therightfangirl

Entry tags:

RNC

I stayed up for Rubio's and Romney's speeches on Thursday night - very motivating, I thought.

Anyway. It always aggravates me how so many of my friends lump all Republicans together as bigots or Bible-huggers and such. It's rude and it's not necessarily true and after reading offensive posts about all republicans being against women's rights and welfare (although I'm sure they weren't meant to be really offensive, but I find them very in-your-face) I have trouble falling asleep!

So this occurred to me:

It seems to me (and I'm doing a bit of generalizing here, mind you) that liberals have nice ideals - they want everyone to have enough of everything, they want everyone to get along, love each other, save the planet, etc.

So do republicans! Except our method of achieving that ideal doesn't take the easy road. It'll take time and for awhile it might hurt. But you can't jump to the final goal without trudging through the hard stuff.

If that makes sense? It makes more sense in my head than when I wrote it out here... Also, this is my first post here, I'm just tired of thinking to myself in a den of liberals that I can't talk to.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

In my experience, liberals can't get their heads around the notion that this is what we want, we decree it will happen, and it -- doesn't. I know, for instance, many liberals who really think the government can raise taxes as opposed to tax rates. No matter how often you point out that people change their behavior when tax regimes change, they really don't believe it.

I agree with this. Plus, success is sweeter knowing how hard the journey was. My college ring is more precious to me than almost any other jewelry I have (barring my purity ring and some heirlooms) because it represents all the hard work I put into getting my degree... and the stress. If my degree had just been gifted to me, I don't know if I would treasure it as much.

You make perfect sense. I'm always curious most of what the modern Democrats do... is saying how much Republicans suck. As opposed to building your own ideas, and why they should work. Then again, demonizing and blaming someone else is intellectually easier, anyway, especially for them.

They can also be very overbearing whenever it comes to republican ideas... and most seem to brush them off as craziness. It's kind of alarming how much scoffing there is whenever a conservative idea is even mentioned.

Your conclusion is pretty accurate.

They have this childish view that a person denying someone something automatically means they hate them. Libs can't see past their hatred of conservatives to consider WHY we might be against affirmative action, illegal immigration, expanding welfare, or enacting universal healthcare. They just see those viewpoints as proof that we are heartless Captain Planet villains who hate minorities and brown people because we are evil.

Especially because when they say "denying," what a lot of them seem to mean is "not automatically providing." (Affirmative action, universal healthcare, and generalized welfare being good examples.) I don't have a pony--does that mean someone denied me a pony? Why is the standard different for a college education, a kidney, food, housing, heat...? No matter how nice it could be for everyone to have these things no matter what, failing to provide them out-of-hand is not the same thing as denying them, and the false equivalency irritates me to no end.

It also goes to show that we have different views regarding handouts and entitlements. Most conservatives view things like welfare as a last resort. But many liberals are fine with people using government assistance as a lifestyle from cradle to grave. And anyone who says there should be limits is viewed as stealing food from the mouths of the needy.

Basically, it sucks being the grown up who has to say "no" or "I wish we could, but we can't afford it". It's easy to look like a hero when you promise to hand out freebies regardless of whether or not the country can afford it.

It'll take time and for awhile it might hurt. But you can't jump to the final goal without trudging through the hard stuff.

Liberals would probably say the same thing about their methods.

The difference being that liberal ideas rarely (if ever) yield positive results. Generation after generation, they have been proved to be failures. These ideas do not work.

And yet they not only keep pushing them and trying to put them into practice, but anyone who dares to point out these facts will be bullied, silenced and when possible, destroyed.

Inconvenient truths, indeed.

Generation after generation, they have been proved to be failures. These ideas do not work.

OK.

Two classic ones:

Welfare - failure, as evidenced by the generations now stuck in it

Multiculturalism - failure, even in Europe (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41444364/ns/world_news-europe/t/british-pm-multiculturalism-has-failed/#.UELRjSLEzCM)

Two current ones:

Solyndra bankruptcy (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/06/us-solyndra-idUSTRE77U5K420110906)

Cash for Clunkers (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/was-cash-for-clunkers-a-clunker/2011/11/04/gIQA42EhpM_blog.html)

And the current, ridiculous, against-all-common-sense idea that getting us trillions of dollars into debt will somehow "stimulate" the economy - which has done nothing except... leave us more in debt.

I could go on and on. I am glad you acknowledge these failures!

As I've been reminded of the rule to not use facts, I will now have to bow out of the thread.

Those darned facts always do get in the way, don't they?

(The liberal mindset debunked in whole, right there. Thanks again.)

I assumed we were both following that rule, is that not the case with your comment above?

I agree with you on Rubio's and Romney's speeches. In contrast, in 2008 I dozed off a couple of times during McCain's speech.

Me too, it's annoying (and rude) when they just paint everyone with a broad brush. I know a few conservatives who actually aren't even religious at all.

That makes perfect sense to me. We both have ideals but our way of achieving it (or wanting to achieve it) isn't an easy out. It takes dedication and time. Definitely not lazy. :)

Welcome, hope you post more often! I've been a member here for a little while, was shy about posting at first but then had some things gnawing at me that I just had to talk to other like-minded people about. My flist is mostly liberal, so they're things I can't really talk much about on my LJ.

Rubio's had a lot pep-rally feel to it - it was a good opener for Romney. And Romney's speech was very nice. I did nod off a bit toward the end, but hey, I'd been out all night.

That whole Chick-fil-A thing bothered me... I'm not against gay rights, in fact I'm a hard core slash fan, so there you go, but they got so much hate over it and it's not like they refuse to serve homosexuals or employ them. And their message wasn't really against gays; it was for strong family units. But anyway, that's a whole big issue.

Thanks for the welcome! I was glad to find this community as ONTD Political is all liberal and their posts are all skewed a bit toward the left. Yes, this is a nice comm. A combination of fan squee and politics.

Apparently you now cannot support the traditional family structure without being filled with HAAAAAATTTTEEEE for gays! Not just disapproval or even neutrality - your words will be construed as SEKRET HATE!

Tolerance is hatred!

Up is down!

Chicken tastes like beef!

"it's not like they refuse to serve homosexuals or employ them. And their message wasn't really against gays; it was for strong family units. But anyway, that's a whole big issue."

Precisely. I expect that you and I have different views on gay issues, because there are a variety of viewpoints in this comm. But the point is that nobody is being physically harmed or actively persecuted or harassed or having their daily life disrupted by being "denied" the "right" to marry.

The gay activist groups engage in a huge amount of hyperbole and exagerration and illogical comparisons.
A fast-food joint stating that they believe in the traditional definition of marriage = gay people being stoned to death and burned at the stake!!!1111!!"

It's actually a rather sneaky and clever way of confusing the issue and changing the terms of the debate to their advantage. Disagree with them and they go straight to talk of HATE!HATE!HATE! and gay teenagers being murdered, etc. They know that if they just say HATE!!! often enough, people will start to believe it.

There is absolutely no signficant, large-scale, systematic oppression of homosexuals in this country. None. But to hear the activists talk, you'd think they were getting dragged away to a prison-camp for holding hands in public.

They just respond to every argument with haaaaaaterrrr!!! and engage in bait-and-switch debate techniques like this:

Person A: I believe that marriage consists of a male and a female.

Activist: In some countries, homosexuality is punishable by death. So, you support that!

This is exactly the type of thing that they do. It's a totally illogical non-sequiter, but it works, as a scare tactic.

Gays are not persecuted in this country. Period. On the contrary, our pop culture and media, and even our government, are engaged in relentlessly celebrating and promoting homosexuality.

No nation that has "pride" parades and "pride" days in which people publicly flaunt the most obscene, perverse, and bizarre behavior, is oppressing homosexuals. On the contrary, the rest of us are required to tolerate this and pretend that we approve of it, or else we're guilty of a "hate crime."

I'm from Seattle, where they fly the rainbow "pride" flag in the exact same location and manner that they would fly our nation's flag on the Fourth of July or Memorial Day. So, tell me again about the gay people who live in such a hostile, repressive culture where they have to hide their true identities and can't even go out in public without people spitting on them, etc.

I'd like to hear the activists tell us about all the gay people who had their houses burned down, and were denied entry to a restaurant or a hospital or a school, or forbidden from voting or owning property or getting an education or making money or sitting at the front of the bus.

Oops, wait, there aren't any. And you can't be "denied" what was never yours to begin with.

Edited 2012-09-03 19:13 (UTC)

Person A: I believe that marriage consists of a male and a female.

Activist: In some countries, homosexuality is punishable by death. So, you support that!

I'd have more respect for the activists if they protested the ACTUAL atrocities committed against homosexuals in places like Iran half as passionately as they protested Chick-Fil-A. But I guess it's easier to bitch at Christians because they aren't in the habit of blowing stuff up every time someone hurts their feelings.

Yes. It boggles the mind that the Left won't allow any criticism of Islam and wants to allow more and more Muslim immigration into Western countries, when it's Islam that is bad, bad news for women, homosexuals, religious minorities, and all those groups that the Left supposedly loves.

It's just completely nuts. How do the leftists think they'd be treated under Sharia? But no, let's harass and demonize Average Joe American Christian for simply stating his views in a calm manner.

Countries dominated by hardcore Islam are among the *least* tolerant nations on the planet.

I am not religious at all, and there is plenty to criticize about some of the major Christian denominations here in the US. But to assert that American Christians are as bad or worse than the folks who want to blow us up and institute Sharia? Yeah, no.

The Left seems to have made evangelicals their designated bogeyman.

Under a Muslim regime, the feminists, gays, protestors, and "intellectuals" (writers, professors) would be the first to go, just as they would under a Mao-style or Soviet-style Marxist regime.

I know it may be rediculous to respond to such and old post, but I need to reply to something you said.

Being a slash fan does not mean you can not be homophobic. Slash and Yaoi are often fetishizing portrayals of male homosexuality done in order to get heterosexual women off. Many fans of both yaoi and slash are homophobic as liking the festishized portrayal of homosexuality doesn't neccessarily lead to the tolerating and appoval of actual real homosexuals.

Not that I am accusing you of being a homophobe, I do not know you. However I am often bothered at the assumption that liking slash or yaoi means you can't be homophobic.

You make a good point. I didn't think of it like that, but you're right. My family is mostly conservative Christian when it comes to this topic. Actually, the slash side of fandom gave me a more open view, so for that I'm very thankful. It's not something I readily discuss though. But thank you for drawing my attention to my previous statement. I will be more considerate of this in the future.

Being a slash fan does not mean you can not be homophobic. Slash and Yaoi are often fetishizing portrayals of male homosexuality done in order to get heterosexual women off. Many fans of both yaoi and slash are homophobic as liking the festishized portrayal of homosexuality doesn't neccessarily lead to the tolerating and appoval of actual real homosexuals.

This attitude is one of the more annoying traits of the yaoi fandom. I've seen a lot of them talk about Japan as if it's Gay Utopia (newsflash: it isn't) simply because lots of yaoi stuff gets published there and there are overt hints of boy/boy relationships in mainstream shows.

I mean, at least the fratboy douchebags who watch Girls Gone Wild don't make themselves out to be allies in the fight for lesbian rights. :P

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

RNC

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject