorted instead to sandbox name calling.
     

Share This Page