New Left Designs Craven Video Game: Tea Party Zombie Shooting Spree

The left’s new tone is taking it to the next level – quite literally. Now if you’re a bored union thug tied of beating up tea party sons-a-bitches in person after a long day sipping beer on the job, you have a whole new way to vent your hostility towards those making outrageous demands like “pay your own way”…you can virtually shoot and hack them to death!

In the hot new first-person shooter “Tea Party Zombies Must Die,” you are tasked with ridding the world of undead FoxNews fiends and dastardly Koch brothers. Recent college grads with lots of time on their hands might find the game so addictive they won’t even have time to sort their socks and put them in the basement hamper like mommy wants.

Which reminds me – hey mom, how bout a hot pocket? Stat!

Desensitization, dehumanization, this game has it all. From machete-cleaving Sean Hannity’s butt-cut to softening Michelle Bachmann up before a necrophilia-crazed hate-f*** (fantasizing here), there’s a little something for all lefties to enjoy while seeking some downtime from all their compassion.

But my question is, why stop at video games?  Why not just start building bombs now, like Obama’s Weatherman terrorist friend Bill Ayers?  Well, not quite like the Weathermen, they unfortunately weren’t bright enough to assemble all the explosives without some unfortunate oopsies.

All sarcasm aside, this is crucial to understand: Cultural marxists know no boundaries. Whether it be the news, academia, the courts, the military, movies, music, entertainment, these true zombies will not rest until they turn the nation into a totalitarian state.

For a little deep background, check out Michel Foucault, a new lefty who espoused the view that ‘power relations are inescapable.’ This is partially what fuels the left’s unscrupulous lust to dominate all spheres of human life, and their need to destroy everything good in the interest of “equality.” (This is more a Kantian precept.)

The left is immoral without bounds and is adhering to the new religion of environmentalism, which one might have noticed is starting to metastasize like a cancer into everything. This is the brain disease that leads to invasion of the body snatchers-like obedience out of the faithful.

It is always interesting to see the left project their own mindless conformity onto others, in this case, by calling their opponents “zombies.” While this game will be laughed off by lefties, can you imagine the media outrage if tea party activists made their own zombie shoot-em-up starring Democrats called President Evil? Dripping feral headlines plastered across every newspaper and magazine, and wall-to-wall coverage on the barbarity of those dangerous “anti-government” types.

But  isn’t it interesting the left’s demonization of FoxNews as THE LONE SEMI-CONSERVATIVE NEWS STATION ON TV? FoxNews is such a target (if you’ll pardon me for the new tone violation) because from daycare, K-12, and college to grad school it is all leftism, all the time. A hundred different media outlets and all the same thing from ‘geniuses’ who happen to think exactly alike and in just the way the government would want them to. Anyone with a different opinion must be stupid, and probably deserves shootin’.

But why are conservatives such rubes for swimming against the intellectual currents and holding on to the philosophically rooted and historically grounded position that giving the government power over people’s lives, out of good or bad intentions, is always a bad idea?

Why don’t these tea party “fools” just take the trillions in imaginary money like everyone else and go about their day, lemming like, until the economic system finally plunges off a cliff? Then we’ll be “liberated,” right?

Yeah, right. Grow a brain, lefties, and grow up. That is, if the tea party zombies haven’t sucked your last remaining brains out already.

Advertisements

23 thoughts on “New Left Designs Craven Video Game: Tea Party Zombie Shooting Spree

  1. The game looks like crap, kind of like your argument on how you generalized an entire group of people over a game that just one person made. How can you make such a blatant assumption over around half the people that live and breathe in your country? If anything, I’d like to believe that’s the greatest threat to our country. Not the ‘communist’ liberals or the ‘fascist’ Conservatives, but the few extremists on both sides who make blunt overgeneralizations towards the people that have different views than they. People which these extremists probably don’t even know.

    How can you say you love your country, if you clearly show disdain towards half of the people that share it with you? It’s easy to tell someone to grow a brain, I can say the exact same towards you, but instead I’ll just ask you politely to not go around making overgeneralizations and insulting entire groups of people over those overgeneralizations.

    And before you make a comment about me being an Obamatard I just want to let you know that I didn’t vote for him.

    1. Listen, before you shoot off, it might help waking up to the reality that the Democrats are an extremist socialist party blowing trillions in unearned money on “transformative’ change and the great majority of Democrats still support Obama. We have Obama speaking to a crowd the other day, prefaced by comments from Dick Trumka, on how they will get those “son a bitches,” and mainstream media hacks tying the Giffords shooting to Sarah Palin “target” illustrations that have been around in politics for years. If you want to lecture me, go lecture your leftist pals on how they cry “tolerance!” before leaders like Nancy Pelosi come out and equate tea partiers to Nazis (this was the Speaker of the House, mind you), and on and on. So if one of the dumbass lefties design a tea party shoot-em-up and indeed, plan to market the game, you bet your ass I’m going to call the left out on their bullshit. Go have a self-indignant compassion-fest somewhere else. Yours truly, RO

      1. ‘Waking up to reality’ Is not an argument. In fact, last time I checked those very liberals you condemn seem to like using that exact same statement as well. What’s stopping me from saying the exact same thing to you, exactly? Your idea of reality isn’t objective, and it holds no more weight than my idea of reality. The only difference is I’m asking you not to generalize an entire group of people simply because their political views differ from yours, otherwise you have no credibility when you’re arguing against those liberals that make over generalizations about the people that share your views..

        As for your statement on the democrats being ‘an extremist socialist party’ I’ll have to say that you’re completely and utterly wrong, The democrats aren’t an extremist socialist party. Compared to a lot of other democratic nations (Which just so happen to be functioning no worse than the U.S.A.) America is extroardinarily right wing. Hell, I’ll even go as far as to say that aren’t even socialist – they’re centrist.

        And even if they were socialist that wouldn’t automatically make their party bad. Last time I checked, back in vietnam we were fighting alongside the socialist south vietnamese people against the communist north vietnamese.

        I love how you speak of change as if it’s terrible. I hate to burst your bubble, but it’s because of change that you’ve got a computer, and it’s because of change that our children aren’t working in tiny cramped mines with nothing more than a candle. But fine, if you’re sick of change maybe you’ll happily strip yourself of all your clothing and throw your self in the woods.

        And of course a lot of democrats support Obama, they’re democrats! Why in the world wouldn’t they support Obama? It makes more sense for a liberal to vote in a centrist than a conservative. How is that even an argument? I don’t see any republicans supporting any democrats so why in the world should democrats be expected to do anything different?

        As for giffords, what else could we ever expect from the media? It doesn’t matter whether the news supports the left wing or right wing, they’re a bunch of dishonest twats that love spinning the story around to suit their own means, period. And the same goes for politicians like Nancy Pelosi. It’s not like the politicians you support are any better, they’re no less dishonest than the liberal ones. The only politician that probably has a shred of sincerity is probably Ron Paul, and even then I wouldn’t exactly agree with half his ideals.

        So by now do you see the point I’m trying to make? Every single group has their dishonest, obnoxious jerks and it doesn’t make you a better person to make overgeneralizations based after those few dishonest jerks.

        Your closing statement make no sense. Why in the world would you call out an entire party for the actions of just one person’s stupid game? That’s like holding the entire conservative party responsible for the actions of one politician if he decided to rape someone

        And I

  2. I’m not going to address your rambling post as a whole. But when a conservative makes an extremist comment, you will have nearly every conservative coming out and condemning him. What liberals share in common with Muslims is that they refuse to condemn extremists and their hateful rhetoric and actions. Lefties also hide behind this notion that whoever disagrees with them is automatically engaging in hate speech, which is nonsense. Ta-ta. RO

    1. Um . . .you just made an overgeneralization on muslims. And no, I don’t assume you’re engaging in hate speech because you disagree with me, I know you’re engaging in hate speech because you constantly make overgeneralizations on entire groups of people – the proof is all in your words. Every statement you make is basically ‘ALL Muslims are like this’ or ‘ALL liberals are like this!’ There’s clearly some form of prejudice going on.

      That statement on liberals not condeming extremists is just rubbish. If an atheist goes off bitching on how all christians are terrible people than I’ll tell them they’re wrong. If a liberal goes bitching on how ‘all’ conservatives are fascists then once again, I’ll tell them they’re wrong. I’m beginning to think you don’t even know what extremism even is.

      There exist some liberal extremists that consider all conservatives fascists. Tell me, how are you any different from them when you start ranting on how all liberals are extremists your self? There exist some atheists that believe the world would be better without any religious people at all. Tell me, how are you any different when you clearly think the world would be better without liberals?

      I hate to break it to you, but you’re one of those few right wing extremists. And if you think you’re any different than those few far leftwing extremists than you’re wrong, for you employ the exact same behaviour as them.

  3. Alright, let’s set the record straight.

    Since when are libs individualists? Last time I checked social scientists (and most of them are lefties, oops, I did it again) use statistics to quantify the opinions and values of entire sets of people. Sometimes these sets of people, or “universes,” comprise entire ethnic groups, “races,” religions. Are all social scientists prejudiced when they generalize?

    There is a difference between description and judgment and outright bigotry. If you can’t describe a class of objects (or people) our brains are about as good as amphibians’. Aristotle describes logically how objects and ideas can be broken up into “Categories.” Was Aristotle a bigot?

    You effectively said in an earlier post that my reality and your reality are equivalent. But how can the substance of our views be mutually exclusive, and yet we are both right? Or are we both wrong? Or is one more right and one more wrong? If reality is subjective, then what’s the point of arguing about it? You don’t exist, I don’t exist, and the point is moot. Go jump off a building if you want to test if there is an objective reality or not.

    And I’m not a fan of your Law of the Excluded Middle argument. At one point you claim America is “right-wing,” or as polls based on self-identification show, “conservative,” and then you call me a far right extremist. Now, first of all, I am in the majority of people in this country who self-identify as conservative. As the psychological methodology that liberals like to tout shows, by definition, I cannot be “extremist,” regardless of the views I hold. (I’m just teasing here – I don’t really believe in such subjectivist methodology. The majority of Muslims in countries around the world agree with jihad and martyrdom, and that doesn’t make them “moderates.”) But there is a deeper philosophical point you would do well to recognize.

    Conservatives in America are not nationalists, are not tied to tradition out of reactionary attachment, and are not opposed to progress, of a particular kind: Economic progress and the improvement of the quality of life of most Americans. They are well-versed in history, and frame liberals’ arguments in terms of similar arguments made in the past; certain kinds of policies pursued, and whether they have succeeded or failed; particular events, and analogical lessons that can be drawn; and the philosophical lessons of The Enlightenment, which guided the founders of the country.

    Conservative Americans fundamentally agree with the founders on the necessity of freedom, including the right of the people to dissent (socialists do not believe in this right), the right for people to keep the fruits of their labor (socialists do not), the right to their own security in the form of private property (socialists do not), the right to representation in the form of elections (socialists do not believe in free and fair elections), the right to bear arms for self-defense, including from government oppression (socialists do not) – who are the extremists? Is self-interest an “extremist” position? Is self-sacrifice a “moderate” position? I hold that self-interest is the natural and normal position, and self-sacrifice is the ethic of blood cults, imperialist wars (before and after the rise of modern capitalism), gulag economies, and all forms of collectivism – fascism and socialism included.

    What I pose to you is that those countries in the modern era that are free market capitalist, that do have Constitutionally limited government, are exceedingly moderate in comparison with those to the contrary. Life in capitalist republics is vibrant, thriving, industrious, and marked by high rates of leisure time, an exceptional quality of life, and relative ease. The further America has gotten from free market principles and Constitutionally limited government, unsurprisingly, the more bellicose it has become. For example, George W. Bush went to war with Congressional authorization: Congress did not declare war as stipulated in The Constitution. Barack Obama led American troops into Libya, boots on the ground and all, without even Congressional authorization.

    Who are the extremists? Those who seek Congressional declarations of war, or those who think presidents should rule as dictators, that is, by fiat?

    Fiscally, conservatives are for living within the means of the taxpayers. The constant bemoaning of inequity in the American economy belies that many believe that producing in the country opens them up to everyone else getting a cut. But for what? For merely existing? The majority of people are capable of producing enough to satisfy their own lives; when the economy is allowed to be free, the unemployment rate is less than 5%. Social scientists can never get that confidence interval with their theories, except for the most rudimentary. On the other hand, countries that guarantee full employment, like France, constantly struggle with unemployment rates at least 8%, and often much higher.

    Is it “extremist” to want to see more people working and producing things that people want and need?

    You assume that everyone opposed to progressives are “extremists.” And why? Because conservatives believe themselves to be right? Moral self-confidence and judgment are not vices, but virtues. Mankind cannot live without judgment of right and wrong, safety and danger, what leads to success and what leads to failure. Are you disputing this? Do you think regardless of what one thinks and does, all roads lead to success? That there is no such thing as scarcity, and reality constrains our decisions, and we must prioritize? Can we all live in a self-sustaining nirvana as long as we believe in some nebulous, ineluctable “progress” – which is actually just a euphemism for the breakdown of all traditions, institutions, and judgment?

    Thus, when I see volatile rhetoric coming out of the left, such as Richard Trumka’s “son a bitches comment”; prior, Barack Obama’s “enemies” comment to Latinos, “bring a knife” comment, “get in their faces” comment; Nancy Pelosi’s “Nazi” tea party comments; the Congressional Black Caucus accusations about “racism” on the day of the healthcare vote (proof to the contrary please); the leftwing, i.e., mainstream media’s accusations about all opposition to Obama’s policies being “racist,” even though conservative opposition to leftism predates Obama (against nationalized healthcare under Bill Clinton, e.g.); and that conservatives are somehow responsible for the Giffords shooting, these all contextualize the general tone of the modern left. Taken with extreme actions like nationalization of 1/6 of the economy under Obamacare, which will be run by unaccountable czars like the current DHS secretary Sebelius; the trillions and trillions of stimulus and imaginary money printed out of thin air – more than under all presidents previous combined; who, exactly, is “extremist”?

    The extremists unconstitutionally forcing others to do as they bid or those who oppose them?

    It may be a matter of perspective to you, but “extremism” is not the same thing as self-defense from aggressors and oppressors.

    So when some left-winger comes up with a game that will be marketed to the left in which a first-person shooter kills Fox News and other tea party related zombies, I want to get in front of the potential for extremism to result, due to desensitization and dehumanization of political opposition, which typically predates wars and civil conflict.

    Is it “extremist” to point out the inhumanity of the game, which is not anecdotal, but is contextualized by the left’s demonstrable extremism?

    For example, the left complains about the ‘scary’ tea party, but has violence ever broken out at one of its rallies? Vandalism? Other kinds of hijinks? No. The only kind of violence has come from SEIU thugs and other leftists beating up on their opposition. (See Kenneth Gladney, as well as the tea party man who had his finger bitten off by a leftist).

    Often times, the huge rallies leave behind a place cleaner than it was when the tea party got there. Leftist rallies, on the other hand, trash the place. Why? They have no respect for private property, and indeed, no respect even for public property. The public, you see, belongs to them, and being part of “society,” they can do with it what they please, environmentalist lip-service notwithstanding.

    Is holding a huge non-violent rally that leaves the public area clean, and which departs in orderly fashion, “extremist”?

    Clearly, the right is being vilified by the left for no other reason that it ideologically opposes socialist powergrabs and potential oppression. The DHS’ laughable report on “right-wing extremism” has made many sit up and take notice; followed up by videos showing the potential of right-wingers for violence. We are not dismissing these threats, and not dismissing the left’s demonstrable capacity for violence, which is not based on anecdotes, but a kind of mentality that history shows to be dangerous.

    So, no, I am not overgeneralizing about this video game, any more than I am overgeneralizing about leftists. I know leftists, I know how they think, and I am reporting to fellow conservatives that we need to keep an eye out for increasing cases of desensitization and dehumanization from the leftist opposition.

  4. Statistics aren’t the best way to measure something, but they’re far better than asking a far right wing extremist his thoughts on healthcare or a far left wing extremists their thoughts on capitalism. Yes, there’s no denying that they give a generalized answer to a certain issue, but they’re far more factual than the alternatives. They’re to measure the general perception to something. Like say, healthcare, homosexuality, religion, or porn.

    Statistics like what causes the most murder situations is helpful, because it helps us figure out what causes the most deaths of our people and how we can stop them. With statistics instead of pointing our finger at a minority group and using them as an scape goat we can evaluate the situations in which the murderers were raised, so we have a better understanding of them.

    Your ‘description and judgement’ argument just furthermore proves my point. For one, Description and judgement is at least factually accurate, thanks to guess what? Statistics!! We use statistics and we ASK the actual muslims them selves on a certain issue as opposed to the bigots that constantly make generalizations about them. Meanwhile bigotry is just randomly assuming or making up bigoted opinions of people and holding them as actual facts. (I.E – Your ‘What muslims and liberals have in common’ argument)]

    A category is putting the believers of a certain faith into one group. You know, like Christians or Muslims. It is however bigotry to start employing generalizations on physical features on them or make generalizations on their beliefs. Categorizing is saying that a group of people that believe in Jesus are Christian. It’s bigotry to say all Christians are homophobic or racist, much in the same way it would be to assume that most muslims believe in martyrdom.

    Speaking of which, I’ll go ahead and jump to that statement next. No, just no. A majority of them do not believe in martyrdom. In fact, most of them condemned the attacks on 9/11. The only ones that condone the attacks are the terrorist extremists. And trust me, the christians have their fair share of those them selves. The only part of being a muslim is believing in Allah.

    But maybe I’m wrong, maybe Cat Stevens is really a religious extremist that plans on bombing the stage the next time he plays in a concert. I don’t believe I ever once said America is full of nationalists. What I said is that the country is more right wing than a lot of other democratic countries.

    And your wrong about a few statements on socialism. One good thing about it is that it’s flexible and that it can easily fit in with democratic principles. The only socialists that really want a society without any form of capitalism or democracy are the extremists socialists. And I’d like to think I already shared my thoughts on extremists. And if socialists didn’t believe in fair and free elections than how in the world would Canada have the NDP? (Democratic – socialists, basically) Hell, even the Tea Party was originally built on socialist ideals. For the most part, modern socialists can believe in every single one of those things you listed. There’s a big difference between communism and socialism.

    No arguments here on self interest being the standard position. And no, socialists aren’t collectivists. Your making your generalizations again. Collectivists exist everywhere, they’re essentially people that are a part of a group that share numerous of the same ideals. And whether false or not, it’s a lot easier to make an argument on the tea party being a bunch of collectivists as opposed to liberal party. If only because the two other parties in America are basically run through a vague set of ideals while the tea party is very specific.

    If I wanted to use your argument, I could say the exact same thing about religion.

    ‘What I pose to you is that those countries in the modern era that are free market capitalist, that do have Constitutionally limited government, are exceedingly moderate in comparison with those to the contrary. Life in capitalist republics is vibrant, thriving, ‘

    It’s debateable that a lot of european democratic countries which incorporate socialist ideals are a lot better off than America. France has the greatest health care, britain is a lot more socially progressive, and Norway is considered the #1 country to live in. There’s nothing wrong with capitalism, but you seem to be unaware that even America – perhaps the most capitalist country – has some socialist ideals. If you’ve ever gone swimming at a public pool, went to a civic centre, or even have social security than I’m afraid your perfect capitalist society has some socialist ideals in it. Hell, I could even argue your job having any benefits and minimum wage is socialist.

    George also declared war when the U.N told him not to, when America had no reason in being in Iraq. lets not go off topic on whether it was right or wrong, but In my opinion I’d argue they’re two sides to the same coin. And hell, this just furthermore proves my point on Obama not being left wing.

    That statement on France is definitely true, sadly. It has it’s share of poor homeless folk. I don’t really understand too much behind it so I can’t really argue against your points.

    ‘Is it “extremist” to want to see more people working and producing things that people want and need?’

    No, but it is to call all liberals extremists, and to have prejudices against entire groups of people. I don’t believe I ever called you an extremist so much over your political ideals but more of on your perceptions of other people, which mainly consist’s of again, prejudices and generalizations. Progression isn’t against all forms of traditions, it’s only against the exclusionary ones which leave people out. And it doesn’t break down judgement, it changes judgement because our perception changes. If we still had the same judgement as back when America was first made then black people would still be slaves, black people wouldn’t be able to marry, and gay people would be burned alive. Progression isn’t this big scary word about America suddenly becoming nazi germany, it just means things change.

    And furthermore on tradition – That too always changed. If it didn’t then there’d be no christianity, now would there? Instead we’d just be happy with all those anthropomorphic animals egypt created.

    As for your statement on all the stupid shit politicians and the media does I believe I already explained my point of view. Their politicians and the media, regardless of which political party they support they’re all just a bunch of twats and they shouldn’t stand for the beliefs of the people in that party. I like to think of them as a bunch of spoiled brats that just want your attention, and it’s better off just to ignore them completely. Be it Fox news or whatever news stations exist.

    So who are the extremists? Well, in my opinion they are. The politicians, the media, and the people that believe in the prejudices and stereotypes which the politicians and the media create. Perhaps not intentionally, but it’s what they end up doing.

    ‘It may be a matter of perspective to you, but “extremism” is not the same thing as self-defense from aggressors and oppressors.’

    I never said it was. Again, I said extremism is usually relevent to prejudiced, overgeneralizations of entire groups of people. And you’re wrong. Wasn’t there a tea party goer that stomped on a girls head? Violence exists, period. Every group has their share of extremist nut jobs.

    Is it “extremist” to point out the inhumanity of the game, which is not anecdotal, but is contextualized by the left’s demonstrable extremism?

    Yes, because you’re twisting the story around in a completely dishonest manner. You’re doing the exact same thing Fox News and those far left wing media outlets do. ONE person created that game, not the left. If you’re really going to use the argument that all liberals are responsible for one person’s actions than I guess what those people say about gifford being shot was right too, according to your logic. And if I am going to use your logic than I think I just won the argument. So what, iit’s all right for the conservatives to be responsible for shooting Gifford but it’s wrong for us liberals to make a game where we shoot Conservatives?

    ‘Often times, the huge rallies leave behind a place cleaner than it was when the tea party got there. Leftist rallies, on the other hand, trash the place. Why? They have no respect for private property, and indeed, no respect even for public property. The public, you see, belongs to them, and being part of “society,” they can do with it what they please, environmentalist lip-service notwithstanding.’

    Another generalization. I’ve seen a ton of republican protestors use numerous racial slurs, homophobic remarks, and threats. Meanwhile numerous liberal protestors I saw just walk around and protest in this annoying whiney voice. If I were to use your argument, I could say the exact same thing against you.

    And I never made a remark on the rallies you involve your self in being extremist.

    ‘Clearly, the right is being vilified by the left for no other reason that it ideologically opposes socialist powergrabs and potential oppression.’

    Wrong. The right is vilified by the far left wing media that panders to the left wing extremists much in the same way the far right wing media panders to the far right wing extremists. And during this entire conversation – even before it – you have been villifying the entire left wing much in the way those few left wing extremists villify the entire right wing.

    ‘We are not dismissing these threats, and not dismissing the left’s demonstrable capacity for violence, which is not based on anecdotes, but a kind of mentality that history shows to be dangerous.’

    Once again, you sound exactly like those few left wing extremists that go ranting on about how all conservatives are fascists. And again you fail to even notice how you have the exact same behaviour as they, you just ignore it. Violent behaviour exists in all groups of people, and it is usually existant in the few individuals that hold prejudices towards other groups of people. And again, that is why I called you an extremist. That is why I have such a problem with you constantly making your generalizations towards people.

    So no, you’re completely wrong. Being a liberal doesn’t make someone dangerous, nor does being a conservative. It’s being an extremist that makes someone dangerous, it’s through making generalizations and prejudices on entire groups of people that makes someone dangerous. That’s how Nazi Germany started, Hitler pointed at a group of people and said ‘All jews are like this, they’re the problem.’ That’s how Rwanda’s massacres started, they split people apart through their physical features.

    I disagree with your politics, but that was never the problem I had with you, and that was never relevent. If you read my first comment you’d see the only problem I’ve ever had was the overgeneralizations and prejudices you have towards the left. If you read my comment you’d see that I never said anything against Conservatives once.

    Oh, and I disagree. Anecdotes don’t make good logical arguments, sorry. Allow me to give you an anology:

    I’m skinny as fuck. And\ eating a lot of fries has no negative impact on my physical appearence. Well, what would happen if I told Jim that ‘eating a lot of fries won’t make you fat’ based around my own bodies metabolism?

    Well, I can assure you what happens to him would probably be different than what happens to me. Hell, for all I know the guy might just end up with a face full of acne after just a few fries. And now we draw full circle and I can go back to my ‘reality is subjective’ argument.

    What I meant was, it’s subjective due to just your body alone probably interpreting things differently than mine. And because our bodies and minds function differently what’s right for you isn’t right for me, therefore anecdotes simply don’t work.

    ‘So, no, I am not overgeneralizing about this video game, any more than I am overgeneralizing about leftists. I know leftists, I know how they think, and I am reporting to fellow conservatives that we need to keep an eye out for increasing cases of desensitization and dehumanization from the leftist opposition.’

    Humanity is complicated, and in trying to act like you understand how people think you just show how conceited you are. The truth is, you don’t know a damn how people think and you never will – nor will I. Your understanding of other people people basically amounts to you thinking that they’re lesser than you, that they’re simple minded to the point that you can actually predict everything about them. You also seem to have this antagonistic atitude towards them, as if they’re your enemy simply because they have a view different viewpoint than yours.

    Liberals are people, they’re not robots. and in trying to discredit them of being thinking, thoughtful human beings you basically reveal to me more and more that you’re an extremist.

  5. RO you made several excellent arguments. TheFoxWold is simply not integrating any of it in any meaningful way and thus has agreed with some of your excellent points, but then goes on making contradictory arguments against those points. He’s not dicerning ideas from people who act on those ideas. E.g., he accepts judgment as a good idea, but those who act on it are predudice (predudice with negative connotation, which is a judgement on his part oddly enough). Another more fundamental example is socialists (those who believe in certain ideals) and communists (those who act on those same ideals). He’s a waste of time.

    1. Your argument is null. You’re saying that my arguments are contradictary, when you haven’t really addressed around 80% of them. What you’re saying is literally ‘Your arguments have no good point and hold no substance, but I’m not going to argue against them with any valid points.’

      There’s a difference, a big difference, between simply saying that I’m wrong and actually proving it. And what you did, well, even eight year olds can do that. It just amounts to pointing your finger at me and saying I’m wrong, without any real criticism.

      And there’s a huge difference between judgement and prejudice. Judgement is analyzing something logically and forming an opinion out of it. For example, analyzing someone as an individual and forming an opinion of that person is judgement. Analyzing an entire group of people through their faith alone however, is prejudiced. Because you already made your full opinion of them through just one characteristic which they possess. I can’t believe it’s so hard to understand, especially given that I have to constantly repeat my self.

      And no, I’m not contradicting my self. I never once made a generalization on conservatives, unlike you and rogue operator who continue making prejudiced judgements on basically every group that you’re not a part of. If I were to contradict my self than I’d have be guilty of the exact same behaviour I’m condemning first.

      ‘Another more fundamental example is socialists (those who believe in certain ideals) and communists (those who act on those same ideals). He’s a waste of time.’

      As usual you don’t know what your talking about. And given that I never once made a prejudiced statement on conservatives I’d think I got the higher ground. I covered this in my earlier post, communism and socialism isn’t the same thing and they don’t believe in the same thing either. If they did, then the south vietnamese would be shooting at our asses as well back in vietnam.

      I could easily argue that basically any service which you don’t have to pay money is socialism. Public schools, libraries, civic centres, sorry, but they certainly aren’t capitalist. So if you hate socialism so much then maybe instead of being a hypocrite you should hate all things that are socialism and actually follow your beliefs.

      If you’ve got kids in a public school, then get them out of there, because that’s socialism.
      If you have a book from the library then send that fucking book back and start promoting capitalism through buying books from your nearest chapters instead. Not that I think you can read, because you certainly haven’t demonstrated that skill too well.

  6. I’m not going to write you a book on why you’re wrong, Fuxhole. My entire website is dedicated to why you’re wrong. I’m not going to debate your subjectivist arguments, because you are right in your own head no matter what I argue.

    But, I can cite you poll after poll from Britain and other Western nations on majorities of Muslims sympathetic to jihad, suicide bombing, and martyrdom. MAJORITIES OF MUSLIMS IN WESTERN NATIONS. Got it, egghead?

    Read Melanie Phillips’ Londonistan and get it FROM YOUR LOCAL LIBRARY (libraries started out in America under Ben Franklin as a VOLUNTARY BOOK LOANING SERVICE, JACKASS). Or maybe Steven Emerson’s “Jihad in America.” Or maybe Mark Steyn’s “American Alone.” But wwwwwwait, those are all “neocons” (scare quotes)!

    The issues with socialism: What level of government is mandating the “social” (and to politicians, political) benefit? And is it fundamentally COERCIVE? Coercion has no place in the great majority of human affairs. If you don’t agree with this simple statement, you don’t agree with the free society and this little exercise in debate, a classical liberal institution, is about as productive as a meth-injected hamster running on a treadwheel.

    1. ‘I’m not going to write you a book on why you’re wrong, Fuxhole. My entire website is dedicated to why you’re wrong. I’m not going to debate your subjectivist arguments, because you are right in your own head no matter what I argue.’

      Don’t try and discredit my arguments by saying that (gasp) I’ve got an opinion. I’m not the only one here that’s stubborn, and since you’re not changing your mind either maybe, just maybe, you shouldn’t give me that ‘holier than thou’ bull shit. If anything, all you’re doing is just furthermore proving your rampant hypocrisy.

      And that’s just complete gibberish. If your website is dedicated to proving me wrong then why is it you’re turning your back when you’ve got the chance to prove me wrong, when you have someone that contradicts your prejudiced views? You’re just as bad as the incompetent news outlets. You can say all the shit you want when no ones around to argue against your views but once someone questions or contradicts your views you’ve basically got nothing to argue with.

      So for someone that’s supposedly right I’m just curious why it is your arguments can only be the best when there’s basically no opposing views to give them any competition.

      ‘But, I can cite you poll after poll from Britain and other Western nations on majorities of Muslims sympathetic to jihad, suicide bombing, and martyrdom. MAJORITIES OF MUSLIMS IN WESTERN NATIONS. Got it, egghead?’

      Cite them then. Once again, simply saying you ‘can’ cite them is fairly different than actually citing.

      ‘Read Melanie Phillips’ Londonistan and get it FROM YOUR LOCAL LIBRARY (libraries started out in America under Ben Franklin as a VOLUNTARY BOOK LOANING SERVICE, JACKASS). Or maybe Steven Emerson’s “Jihad in America.” Or maybe Mark Steyn’s “American Alone.” But wwwwwwait, those are all “neocons” ‘

      You’re telling me to read an opinion based book from a right wing author. How does that prove anything, exactly? If I asked you to read a book from a far left wing nut job that wouldn’t hold any substance for any of my arguments either. And just from a quick search alone I already have two problems with this writer: For one, she’s homophobic. And secondly, dude, she’s fucking crazy.

      She accused Obama of pushing forward this Islam agenda. And while I’m not too fond of Obama (Again, I never voted for him) I’m afraid that any arguments trying to accuse him of pushing islam simply have no merit. If anything, she’s pretty much just calling him names. Oh, and she’s a creationist. And it’s probably best that little topic is steered cleared of completely.

      And so what if Ben Franklin started the first library in America? How does that stop it from being a socialist idea? According to your logic we should also start calling McCain a liberal simply because he had some environmental policies. Just because it’s a democrat that made the contribution that doesn’t mean it’s a democratic ideal. Bismarck for example was extremely right wing and that certainly doesn’t make him a liberal just because he had a few socialist ideals. Libraries are public buildings which are, guess what? Owned by the fucking public and supported through guess who? The public! Through it’s definition it’s as socialist as can be.

      If it were a capitalist idea then libraries would be privately owned stores which would sell books in exchange for profit.

      The issues with socialism: What level of government is mandating the “social” (and to politicians, political) benefit? And is it fundamentally COERCIVE? Coercion has no place in the great majority of human affairs. If you don’t agree with this simple statement, you don’t agree with the free society and this little exercise in debate, a classical liberal institution, is
      about as productive as a meth-injected hamster running on a treadwheel.

      The public, that’s who. They pay for the service (through tax dollars) and they run the services. As for your statement on coercian . . .

      To be honest I don’t really understand what you implicated with that statement. Particularily since coercian exists everywhere, especially in politics and capitalism.

      1. Section A – On Muslims

        1. 7/7 bombings “justified” say 25% of Muslims in UK

        http://news.scotsman.com/uk/77-bombings-justified-say-a.2798950.jp

        +45% say U.S. or Israel carried out 9/11, of course, we shouldn’t hold that against them, since 35% of Democrats believe George Bush had advance warning of 9/11

        http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/03/each_party_has_its_fanatics_97748.html

        2. 40% of Muslims advocate sharia law in United Kingdom

        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1510866/Poll-reveals-40pc-of-Muslims-want-sharia-law-in-UK.html

        3. More than a third of Muslims think apostates should be killed

        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=432075&in_page_id=1770&ico=Homepage&icl=TabModule&icc=NEWS&ct=5

        4. Majority of Muslims believe there was no Arab involvement in 9/11 (from “right-winger” Mark Steyn, After America, p. 270)

        http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jun/uk.religion

        5. “In the fall of 2001, the Ottawa Citizen conducted a coast-to-coast survey of Canadian imams and found all but two insistent that there was no Muslim involvement in September 11.” (“Right-winger” Mark Steyn, America Alone, p. 17)

        6. At least 19 million Indonesians support Jihad

        http://michellemalkin.com/2006/10/15/19-million-muslims-for-jihadand-thats-just-in-indonesia/

        7. “In Egypt 81 percent said they agreed with the al Qaeda goal of “requir[ing] a strict application of Shari’a law in every Islamic country” (65% strongly); only 12 percent disagreed. Pakistanis were similar with 76 percent agreeing with this goal (52% strongly); 5 percent disagreed. Indonesians, however, agreed by only a narrow plurality: 49 percent supported the goal (just 14% strongly), while 42 percent disagreed. In Morocco in late 2006, 76 percent agreed.”

        http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/02/international-poll-muslims-support-strict-sharia-islamic-supremacism.html

        All of these sources cite independent polls and news articles. It’s not “right-wing” ravings.

        Bonus:

        1. “The Palestinian Liberation Organization was initially defined by its secular Marxism and pan-Arab nationalism.”

        (Right-winger and academic David Horowitz, Unholy Alliance, p. 139)

        “Sayyid Qutb, the author of a seminal text called Social Justice in Islam, was the leading theoretician of the Egypt-based Muslim Brotherhood, founded by Hassan al-bana in the 1920s, forerunner of al Qaeda.” (ibid., p. 123-4)

        I seriously do not have time to write you footnotes ad infinitum. Communists are bloody murderers responsible for over a hundred million deaths, and today’s American leftists are neo-communists following the commie playbook of: Demoralization, Destabilization, Crisis, and “Normalization” (imposing communism, see KGB defector Bezmenov). More materials on leftists are available on this website. Help yourself.

  7. Hold on a minute, I thought you hated statistics. Why the sudden change of heart?

    For the first one –

    Those 25% people disgust me, but I don’t think it’s worth judging the entire majority of the muslims over the minority. Or basically, my usual ‘every group has their share oft twats’ argument. I’m pretty sure that around at least 25% of Christians believe it’s all right to bomb people as well – as long as it’s done to muslims. All religions have their zealots.

    The second one isn’t really relevent to whether they condone bombing or not. If anything it just shows that 45% of them are prejudiced, much in the way some conservatives are towards liberals to the point where they think all liberals are terrible blood suckers. (or vice versa, liberals that think conservatives are blood suckers?)

    The third one –

    I disapprove of the sharia law, but to be honest It doesn’t sound any different at all than those few Christians who constantly want to enforce their own ideas of morality through law. You know, like the ones who want to ban gay marriage, censor television, and ban basically everything that conflicts with their religion. It’s literally no different, so I wouldn’t think Muslims are worth hating more than Christians.

    The fourth one is actually pretty disturbing. I don’t really have anything else to add.

    I don’t see any relevence in the fifth one. So what if they don’t believe Arab was involved? Those terrorists could have come from anywhere’s. Oh, and even if the terrorists DID come from Arabia that still doesn’t mean that Arabia as a whole was involved. That’s like assuming the entire U.S.A was involved in bombing Mexico if it was done by a extremist Christian from America.

    Or heck, remember my last statement where I brought up how a tea partier once stomped on a girls head? Well, blaming Arabia is kind of like blaming the entire tea party for the actions of one individual.

    As for the 1/10 muslims supporting terrorism . . .

    I’ll reserve my judgement until I see a parrallel of how much Christians support equally violent acts. After all, there’s no point in saying Muslims are worse than Christians if they have around the same ratio’s of extremists.

    7 – Once again, I wonder how much Christians believe in applying strict laws relevent to the bible. Also, that doesn’t mean a whole lot. If a Christian is against homosexuality and a terrorist christian is against homosexuality, then regardless of their actions do they not have the same beliefs much in the same way those muslims would with Al Queda, despite them condemning the terrorists actions?

    ‘I seriously do not have time to write you footnotes ad infinitum. Communists are bloody murderers responsible for over a hundred million deaths, and today’s American leftists are neo-communists following the commie playbook of: Demoralization, Destabilization, Crisis, and “Normalization” (imposing communism, see KGB defector Bezmenov). More materials on leftists are available on this website. Help yourself.’

    What’s that? Another over generalization? A shame, I thought we were gonna be friends too.

    You know who else is responsible for numerous deaths? Conservatives are. Maybe you should think for a moment about all the women that were burned alive because they were ‘witches’, all the gay people executed because they were ‘immoral’, and all the people that were enslaved simply because the bible said it was all right.

    Murdering a bunch of people isn’t exclusive to just liberals. In fact, the ones that usually start murdering are usually the extremists that exist in both parties. And each and every time people start dying the ones who are responsible for these crimes are always the folks who make blunt generalizations on entire groups of people. You know, people just like you.

    You want to know why those few islamists condone 9/11? Because they think all Christians are immoral evil blood suckers. Basically, they have the exact same way of thinking as you do. I constantly ask you what makes you any different from them when you show the exact same behaviour, but you never reply. Instead the question just flies over your head.

    You seem to find it repulsive when a few muslims want all Christians dead. But you know what? You also make it pretty clear you want all Muslims dead. Your negativity literally does nothing more but breed more negativity, and your childish, narrow sighted out look is a part of the problem.

    When some muslims look at Christians they see people like you, extremely prejudiced people. And from seeing such prejudiced people they start becoming prejudiced them selves. Assuming that all Christians are terrible people, if only because of the few Christians that are terrible to them.

    It’s a vicious cycle. Your bigoted views on muslims and liberals is what creates those few extremist muslims and liberals. And on the other side, it’s because of the muslim and liberal bigots that their exist conservative extremists.

    Each and everytime someone ends up dying it’s because of prejudice. And all those facts you’ve contributed to me doesn’t for even second justify your bigotry or your prejudice Because again, your guilty of that very same prejudice you condemn.

    All those facts really amount to is basically that ‘Some muslims – just like some Christians – are prejudiced twats!

    1. Now you’ve resorted to name calling. If you’ve got very little else to add except for profanity then that just shows you’ve got nothing else to say. It’s pretty pathetic that I’m the one that always has to be the grown up here while your off making prejudiced attacks on entire groups of people. Again, you constantly condemn all muslims as extremists when you happen to share that exact same behaviour yourself.

      And as usual, you never seem to want to touch that argument. So you’re just downright ignoring it. And no amount of profanity or insults is going to justify you completely ignoring this criticism.

      You know what? You’re a complete fucking dumbass. Do you see how easy that was? I can call you names too, and it certainly hasn’t made me any smarter. The only difference is me calling you a clueless prick would be a lot easier to defend given that you never really argued against half my points and you still expect me to some reason magically share your point of view.

      Which is a very ignorant way of thinking. Why the fuck should I be expected to reevaluate every single one of my beliefs when you haven’t really given most of them any criticism? And unlike you, I politely admitted that I was wrong on some cases as opposed to calling you a dumb prick over it.

      (Two examples was your France argument on the homeless and the second was the fourth article)

      If I’m the one that’s a clueless prick than maybe you should actually explain to me why all of your arguments don’t have any more substance than transparent bigotry. I’m not a clueless prick. You gave me a bunch of statistics (which again, you said in a earlier post you were against so you’re nothing but a hypocrite) which were almost irrelevent to my question and regardless I observed them. And from these observations, I compared their actions to the actions of another religious group, Christians.

      And again, their actions are pretty much no different than Christians. And given that I’m religiously neutral (unlike you, who’s extremely prejudiced and far, far, far, on one side.) I’d say that my opinion holds at least some credibility. I mean, hey, at least I’m not generalizing all muslims as extremists nor Christians. But fine, if you think I’d be more logical with your way of thinking then I guess I’ll retort to each and every single one of your arguments using your reasoning.

      I think that we should get rid of all far right wing conservatives, because in the past their nationalist and prejudiced behaviour has shown to be very volatile. Sure, only one man may have stomped on a girl’s head during a rally, but if you look at most of their rallies you’ll see that a majority of them use racial slurs and homophobic remarks very often. The way they act is no different than how Nazi Germany acted towards the jewish. The only difference is, they’re trying to use the liberals as an scape goat. And if we don’t stop them now they may do something potentially dangerous later.

      Their words alone make it clear they want to push an agenda that includes harming democrats. And if that’s not enough then perhaps we should take a look at their long bloody history. If it weren’t for us progressive liberals then the american revolution may have never happened, or even the french revolution. Instead those whiney traditional conservatives would be happy with being run by a corrupt king or perhaps a fascist dictator.

      They’re also trying to hold us back from making any progress. They don’t want to live in a world with medicine that cures their sickness, fabrics which clothe them, or even computer’s that practically work for them. Instead, they want to live in a world without progress, a world without a democracy and free speech.

      All the time their self righteous religious zealots try to ban each and every single one of our rights. They want to exclude homosexuals of any basic human rights, they want to send woman back in their homes, and they want to censor our right to state an opinion. Michelle Bachmann her self once stated that anyone that has an opinion different than hers should be jailed.

      And when these morons aren’t trying to discredit our smartest minds that created the world they live in, Conservatives even today tend to be violent. Gifford was shot by a right winger, Norway had faced a tragedy brought upon by a crazed right winger, and Conservatives were even responsible for 9/11.

      Conservatives always promote religion, and it’s religion that was responsible for 9/11. If it weren’t for those traditional, religious Conservatives then the greatest of our tragedy’s could have been completely avoided. If those terrorists came from a far more progressive nation, a nation of science, then perhaps they wouldn’t believe that the only way to please their imaginary god was through bombing our fine nation. If they lived in a world without a Allah, a world which Stephen Hawking proved exists, then there’d exist no religious extremism.

      And that’s why we need to lock up every conservative. They’re counter productive, counter progressive, anti – freedom, and their dogmatic religious beliefs are destructive to everyone around them.

    1. I’m not a troll, I’m just extremely vigilant against prejudice and hypocrisy. Why is it when you do your insane arguments on how all liberals are communists it’s supposedly genius, but when I do literally the same thing as you it’s suddenly delusional? Good job, you just proved my point.

      And again, just calling me name’s isn’t doing any good for your argument.It just shows that you’ve got nothing to say. Maybe you should just take a break from blogging and leave politics to us real adults, okay?

      AT least until you learn to be less of a hypocrite and give me an at least decent argument on how you’re not prejudiced. (despite, you know, thinking that everyone that doesn’t belong in your collectivist group are the spawn of satan)

  8. When did I say all liberals are communists? And I’m not trying to prove a negative with you. Rational arguments don’t work on irrational people. I have other things to do with my time.

    When you write:

    “Conservatives always promote religion, and it’s religion that was responsible for 9/11.”

    1. This is an absurd conflation of Christianity and Islam.
    2. Islamic jihadists were responsible for 9/11, not “religion”
    3. I’m an Objectivist.

    Shows that you cannot even make a coherent argument, do not know whom you are addressing, and contradict yourself when you are complaining about stereotyping and prejudice, hence, we’re pretty much done on this subject.

    I’m not walking into your Salvadore Dali painting just to point out the clocks are melting, alright? If you want reproved for your insane positions, try reading other articles and commenting.

    1. Um . . . why are you arguing against the psuedo arguments I proposed? The very point of that was to use an extreme argument that reflected the extremism of your own generalizations. Or simply, I was parodying you. You hear that? I was making fun of you! I don’t personally believe that all religion’s should be held accountable for the acts of a few people within one religion, I’m just using your logic, giving you a taste of your own medicine. Or if you will, tea. And apparently, you don’t seem to like the taste of it.

      If one liberal creates a game and the entire party is held responsible, if a few people of the entire islamic faith bomb a building and there entire faith should be blamed, then please, tell me why I can’t just blame religion all together for 9/11 being bombed. Seems to me like your idea of logic involves a lot of cherry picking.

      So through your logic, yes, it’s religion’s fault. If there was no religion, then there’d be no religious extremists. And through your exact same logic I guess I’ll point out that preserving religion is usually a Conservative ideal. And because of that, I can easily argue using the exact same logic you employed that the terrorists who bombed that building were far right wing, because they were extroardinarily religious.

      So when you just said my arguments were irrational you basically just insulted your self, because I was using YOUR argument. The only difference was that instead of everyone in the liberal party being guilty for a game a single person made I basically turned it into it being the religious – conservatives fault for the actions of another religion.

      So now are you beginning to see how your logic falls apart? My argument from the beginning has been that no one should be held accountable for the actions of just one person. Your argument has been the complete opposite, and that’s infact, the very argument you supported your article with. And now that I decided to finally use that argument, to show you just how insane your argument is, it seems like you don’t like that ‘logic’ either.

  9. Let me just add that this game is just one case out of many showing the left’s hateful vitriole.

    1. Jimmy Hoffa Jr., union leader, “let’s take these son a bitches out”
    http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2011/09/trumka-declares-all-out-war-on.html

    2. Soros-funded MMFA declares “war” on FoxNews
    http://www.newser.com/story/114980/media-matters-declares-war-on-fox-news.html

    3. Obama former Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel knifing table, declaring political enemies ‘dead’
    http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2008/11/06/the_five_most_infamous_rahm_emanuel_moments

    4. DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, tea party uses swastikas, burns blacks in effigy at rallies (no proof at all, by the way)

    5. Former Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, other Democrat leaders call tea party attendees, “neo-nazis, racists, militia members, and secessionists” (if you ever went to a tea party rally, you would know this was a blatant lie; I was a Tea Party Nation board member and I would know, since I have contact info for thousands of tea party members)
    http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/04/house_democrat_leaders_tea_par.asp

    6. Obama’s pitch to Latinos to “punish your enemies” (conservatives)
    http://hotair.com/archives/2010/10/25/obamas-turnout-pitch-to-latinos-get-out-there-and-punish-your-enemies/

    Obama tells followers to argue with neighbors, “get in their faces”

    But really, I could do this all day. Showing examples of the left’s hateful vitriole and how this tea party shoot em up is just a natural extension of the left’s hateful rhetoric is as easy as picking apples in September.

    And when I say “the left” I don’t mean skulls full of mush who vote for Democrats out of the knee jerk impression that it is somehow “compassionate” to do so.

    1. Kind of irrelevent. I never said that the democrats were angels, all I ever said was that it’s wrong to generalize all democrats as terrible people over the obnoxious few. Regardless, I’ll look into them.

      1. It doesn’t sound any more rude or obnoxious than everything the right wing politicians have ever said. Besides, didn’t I already state that I think the politicans of both sides are a bunch of whiney brats that just like drama? Oh, and to be honest I found the writer of that article no less obnoxious than the person they’re criticizing.

      2. Um, what’s the point to this? All I see is an attention mongering media outlet looking for some attention through waging war with another attention mongering media outlet that likes attention.

      3. Yeah, the guy’s fucking crazy. But what about that writer of that book you showed me, Palin, and Michelle Bachmann? They’re all pretty crazy and aggressive too.

      4. It’s the news being their misreporting things as usual.

      5. To be honest, every single tea partier I met came across as extoardinarily racist. Not that I assume all of them are. My response as usual amounts to politicians/media being morons as usual.

      6. My usual statement, bla bla bla.

      So how does all this make liberals any worse than Republicans, exactly? Republicans are always saying shit too. And I don’t believe I ever once made a statement about Republicans being evil or hateful, the only statement I ever really made was that it’s wrong of you to assume that all liberals are like that.

      ‘And when I say “the left” I don’t mean skulls full of mush who vote for Democrats out of the knee jerk impression that it is somehow “compassionate” to do so.’

      You just insulted the liberals again. If you just said ‘When I say left I mean politicians/media’ then I’d have have absolutely no problem with your statement. In fact, I’d actually partially agree because the media in general consists of dishonest, biased twats that enjoy attacking those that oppose their beliefs.

      But because you did . . .

      People who vote democrats got their reasons, and it doesn’t make them stupid for voting obnoxious, rude people. I’m pretty sure you’ve done the same at least once, voted for obnoxious, rude people.

      Some Atheists are disowned from their homes, isolated from their schools, and bullied over their beliefs. If you’re an atheist, regardless of your intellect, would you vote the Conservative party which promotes religion, or the Liberal party that is a bit more relaxed on religious law?

      Some gay people have pretty much the same story. Some of them are disowned, isolated from schools, bullied, and they’re looked down upon as a subhuman. Tell me, if you liked sucking cock (I typed that if only because I found it was funny) would you sooner support the religion that condemns you, or the group that offers you rights that everyone else in the world has?

      Most people vote for their own interest, and because you’re an objectivist you shouldn’t condemn that. I’m pretty sure there exist a great deal of socially liberal Conservatives that vote liberal if only because they disdain the prejudiced policies which the Republican party puts forth.

      Irrelevent opinion to the topic at hand:

      If the Republicans stopped waging this morality war with basically every minority out there and started being more socially liberal then they’d probably get a lot more voters. Because I’m pretty sure there are a tone of liberals/centrists that wouldn’t mind fiscally conservative ideals.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s