Politics & News

Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

How true is this?

The left-wing are the champions of tolerance unless they don’t like you. They push for free speech unless they disagree with what your opinion is. They believe strongly in women’s rights, unless you are a pro-life woman. They will advocate for $15 minimum wage but will say nothing when your job is gone. They will say democracy is the best form of government and then kick and scream to overturn the results they did not vote for.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

Northwest · M

The left-wing are the champions of tolerance unless they don’t like you.

Sweeping generalization.

They push for free speech unless they disagree with what your opinion is.

Are you saying that they can't disagree with you? Doesn't free speech go both ways? Isn't that the point?

They believe strongly in women’s rights, unless you are a pro-life woman.

So, what you're saying is that liberals want to prevent women from choosing to have babies? Can you give some examples? As far as I know, the only efforts I'm aware of, to block women's choice, are efforts to reverse Roe vs Wade, blockading women's clinics, attempts to defund Planned Parenthood, etc. But, please, provide some examples on how pro-life women are prevented from exercising their choice.

They will advocate for $15 minimum wage but will say nothing when your job is gone.

Prove it.

They will say democracy is the best form of government and then kick and scream to overturn the results they did not vote for.

So, what you're saying, is that you want liberals to vote for conservatives? Isn't part of democracy the right to choose who one votes for?

The only candidate who did not commit to accepting the election results, is Donald Trump. He won the elections, but it's not the left that's claiming voter fraud, it's Trump and his camp. Did you ever consider how this reality fits with your false narrative?

hippyjoe1955 · 70-79, M

@Northwest Dang that piece could have been written by a leftist with all its generalizations. Whodathunk.

Northwest · M

@hippyjoe1955 Yet, I did not generalize once, and I did not make any proclamations. You made all these outrageous claims, so it's up to you to prove it. Simple logic, but I don't expect you to answer.

sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M

@Northwest Ask Allison Stanger about free speech on campus. And of course babies in the womb have no rights, just kill them and go on your way. I wonder why the goddamndemocrats are crying about losing an election, and violating the law and the Constitution in a rather sick attempt to overthrow a duly elected President. Nah, they are not claiming voter fraud, just blocking every attempt to insure the one vote per person franchise. Strange how many vote in two states in every national election.

Northwest · M

@sunsporter1649 Not the topic

sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M

@Northwest Never heard of Allison Stanger? Whoops, does not fit the narrative, how silly of me. Killing children in the womb is not abortion, of course. Its....ah....well, I do not know what it is called. And fixing national elections is only approved when the goddamndemocrats do it.

Northwest · M

@sunsporter1649 Not the topic, but I'll leave it that with you, because you're not someone who understands what a debate is. Neither is Joe

hippyjoe1955 · 70-79, M

@Northwest Or you obviously.

QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M

@sunsporter1649 Look, you know nothing is ever accomplished by framing everything through the "life at conception" doctrine. We're not a theocracy. A fetus is not a child, in the legal sense, and the legal protections and status we ascribe to it it change depending on stages of development. If you can argue against that without falling back on religion, I'd be curious.

sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M

@QuixoticSoul You believe what you believe, I will believe what I believe.

QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M

@sunsporter1649 So, I take it, you cannot justify your point of view without Christianity. That's all right. But understand that yelling "children in wombs" is not compelling, unless you're already in your clubhouse - and if the foundation of your argument is religious, you'll never see legislative changes that fit your position. This is a secular nation, and you have to justify your points of view with secular reasoning. Your point of view has a pesky establishment clause problem.

sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M

@QuixoticSoul Perhaps if you had ever held your new born daughter in your arms you might think differently.

QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M

@sunsporter1649 That's an argument from sentimentality, and plenty of parents don't find it compelling either.

Furthermore, I don't know of anyone who is proposing that a newborn is not a child.

sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M

@QuixoticSoul Thank goodness I had parents who cared for me, and I passed that on to my daughter.

Northwest · M

@sunsporter1649 Not the topic of this discussion, not the topic of my reply. The earth is part of the solar system. Valid argument, still not on the fucking topic.

QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M

@sunsporter1649 That is still not any kind of a coherent position. If you point of view cannot be justified without allusions to feelings or religious concepts, that's a pretty major flaw.

sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M

@QuixoticSoul Religious concepts are the basis of our form of a Constitutional Republic. Take a look at a dollar bill sometime. There have been three major works in the history of man that have stood the test of time, the Bible, the Magna Carta, and the Constitution of the United States. The first freed man's soul, the second freed man's body, and the third freed man's mind.

QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M

@sunsporter1649

Religious concepts are the basis of our form of a Constitutional Republic.

Most definitely not.

Take a look at a dollar bill sometime.

Added in 1957 to frighten the commies.

the third freed man's mind

People's minds were already free - that's how we ended up with our constitution to begin with. And it was the philosophy of the Enlightenment era that did it, in its shift from theology to science and reason as principal guides of human civilization.

If you can't argue your position without violating the establishment clause, the founding fathers viewed it as unfit for inclusion into our body of law - and that remains true.