NationStates Jolt Archive

First of all, I apologize if this title causes any offense. Second, I realize this does not apply to all leftists. But I'm getting sick to death of (some) leftists always labelling anyone conservative or right-wing as a 'Nazi,' 'anti-Semite,' 'fascist,' 'racist,' etc. Why the name-calling? Why lump everyone together into those latter four groups, all of whom are utterly despicable to most true conservatives?

Hey, that's politics. Anything as hotly debated as that is going to see a few insults from both sides.

Well, just what do you consider to be a true conservative?

But I can explain why conservatives are commonly called those names (not saying I agree with the use of those names).

Nazi/facist - Because many view conservatives as people who want to do things like impose censorship laws and basically ban anything that doesn't fit under their idea of "moral' values."

Anti-Semite - Because conservatism is often associated with Christianity (specifically, fundamentalism Christianity), which looks down at any other religion (or lack of religion) as inferior or damned.

Racism - Because, face it, it has historically been conservatives that have been racist, and that reputation was never quite lost.

Yay, verilly I agree. It does more harm than good in the long run.

However it is not as if the right wing is completely innocent in this facade of name calling over actual political discourse.

why do conservatives call anyone who doesnt agree with them "liberals", "pinko commies" etc

it works both ways

Well, just what do you consider to be a true conservative?

Someone who adheres to traditional values, strict interpretation of the (U.S.) constitution, laissez faire, non-interventionism in foreign policy, etc.

why do conservatives call anyone who doesnt agree with them "liberals", "pinko commies" etc

it works both ways

I don't.

Someone who adheres to traditional values, strict interpretation of the (U.S.) constitution, laissez faire, non-interventionism in foreign policy, etc.
what about those outside the US?

I don't.
no, but its a generalisation just like your first post

First of all, I apologize if this title causes any offense. Second, I realize this does not apply to all leftists. But I'm getting sick to death of (some) leftists always labelling anyone conservative or right-wing as a 'Nazi,' 'anti-Semite,' 'fascist,' 'racist,' etc. Why the name-calling? Why lump everyone together into those latter four groups, all of whom are utterly despicable to most true conservatives?
Because groups matter to liberals or leftists, or whatever else you want to call them. Groups matter so they can attack you, so they can assist you, or so they can feel good about themselves. Individual identity doesn't matter to liberals, leftists, or whatevers. Only what group you belong to has any reality for them. Which is ironic, of course, because they make such a big deal of individuality.

what about those outside the US?

It depends.

Because groups matter to liberals or leftists, or whatever else you want to call them. Groups matter so they can attack you, so they can assist you, or so they can feel good about themselves. Individual identity doesn't matter to liberals, leftists, or whatevers. Only what group you belong to has any reality for them. Which is ironic, of course, because they make such a big deal of individuality.
There is something else ironic in that post ;)

Someone who adheres to traditional values, strict interpretation of the (U.S.) constitution, laissez faire, non-interventionism in foreign policy, etc.

That Bush is a wacky commie, what with all his forgetting to be isolationist and his random religious yammerings. Such a damn Nazi.

I have no idea what is going on. I'm not even American. Just thought I'd join both sides of the argument.

First of all, I apologize if this title causes any offense. Second, I realize this does not apply to all leftists. But I'm getting sick to death of (some) leftists always labelling anyone conservative or right-wing as a 'Nazi,' 'anti-Semite,' 'fascist,' 'racist,' etc. Why the name-calling? Why lump everyone together into those latter four groups, all of whom are utterly despicable to most true conservatives?

we don't label conservatives (true conservatives) as nazis, anti-Semitic, fascist, and racist. we label the CHRISTIAN RIGHT that way. oh and you forgot homophobic and missing-a-heart

It's a simple matter of pointing out the skeletons in the other side's closet. Both sides do it. Human history in general has been a bloody business, so just about every political side and ideology can be associated with some crimes at some point in its history.

Left-wingers dig up Hitler and the fascists (or, if they want to make a better point about capitalism run wild, they dig up the 19th century) for the same reason right-wingers dig up Stalin and Mao.

That Bush is a wacky commie, what with all his forgetting to be isolationist and his random religious yammerings. Such a damn Nazi.

I have no idea what is going on. I'm not even American. Just thought I'd join both sides of the argument.

No, Bush is a neoconservative piece of crap.

No, Bush is a neoconservative piece of crap.

Neoconservative?. Isn't that an oxymoron?.

There is something else ironic in that post ;)
You mean the fact that I group all of them together? Maybe so, but I don't think name--calling hurts us neo--cons, whatever that means, as much as the name-callers think it does. Furthermore, I think we are more likely to admit to our politics. It's hard to get a liberal to call himself one. Don't you think? I mean away from the pack that they usually travel in.

It's hard to get a liberal to call himself one. Don't you think? I mean away from the pack that they usually travel in.
IMO, American liberals should get a backbone and learn to be real leftists, rather than the "conservatives lite" they are now.

unfortunatly the american governmnt is run mainly by extreme right wing members. These poloticians claim to be the face of their party so in effect the people you should be yellin are the high profile poloticians in out governmnt who claim to be what your whole party stands for.

You mean the fact that I group all of them together? Maybe so, but I don't think name--calling hurts us neo--cons, whatever that means, as much as the name-callers think it does. Furthermore, I think we are more likely to admit to our politics. It's hard to get a liberal to call himself one. Don't you think? I mean away from the pack that they usually travel in.
True. But then again, I'm not much different.

I only admit to being an anarchist either using the anonymity of the internet or amoungst friends. Otherwise I call my self a libertarian, so at least I will be taken somewhat seriously.

IMO, American liberals should get a backbone and learn to be real leftists, rather than the "conservatives lite" they are now.
*sings*

"'Cause baby, I'm an anarchist,
You're a spineless liberal."

Because groups matter to liberals or leftists, or whatever else you want to call them. Groups matter so they can attack you, so they can assist you, or so they can feel good about themselves. Individual identity doesn't matter to liberals, leftists, or whatevers. Only what group you belong to has any reality for them. Which is ironic, of course, because they make such a big deal of individuality.

Stop acting like a know-it-all. You're obviously not liberal, so how the hell would you know one thing about us?

We gather together and form groups and clubs because being with other liberals gives us a sense of hope, a sense that we can fight against the Radical Right's slow but sure takeover of the country. It's nice to be in the company of like-minded people, and that's the end of it.

Also, I have never met a cliche liberal or one who isn't unique. And that's the truth. Can conservatives really say the same? When I imagine the average conservative, I see a Stepford wife and a year's supply botox coupon or a corporate rat heading to his lawyer's office to discuss getting around those pesky government regulations on pollution and money laundering. Afterwards, the two grab a cup of Starbuck's and attend the 6th annual semi-automatic weapon show.

But hey, that's just me.

I only admit to being an anarchist either using the anonymity of the internet or amoungst friends. Otherwise I call my self a libertarian, so at least I will be taken somewhat seriously.
Hmmm, unfortunetaly, the term "libertarian" has been hijacked by the Randroids...

Hmmm, unfortunetaly, the term "libertarian" has been hijacked by the Randroids...
Well over here in Britain I am kinda safe from that.

...oh and you forgot homophobic and missing-a-heart

I've been called that many times, which really if you think about the actual meaning of the words does not make any sense. Homophobic would mean you are afraid of homosexuals. Neither I nor anyone that I know are afraid of them. We just don't think its right. And missing-a-heart because I'm pro-life? Sounds a bit backwards to me.

Well over here in Britain I am kinda safe from that.
just a pity there are no libertarian parties....i think

Hmmm, unfortunetaly, the term "libertarian" has been hijacked by the Randroids...
Not really . . . I'm libertarian, and I'm obviously not a randrdoid

No, Bush is a neoconservative piece of crap.

Now this is the kind of conservative I want to be dominating the Republican party! Not fundamentalist overusers of the Bible for political gain. Bravo on seeing Bush for who he really is, even though he claims to be one of you.

just a pity there are no libertarian parties....i think
Well the closest we have is the Liberal Party, who are in all honesty, a joke.

And a pro-market faction within the Lib-Dems.

Well the closest we have is the Liberal Party, who are in all honesty, a joke.

And a pro-market faction within the Lib-Dems.
the Lib-Dems are a bit of a joke as well

I've been called that many times, which really if you think about the actual meaning of the words does not make any sense. Homophobic would mean you are afraid of homosexuals. Neither I nor anyone that I know are afraid of them. We just don't think its right. And missing-a-heart because I'm pro-life? Sounds a bit backwards to me.

Homophobia is fear or contempt for homosexuals.

Missing a heart because conservatives are less compassionate towards the economically less fortunate.

Don't even get me started on being pro-life. Are you also pro-death penalty? Pro-war? If you're like the majority of "conservatives" I know, you're at the top of the hypocrisy pyramid.

the Lib-Dems are a bit of a joke as well
True.

But in the Liberal Patry is a whinny bunch of wannabes and make Lempik Opik look like an elder statesman in comparison.

http://www.liberal.org.uk/

Stop acting like a know-it-all. You're obviously not liberal, so how the hell would you know one thing about us?

So angry. So intolerant. Must be liberal, you have the credentials.

Now, I can observe, can't I? What are labor unions all about? Not historically, currently. They are groups that stand together, because the members don't want to be singled out either for merit or for fault. Who promotes unions? The left. The liberals.

What is affirmitive action? It's a system to give groups of people an advantage over other groups. Gee, I don't need say any more about that.

I could go on and on and on because I'm right.

We gather together and form groups and clubs because being with other liberals gives us a sense of hope, a sense that we can fight against the Radical Right's slow but sure takeover of the country. It's nice to be in the company of like-minded people, and that's the end of it.

Also, I have never met a cliche liberal or one who isn't unique. And that's the truth. Can conservatives really say the same? When I imagine the average conservative, I see a Stepford wife and a year's supply botox coupon or a corporate rat heading to his lawyer's office to discuss getting around those pesky government regulations on pollution and money laundering. Afterwards, the two grab a cup of Starbuck's and attend the 6th annual semi-automatic weapon show.

But hey, that's just me.
That's funny. No you didn't hit the mark, nor did you hurt my feelings.

Racism - Because, face it, it has historically been conservatives that have been racist, and that reputation was never quite lost.


Oh yea, Lincoln was a racist...how could i have forgotten???

I've been called that many times, which really if you think about the actual meaning of the words does not make any sense. Homophobic would mean you are afraid of homosexuals. Neither I nor anyone that I know are afraid of them. We just don't think its right.
The point is that it's none of your business.

And missing-a-heart because I'm pro-life? Sounds a bit backwards to me.
Not when you think about the fact that conservatives only seem to care about unborn babies, while completely ignoring the born ones. Right-wing destruction of welfare programs seriously hurts children of poor families.

True.

But in the Liberal Patry is a whinny bunch of wannabes and make Lempik Opik look like an elder statesman in comparison.

http://www.liberal.org.uk/
hey i dont mind him...just because he went to my school...no other reason

Homophobia is fear or contempt for homosexuals.

Missing a heart because conservatives are less compassionate towards the economically less fortunate.

Don't even get me started on being pro-life. Are you also pro-death penalty? Pro-war? If you're like the majority of "conservatives" I know, you're at the top of the hypocrisy pyramid.

The actual definition of phobia is fear. Therefore, fear of homosexuals. I do not fear them. For the record, I also have no contempt for them. I don't think what they "feel" (meaning decieved themselves into thinking they feel) is right. And not for any religious reasons, either.

If you're poor, it's your fault. Maybe not directly, but it's still you're fault because you can get out of it. If you want to, that is.

I'm pro-death penalty because they actually DESERVE to die. What gave them the right to take another person's life?

I'm pro-war if the situation is right. This Iraq War is right because we are helping the people over there. Most of them support us, too.

First of all, I apologize if this title causes any offense. Second, I realize this does not apply to all leftists. But I'm getting sick to death of (some) leftists always labelling anyone conservative or right-wing as a 'Nazi,' 'anti-Semite,' 'fascist,' 'racist,' etc. Why the name-calling? Why lump everyone together into those latter four groups, all of whom are utterly despicable to most true conservatives?
You said it before...morons on all parts of the spectrum like to label...conservatives do it too..

Oh yea, Lincoln was a racist...how could i have forgotten???
Lincoln wasn't a conservative.

hey i dont mind him...just because he went to my school...no other reason
I don't mind him either. He's just a bit, odd.

Certainly Parliament would be a lot more interesting if everyone was like him, Boris Johnson and Dennis Skinner though.

Because groups matter to liberals or leftists, or whatever else you want to call them. Groups matter so they can attack you, so they can assist you, or so they can feel good about themselves. Individual identity doesn't matter to liberals, leftists, or whatevers. Only what group you belong to has any reality for them. Which is ironic, of course, because they make such a big deal of individuality.
Wow...you make such a good point about not labelling people into tidy groups...right up until you do it yourself. Shucks.

I don't mind him either. He's just a bit, odd.

Certainly Parliament would be a lot more interesting if everyone was like him, Boris Johnson and Dennis Skinner though.
that would be great :D

PMs Questions would be a laugh

No, Bush is a neoconservative piece of crap.
I like you...despite your conservatism:)

True. But then again, I'm not much different.

I only admit to being an anarchist either using the anonymity of the internet or amoungst friends. Otherwise I call my self a libertarian, so at least I will be taken somewhat seriously.
I wish I could welcome you to the Libertarian club. It definitely fits my sense of the proper balance between government and personal responsiblity. If only the LP, as in Libertarian, not Labor, in the US could see the need for national defense...

I wish I could welcome you to the Libertarian club. It definitely fits my sense of the proper balance between government and personal responsiblity. If only the LP, as in Libertarian, not Labor, in the US could see the need for national defense...
Well I personally see the need for one and I'm libertarian

Homophobia is fear or contempt for homosexuals.

Missing a heart because conservatives are less compassionate towards the economically less fortunate.

Don't even get me started on being pro-life. Are you also pro-death penalty? Pro-war? If you're like the majority of "conservatives" I know, you're at the top of the hypocrisy pyramid.

I am a pro-life, pro death penalty, pro war against terror conservative and that is not hypocrisy. It is the fact that people who do wrong and great injustices such as muderers and Iraq's bathist leaders must be executed and how an innocent baby must not have its life ended because of an inconvenienced mother.
just my oppinion

Neoconservative?. Isn't that an oxymoron?.
Yeah, considering in Canada, we call him a neoliberal (which is not to mean liberal politically, but economically and not in a nice way). Can he be both? Those neo-politics always confuse me.

You mean the fact that I group all of them together? Maybe so, but I don't think name--calling hurts us neo--cons, whatever that means, as much as the name-callers think it does. Furthermore, I think we are more likely to admit to our politics. It's hard to get a liberal to call himself one. Don't you think? I mean away from the pack that they usually travel in.
Now we travel in packs? Hmmmm....

Now we travel in packs? Hmmmm....
Lemmings!

what about those outside the US?
Them too of course.
Cause:

We're all living in America
America is wonderful
we're all living in America
America
America

We're all living in America
America is wonderful
we're all living in America
America
America

When we dance I want to lead
when you turn yourself around alone
let us control you a bit
I'll show you how to walk right

We create a lovely round dance
the freedom plays from all violins
music comes from the White House
and in front of Paris stands Mickey Mouse

We're all living in America
America is wonderful
we're all living in America
America
America

I know the very useful steps
and I will protect you from missteps
and who does not want to dance at the end
does not know that he must dance

We create a lovely round dance
I will show you the direction
to Africa comes Santa Claus
and in front of Paris stands Mickey Mouse

We're all living in America
America is wonderful
we're all living in America
America
America

We're all living in America
Coca Cola, Wonderbra
we're all living in America
America
America

This is not a love song
this is not a love song
I don't sing my mother tongue
no, this is not a love song

We're all living in America
America is wonderful
we're all living in America
America
America

We're all living in America
Coca Cola, sometimes war
we're all living in America
America
America

Wow...you make such a good point about not labelling people into tidy groups...right up until you do it yourself. Shucks.
Tell me that group identity isn't more important to the liberals in the US than the indentity of the individual. Use what you see in practice, not what would be nice, or fair.

The difference is that I'm not embarassed to do that. Liberals are. I'm also quite willing to give up the government programs that require group identification, liberals aren't. Trade unions are another group that I'd love to see fall by the wayside. Liberals can't stand that idea.

I could go on and on and on because I'm right.


Ha ha..ha *wipes tears from eyes*...that's just downright PUNNY!

The actual definition of phobia is fear. Therefore, fear of homosexuals. I do not fear them. For the record, I also have no contempt for them. I don't think what they "feel" (meaning decieved themselves into thinking they feel) is right. And not for any religious reasons, either.

If you're poor, it's your fault. Maybe not directly, but it's still you're fault because you can get out of it. If you want to, that is.

I'm pro-death penalty because they actually DESERVE to die. What gave them the right to take another person's life?

I'm pro-war if the situation is right. This Iraq War is right because we are helping the people over there. Most of them support us, too.
I suspect this person is a fake. This is just too funny.

Well I personally see the need for one and I'm libertarian
My reference was to the national Libertarian party and their efforts to return to the isolationism that existed before the First World War. It just isn't a realistic alternative in this day. They don't seem to share my opinion that terrorism is a real threat. So, I voted a straight Libertarian ticket minus one.

I suspect this person is a fake. This is just too funny.

I'm fake because I voice what I believe to be right? A sad day it is indeed when morons like you can look other people in the eye and tell them what you believe...and mean it.

Ha ha..ha *wipes tears from eyes*...that's just downright PUNNY!
How about this: I'm judgemental, too.

Lincoln wasn't a conservative.

Then what would you consider him, a liberal???

The actual definition of phobia is fear. Therefore, fear of homosexuals. I do not fear them. For the record, I also have no contempt for them. I don't think what they "feel" (meaning decieved themselves into thinking they feel) is right.
What they feel or don't feel is none of your business. Just like what you feel is none of their business.

If you're poor, it's your fault. Maybe not directly, but it's still you're fault because you can get out of it. If you want to, that is.
Reality check no.1: Wishing for something won't make it happen, no matter how hard you wish for it to happen. In theory, you could even fly to the Moon if you REALLY wanted to. It's not impossible, just insanely difficult.

Reality check no.2: In theory, anyone can get out of anything. Even slaves could sometimes (very rarely) buy their freedom. Does that mean that it was their fault they were enslaved?

Reality check no.3: What about poor children, mr. compassionate conservative? If a 3 year-old girl suffers in poverty, and perhaps even dies, is that HER fault?

I'm pro-death penalty because they actually DESERVE to die. What gave them the right to take another person's life?
Since when is the justice system perfect? What happens if you put to death an innocent man?

Then what would you consider him, a liberal???
He was a populist.

I'm pro-death penalty because they actually DESERVE to die. What gave them the right to take another person's life?

What gives you the right to take their life?

Whatever. I don't feel like wasting brain power on you morons any longer.

Whatever. I don't feel like wasting brain power on you morons any longer.

Yeah. People like yourself have to conserve it.

The problem is those names are mildly true than they stretch the Sh*t out of them, thats why they call us Communists.

Well, I don't mind being called a communist. After all, I am one. :)

Yeah. People like yourself have to conserve it.

lol. Notice how he/she gave up when you made a good point. Classic :cool:

lol. Notice how he/she gave up when you made a good point. Classic :cool:

Well, thanks, but it wasn't really a point so much as an insult. But thank you.

First of all, I apologize if this title causes any offense. Second, I realize this does not apply to all leftists. But I'm getting sick to death of (some) leftists always labelling anyone conservative or right-wing as a 'Nazi,' 'anti-Semite,' 'fascist,' 'racist,' etc. Why the name-calling? Why lump everyone together into those latter four groups, all of whom are utterly despicable to most true conservatives?
I am sick to death when my fellow liberals do that do. The only people I would call fascist are archconservatives. I actually on several occasions have defended President Bush against accusations of fascism. I have said many times that liberal ignorance extremism is just as bad as conservative ignorance and extremism, because it's still ignorance and it's still extremism.

Yay, verilly I agree. It does more harm than good in the long run.

However it is not as if the right wing is completely innocent in this facade of name calling over actual political discourse.

And to make things worse Conservatives had taken to calling liberals "fascist" and "Nazi-like" leading up to the last election. Now to call us Communists is a perfectly understandable insulting hyperbole, but to call us fascist?! That's just like Bush criticizing Kerry's war record.

In truth, there is a continuum with Communism on one end and fascism on the other and if you were to stand so far back that you could see them both at the same time American brand conservatism and liberalism would both appear to be in the same place. Except for the fact that all conservatives are black hearted, money-hungry, illiterate, racist, rednecks ;)

how an innocent baby must not have its life ended because of an inconvenienced mother.

First of all, reproduction rights have no place in politics. They're a private matter.

Second, fetuses are not the same as babies. Studies show that they cannot feel pain until the third trimester because their nerves are not developed.

Third, an inconvenience is being held up in traffic due to a car accident. An inconvenience is stepping in gum and getting partially stuck to the ground every step you take. An inconvenience is running out of gas a mile away from home. An unwanted pregnancy is not an inconvenience, it's a majorly psychologically difficult decision to choose to terminate. Some "pro-lifers" say pro-choicers are pro-abortion. NOBODY is pro-abortion. Think of how a child would turn out knowing he was an accident. If a pregnancy is unwanted, how good a life can the kid really have? As for the argument that they should give birth and put the baby up for adoption, if this were a law, it would be a total violation of civil rights. Nobody has the right to tell you what to do with your body. Too many kids are in orphanages anyway. Too many people are dying to have white babies when China and Romania and Africa and all the -stans have homeless children up the wazoo.

Fourth, if abortion is illegal, it will still happen! Duh! The only difference: it won't be safe. Coat-hangers and pills, they're too dangerous.

The right to choose is not going to go away, so calling pro-choicers murderers, protesting, and trying to overturn Roe Vs. Wade are futile. America won't stand for it.

Pretty much, the best way I can sum up what I believe is this:

AGAINST ABORTION? DON'T HAVE ONE!

Originally Posted by Amarius
I'm pro-death penalty because they actually DESERVE to die. What gave them the right to take another person's life?

What gives you the right to take their life?

One could make the argument that ones rights end when they infringe on someone else's rights. If all people have the right to life, then someone who violates that right, ie, by killing them, has lost their own right to life.

One could make that argument. I don't know if I buy it, personally. But it's definitely much easier for me to logically reconcile the classic conservative position (death penalty for criminals/no aborting babies) than the classic liberal position (no death penalty/abortion OK). I personally don't have the stomach to kill people at all, criminals, out-of-womb babies, or unborn babies, but that's more of a personal trait than something I feel should be a policy decision.

This, by the way, is my first post. I just discovered this site last night, looking through wikipedia trying to figure out what Soylent Green was, and somehow ended up here. Howdy, all.

EDIT: Oh, and murder, theft, and arson are all illegal. They seem to keep happening, though. Why not just toss out the laws on those? People will just keep murdering, stealing, and torching anyway, so why bother?

First of all, I apologize if this title causes any offense. Second, I realize this does not apply to all leftists. But I'm getting sick to death of (some) leftists always labelling anyone conservative or right-wing as a 'Nazi,' 'anti-Semite,' 'fascist,' 'racist,' etc. Why the name-calling? Why lump everyone together into those latter four groups, all of whom are utterly despicable to most true conservatives?
It's because dogmatic partisans often substitute mindless sloganeering for thought, and demonize their opponents. Equally true of both sides (see: Ann Coulter)

*sigh* I honestly don't see a difference between Dems and Reps - don't force me to elaborate, I can get really cynical

Someone who adheres to traditional values, strict interpretation of the (U.S.) constitution, laissez faire, non-interventionism in foreign policy, etc.
I'm aware of exactly *one* officeholder in the U.S. who fits that description - congressman Ron Paul of Texas.

Pretty much all the other high-visibility so-called conservatives in office are neocons, which is arguably closer to Mussolini's fascism than to American conservatism.

The actual definition of phobia is fear. Therefore, fear of homosexuals. I do not fear them. For the record, I also have no contempt for them. I don't think what they "feel" (meaning decieved themselves into thinking they feel) is right. And not for any religious reasons, either.

It can also mean fear of homosexuality, unless you really want to take the phrase literally in which case it can mean "fear of men" or "fear of the same." Now by that standard I'd be homophobic because I'm afraid of the prospect of more of the same of what we've been getting from this bunch of corporate elitist amoralists in power here now.

Fear of homosexuality seems to fit the bill quite well. Especially since the term "phobia" is limited to fear that goes beyon reason. Neo-con followers who believe that marriage is threatened by the prospect of gay marriage are being irrational. I'm in a heterosexual marriage and my it would not be threatened in the least if any of the gay couples I know were to get married.

Also, there has been a lot of Christo-conservative noise about people being enticed into homosexuality, as though being gay is some sort of natural urge that we have to be taught to resist or we'll all succumb and the human race will die out in a generation. Pretty damned irrational and fear based. One might say "phobic" of "homosexuality".

If you're poor, it's your fault. Maybe not directly, but it's still you're fault because you can get out of it. If you want to, that is.
Yes, you could use militant force to take the resources you need, just like the country as a whole does. Unfortunatly the country has means set up to prevent poor people from achieving wealth that way that are as effective as the means set up to prevent achieving wealth in more conventional ways. Or did you mean that if we didn't want to be poor we should have been born to richer parents?

I'm pro-death penalty because they actually DESERVE to die. What gave them the right to take another person's life?
That's a nice theory if you can be sure that the penalty is being levied fairly, but you can't. People are not omniscient and prejudice (not necessarily racial prejudice, remember the rash of fake child molestation cases in the 80's?) throw off a huge number of cases all the time. Only someone with the intelligence of George W. Bush would think that just because he has managed to avoid believing that any innocent people have been executed in Texas that his state had the most infallable jury pool on Earth (although the fact that he was exempt from participating went a good length towards making that the case).

I'm pro-war if the situation is right. This Iraq War is right because we are helping the people over there. Most of them support us, too.

So why did we support the rapist death squads in South America under Reagen?
Why did Bush senior support Saddam right through his use of chemical weapons on "his own people" right up until he threatened Britains oil companies who were stealing his Iraq's oil?
Why didn't Dubya intervene in Darfur region of Sudan, denial of weapons inspectors... oops, weapons of mass destruction... oops, being a big meany is bad enough to warrant a war but genocide "eh, let's wait and see?"

You're not a conservative, you're a sheep.

Because groups matter to liberals or leftists, or whatever else you want to call them. Groups matter so they can attack you, so they can assist you, or so they can feel good about themselves. Individual identity doesn't matter to liberals, leftists, or whatevers. Only what group you belong to has any reality for them. Which is ironic, of course, because they make such a big deal of individuality.
What's even more ironic is how you denounce lumping people into groups in the same sentence that you lump them into groups!

First of all, I apologize if this title causes any offense. Second, I realize this does not apply to all leftists. But I'm getting sick to death of (some) leftists always labelling anyone conservative or right-wing as a 'Nazi,' 'anti-Semite,' 'fascist,' 'racist,' etc. Why the name-calling? Why lump everyone together into those latter four groups, all of whom are utterly despicable to most true conservatives?
Same reason leftists get called commies. What goes around comes around

First of all, I apologize if this title causes any offense. Second, I realize this does not apply to all leftists. But I'm getting sick to death of (some) leftists always labelling anyone conservative or right-wing as a 'Nazi,' 'anti-Semite,' 'fascist,' 'racist,' etc. Why the name-calling? Why lump everyone together into those latter four groups, all of whom are utterly despicable to most true conservatives?

I apologize for this misconception. However, terms such as "conservative" and "liberal" are not at all indicative of one's political persuasion in certain applications. For instance, I could be conservative with the environment and I would value things antithetical to the right wing viewpoint. Diametrically, I could be liberal with the military, producing a profound amount of weaponry. This would make me right-wing.
I should proclaim that I am an extremely left-wing person. I don't call someone a fascist or a racist with no foundation for the insinuation aside from a mildly right-wing viewpoint. I WILL call you a fascist if you are one. For the record:
Fascism: A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerant nationalism and racism. (taken from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 3rd edition)
It can be easily stated that, predominantly, right-winged beliefs are inhibitions of freedom and personal influence in a political state. The further to the right a society is, the less power people have in their government. The pinnacle of this is anarchy (not to be confused with absolute liberalism in which there is a peaceful communist state, and ultimately a communal anarchy). Fascism is immediately below anarchy, in a fascist system, no one has any power except for the oligarchy (or plutocracy depending on the nation).
Pardon my inquiry, but what do you define as a "true conservative"? Is this a mildly conservative Republican in the United States? Is this a modest socialist? What are you referencing?
Lest I rant, "name-calling" cannot be exclusively assigned to members of one political persuasion because it is ubiquitous. Right-wing people have deemed left-wing people to be "communists" and "tree-huggers." Do their accusations hold any more validity?

Thank you for your time.

So angry. So intolerant.
Neocon tactic #c-34: If someone objects to an injustice, drop your 'war rocks kill kill' attitude and roll around belly-up whimpering "You guys are so mean! Can't we all be nice and just whisper?". This will distract attention from the real issue (see Neocon tactic #a-1)

They are groups that stand together, because the members don't want to be singled out either for merit or for fault.
Neocon tactic #d-4: When speaking of the opposition's policies, redefine their aims to represent the opposite of what they actually stand for. For instance: if someone is trying to give the poor a hand up the ladder, claim that the real purpose is to move the ladder itself down. (see "Ayn Rand was insecure and paranoid, though for understandable reasons")

What is affirmitive action? It's a system to give groups of people an advantage over other groups. Gee, I don't need say any more about that.
Yep, it's wrong. I agree...but you don't get a liberal-bashing point, because I'm actually not a leftist, I'm just someone who finds their overdramatic habits rather less annoying than the willful distortion that is the trademark of the modern fake conservative.

I could go on and on and on because I'm right.
Neocon tactic #a-3: Always act smug; opponents will sometimes just leave in disgust, it helps paper over the doubts you can't afford to examine, and the callow will mistake it for true conviction.

What's even more ironic is how you denounce lumping people into groups in the same sentence that you lump them into groups!
Okay, you and a couple others passed the "I can see irony" test. Now does that make my statement any less true?

Neocon tactic #d-4: When speaking of the opposition's policies, redefine their aims to represent the opposite of what they actually stand for. For instance: if someone is trying to give the poor a hand up the ladder, claim that the real purpose is to move the ladder itself down. (see "Ayn Rand was insecure and paranoid, though for understandable reasons")


This is kind of funny because in the next couple paragraphs I give examples of where groups are formed to help people. Maybe they are formed with good intentions, like A/A, but they have consequences that are overlooked.

The rest of this whole rebuttal was just chaff. And where did you get the Neocon rule book? We have to find that leak and stop it.