Posted on 09/25/2015 8:53:52 AM PDT by Kaslin
Not always. Not everyone. But enough.
This week, for example, while thinking about the pope's take on global warming, I tweeted out this comment: "Celebrate climate change, an externality of the greatest poverty destroying program in the history of mankind." There is plenty to disagree with in my observation, I admit. Although I believe what I wrote to be true, I sent it out partly to elicit exactly the sort of reaction my tweet got -- with one person calling me a psychopath (a Slate writer, not some anonymous critic) and another calling me sociopathic, among other things. I don't mind the insults (perversely, in fact, I sort of enjoy them), but I do mind that the debate is over.
Conservatives may be ethically compromised, uninformed or -- if liberals are in a generous mood -- mentally unstable, but they can't be for real. At least, that's the sense I increasingly get from the left these days. Blame it on social media.
When a group confuses its politics with moral doctrine, it may have trouble comprehending how a decent human could disagree with its positions. This is probably why people confuse lecturing with debating and why so many liberals can bore into the deepest nooks of my soul to ferret out all those motivations but can't waste any time arguing about the issue itself.
Are you also corrupt? Probably. Bought off by big oil, big food or big something or other? Washington is teeming with Manchurian candidates, because no one could possibly be this malicious on his own. Why should liberals debate a point when they can debate your imaginary sugar daddy? Why else would conservatives "hate workers"? Why would they "bet against America"? Why do they want to destroy democracy? Why would conservatives vote against their own interests? Someone pays them to lie.
Or maybe you favor inequality, injustice, rape culture and poverty because privilege clouds your sense of decency. If you were born wealthy (anything over 130 percent of the poverty level or so), how can anyone expect you to have empathy for the destitute? You certainly don't possess the life experience or skin color to challenge leftist economic doctrine. For inexplicable reasons -- that can't possibly have anything to do with a genuine belief in supply-side economics, a belief in property rights or an aversion to punishing success -- tens of millions of you spend your political lives protecting the interests of billionaires for no other reason than that you hate the poor.
You hate a lot of things, don't you? Like half the country, you're furtively racist and irrationally misogynistic. The American idea is erected on a foundation of intolerance, according to one of the most celebrated thinkers on the left. You hate black people, sure, but also brown people. So this bloodlust manifests when you oppose the president on foreign policy, for instance. (Then again, maybe it's the Israel lobby paying you off.) You're not anti-Iran deal; you're pro-war. Just as you're not pro-Second Amendment; you're pro-mass shootings. You're not concerned about terrorism or (genuine) illiberalism; you're a bigot. You're not pro-school choice; you're anti-children. You're not pro-traditional marriage; you're anti-dignity. You're not pro-entitlement reform; you're anti-retirement.
You're not in favor of a cost-benefit analysis when it comes to climate change policy; you're anti-science. Skeptic. Denier. Psychopath. Why do you hate Earth?
Don't like big government? You're a nihilist. Forget what your policy does; watch your tone. Transphobic. Homophobic. Eleutherophobic. Sure, you may claim that you want to save unborn girls from the scalpels of Planned Parenthood, but your real goal is to control women. Even if you're Carly Fiorina.
Or maybe you can't see things clearly because you're hooked to the most addictive opiate imaginable, religion -- which, let's face it, you probably don't properly understand or adhere to correctly. Here, let them tell you what Jesus would do. Are you part of some regressive denomination that follows doctrine and hasn't been poll testing on the left, that isn't always pleasing to millennials' ears, that hasn't evolved properly or that still clings to "religious freedom"? You're a modern-day Orval Eugene Faubus, probably. We can sue you into compliance or mock you into the 21st century, because clearly you're too selfish to be part of our future.
What conservatives (and some libertarians) possess are not arguments but corrupt and nefarious ambitions. Defend yourself. What you can't possibly have are legitimate differences of opinion.
To the Libs:
I’m done debating too.
Swim to Cuba. (It’s a worker’s paradise!).
‘Pod
there is no moral liberal
the whole point of being liberal is to have no morals
Can any of these massive intellects explain just how global warming works?
That question should be directed at the Sun.
But here is how global warming "science" works:
Of course you knew that already.
The Bolshie campaign is boiled down to, we are are going to give you more free stuff, and, the Republicans are going to take it away. What is there to debate.
Neither side can talk to each other. The language is to different.
This is how civil wars start.
[[Can any of these massive intellects explain just how global warming works?]]
Yes, “It is warmer today than it was in the 1600’s- There is more CO2 I nthe atmosphere today than in the 1600’s (IGNORING the FACT that there is LESS CO2 I nthe atmosphere than ages before the 1600’s)- Man produces CO2- Therefore Man has caused global climate change
Of course we could just as easily say “It is warmer, man eats drinks m ore Starbucks coffee than In the 1600’s coffee is hot- therefore man has caused global climate change-
The FACT is that in the entire industrial age combined- man has produced so little CO2 that it is SHAMEFUL to even suggest that man can be causing lciamte chnge- Man’s total contribution of CO2 comprises is just 0.0037% of the atmosphere- that’s it- There is NO thick blanket of CO2 preventing heat from escaping- just 0.0037% of the atmosphere has CO2 in it=-
There is NO WAY this small amount can capture enough CO2 to cause Anything!
Claiming this small amount can cause climate change is akin to claiming that one man taking a piss In the ocean once a year is causing global flooding
We should also ask the ‘experts’ why it is that CO2 only rises 800-1400 years AFTER temps rise IF CO2 is the cause of climate change
AND we should ask the experts why terms have remained flat for 2 decades while CO2 production has risen
Good one. Certainly worth the debate it isn't going to get.
Every now and then the liberals like to shift gears and proclaim an end to toleration of conservatism and conservatives. Ideally, they'd like to frame us up on some b.s. charge and ship us off to Siberia the way the Russian Communists did (Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago is depressing, but instructive). But then an election forestalls their denouement.
In spring 1993, a Clintonista scribbled in the damp pages of The Atlantic Monthly that the great debate was over; that conservatism had had its Reagan Thermidor, and that now the halcyon election of a slimy rapist on one of the weakest pluralities in U.S. history meant that it was *all* over for conservatism. Liberals and their isms and itches had won history, not just the Electoral College, and it was time, this flatworm insisted, to criminalize policy differences and conservative speech, and start sending conservative Republicans like Newt Gingrich to the gulag, if not the chair.
Then the election of 1994 occurred, and the People sent Newt to the speaker's chair.
Damned elections.
“Neither side can talk to each other. The language is to different.”
“This is how civil wars start.”
You’re totally right and it is not just a matter of politics, the country has been dumbed down to the point that Obama, when talking about Obamacare, said something that would have gotten him tagged as a blithering idiot thirty years ago but now he can say it and the crowd doesn’t seem to know that he sounds like an idiot. Even some on FR don’t seem to understand that he is talking like an utter idiot, yes I mean literally an idiot, I am not overstating. Listen to what he says and please tell me how this country has gotten to the point that a man can say something so stupid and still occupy the oval office. The worst part is that many on FR don’t seem to grasp how idiotic his statement is. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tY0ve87vQMs IDIOCRACY WAS a documentary, it is now a nostalgia film about the good old days.
Keeping in mind that AGW is a Communist fraud, warmed over from their old "we must take control of the economy!!!" platforms, the carbon-dioxide mental tic began with scientific arm-waving as planetary astronomers tried to explain the raging, 700-degree temps on Venus.
The fact that Earth is 50% farther from the sun than Venus, and therefore receives 1/4 as much insolation, seems not to be convenient to people trying to hang CO2 levels on the human race as an actionable harm demanding the united opposition of all the workers' soviets.
Real climate scientists have shown the delinking of carbon dioxide from atmospheric temperatures so often that we, the intended victim public, stand in bafflement at the tenacity of our adversaries. But our opponents, by contrast, are not shaken or deterred. They are resolute and they are militant, and they will never concede so much as a matchstick. They are always right and they never lie. They are Communists.
You say that like it is a bad thing.
If a civil war broke out right now in the US, who do you think would win? Obama and Goldman Sachs and the NWO, or American citizens who have no entree to the resources of the entire planet? Remember what Shelby Foote said about one arm, and the other arm. Now we are talking about an army of vampire squids. There is no shortage of arms. Or suckers.
Rather have secession and a peaceful separation than war. But if it's war so be it. So stuff it "sit to pee".
Who is “sit to pee”?
Exactly. They are morons.
ZOMBIES? THE BIG MOUTH IN FRONT APPEARS TO HAVE FANGS...
It is a bad thing. Look at what happens when a civil war starts in a modern state.
The Finnish civil resulted in a 10% population reduction. Syria is pretty much done, and the Balkans have yet to recover.
It would be the end of the USA no matter who won, and massive deaths on both sides. No to mention that power, water, and food distribution would end for much of the population.
It would not be fun. To many have visions of Red Dawn, and not reality. This goes for both sides.
I was in high school when that article was published.
My Social Studies teacher, a man I respect to this day, brought that into his class and told us this is how things like genocide start.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.