Liberals getting their own medicine

For years now I've been noticing the careful jargon used by the liberal elements of this country.

Such as that those who "Disaprove of the homosexual lifestyle" are "homophobic".

If you believe that a specific religion is exclusively correct (and they all claim to be) you are "closeminded".

Or how the LA Times automatically edited all of the "pro-life"s from an article about a life affirming play to "anti-abortion".

It has seemed to me that liberals have made an extreem point of using labels. So why is it now that I keep hearing (on NPR mostly) so many liberals who are incensed that Bush used labels on them? I agree that it is unfair to say that, just because they want to end the war in Iraq, liberals are "isolationists". However, those who dish out labels so freely should be able to take some.

This should get some people fired up!!!

This should be in the Vs. forum.

Keep this shit in the Vs. forum like Cornfedwb said.

Vs. forum.

Liberals are not isolationists. They just disagree with the tactics currently used when the we are dealing with the international community.

Also, how is using "anti-abortion" by the pro-choicers any different than the pro-lifers using "Pro-Death" when describing the other side?

Both parties have been doing that forever. I don't think either one does it more than the other, though the current administration (mostly due to Karl Rove) seems to be more effective at it (which is partially why they're still in control).

To the VS. forum with you!

Also, please define extreem.

[quote name='1modernboy']To the VS. forum with you!

Also, please define extreem.[/QUOTE]


They had that "More Than Words" song didn't they?

Yeah- liberals suck.

I'm a republican who thinks Abortion is a fundamental right. Take it away and only people with money will get abortions. That and poor people need to breed less.

That and I think that we should stop subsidizing schools for their educations. I went to a private college and it cost a pretty penny- why should my tax dollars pay for kids to go to school- they can get into debt to do it.

Oh- McCain should be president now, but at least our party is running the government- to bad Bush is such an obvious plant- I mean, its embarrasing to say that you voted for "him" he's like a freaking retarded monkey- but at least he is controlable.

This is funny cause I've argued how many times now how unfair it is that pro-choice people are labeled by conservatives as "pro-abortion".

However, those who dish out labels so freely should be able to take some.

Are you on crack? Since when did liberals invent classifying people negatively? And if you think conservatives havent been doing the exact same thing for just as long you're plain stupid.

[quote name='friedram']
That and I think that we should stop subsidizing schools for their educations. I went to a private college and it cost a pretty penny- why should my tax dollars pay for kids to go to school- they can get into debt to do it.

[/QUOTE]

So, children shouldn't be able to go to school because their parents are poor? What kind of ass-backward logic does that come from?

[quote name='friedram']Yeah- liberals suck.

I'm a republican who thinks Abortion is a fundamental right. Take it away and only people with money will get abortions. That and poor people need to breed less.

That and I think that we should stop subsidizing schools for their educations. I went to a private college and it cost a pretty penny- why should my tax dollars pay for kids to go to school- they can get into debt to do it.

Oh- McCain should be president now, but at least our party is running the government- to bad Bush is such an obvious plant- I mean, its embarrasing to say that you voted for "him" he's like a freaking retarded monkey- but at least he is controlable.[/QUOTE]
Explain yourself, do you mean college, or public schools? What the hell kind of thinking is that, rich people don't commit crimes and murder people?

Where are your sarcasm detectors people?

[quote name='Backlash']Where are your sarcasm detectors people?[/QUOTE]

bingo.

As for the OP, go look up "movement framing processes" and get back to us, will you? Otherwise, bland generalizations make for poor political discourse starters (contrary to your assertion that "this should get people fired up!" in your second post, precisely one minute after you made the topic, I kinda half yawned and realized I need to go to the restroom; I don't know what your definition of "fired up" is, but that's not mine). For evidence of my take on bland generalizations, go filter through the vs forum for topics started by electrictroy. That is, after you look up "framing processes." I'm not kidding.

In the meantime, let me express my dismay at the topic title. I was hoping to see something enthralling, like peace activists getting kicked in the nuts, or Michael Moore being caught in line at McDonald's (a situation that seems perfectly reasonable, yet perfectly hypocritical all at once). Instead, I see a hodgepodge of bland right wing talking points, not only absent context, but also relevance to a current topic, or each other in general. It's the political equivalent of listening to four college-age males drunk off their rocker spouting off tedious one-liners from the "Chappelle Show." It's not creative, it's not intelligent, and it gives me a ing headache.

Come back later with something of relevance, eh little shaver?

activist judges
pro-abortion


Those are the two I can think of off the top of my head but still, are you ascerting that republicans don't use labels?

I thought liberals were attacked for being internationalists and wanting the u.n. to control everything?

[quote name='alonzomourning23']I thought liberals were attacked for being internationalists and wanting the u.n. to control everything?[/QUOTE]


they are isolationist because they dont want to control every other country only their own, liberals cant see the big picture.

Didn't Clinton sign NAFTA? Didn't trade with China explode under Clinton?

[quote name='1modernboy']Also, please define extreem.[/QUOTE]
It's synonymous to X-treme.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']I thought liberals were attacked for being internationalists and wanting the u.n. to control everything?[/QUOTE]

It all depends on the context, much like liberal labels of conservatives. If you oppose the war in Iraq, you're "isolationist." If you support doing things with approval of the U.N., you want to give up our sovereignty. If you don't support quotas (aka affirmative action), you're a bigot. If you are against abortion, you're anti-woman. ETC...

[quote name='E-Z-B']Didn't Clinton sign NAFTA? Didn't trade with China explode under Clinton?[/QUOTE]

Indeed he did, but Republicans passed it in Congress, and most Democrats in Congress opposed NAFTA.

The President's November 17th political victory in the House of Representatives, where opposition was the greatest and where by most accounts opponents held the upper hand until the final week, came by a 234-200 vote. The last-minute push was alluded to by the President: "We had to come from a long way back to win this fight." The Senate vote three days later in support of NAFTA (61-38) was anticlimactic.

A decision to compete in the "new world economy" was the goal, asserted the President, who in actuality owed his win to Republicans. In both Houses of Congress, some three-quarters of the GOP lawmakers voted in favor of NAFTA. Meanwhile, most of the Democrats opposed the agreement championed by their President -- especially members from the industrial Midwest, minority members, and members with strong labor union ties. The agreement was also opposed by top members of the Democratic Party leadership, including House Majority Leader Richard Gephardt of Missouri and Whip David Bonior of Michigan.

Click to expand...

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1993/vo09no25/vo09no25_sellout.htm