EdHieron said:
badgenome said:
EdHieron said:
Strange because here in the US it's mainly the Right Wing that labels women that enjoy indulging in what should be their sexual freedoms as sluts and wants to outlaw abortion and to even go beyond that by in many cases seeking to deny women access to birth control devices simply because women enjoying their sexual freedoms goes against the teachings of some drastically out of date book.
And, it's Right Wingers that call Asians gooks because they're still upset about Pearl Harbor (many of them a few months back we're insisting that the Japanese deserved what they got from the earthquake because of Pearl Harbor: http://www.disinfo.com/2011/03/a-lesson-in-social-media-ignorance-earthquake-in-japan-2011/ . Even though America itself tried to destroy Japan at the end of WWII ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpCCo4GfU04 ) and should be remorseful about that.
And that tries to deny gay people what should be a basic human right in any truely free society by denying them the right to marry and to have the same rights as afforded to single couples that marry, and that create entire grass roots political parties that seeks to swell its numbers by taking advantage of the prejudices of the poor white working class simply simply because an African American President is elected that wants to bring beneficial changes to the lives of the largest number of Americans.
For a group that supposedly wants a smaller government these Right Wing types sure want to interfere in or curtail the personal freedoms of others in what is supposed to be a truely free society.
|
As you can see from the examples I've posted, while the left definitely prides itself on being more tolerant, once a woman or minority rejects the left's politics, that tolerance goes right out the window and that person gets hit with every slur in the book. So it seems to me that a lot of "tolerant" leftists are actually very intolerant and backward at their core but are able to supress it for political expediency.
Even in your own example, Obama has continued many of Bush's unpopular and failed policies. The economy over which he is presiding is a fucking disaster. The health care law that is his signature achievement is an unreadable bunch of nonsense about which we hear some new problem or glitch seemingly every day, and for which his administration is handing out waivers left and right (many of them conveniently going to his union allies who so vociferously supported the bill). So there are many reasons to oppose Obama as just another in a long line of shitty presidents, and a particularly shitty one at that, yet you imply - as leftists constantly do - that people simply must be objecting to his skin tone. So it is not unreasonable to conclude that you see him as merely a representative of his racial group and not as an individual with particular merits and demerits.
|
Well, if you look at the types of women that reject the leftist types of political policies, they do seem to be women that either have some interest in wealthy men being able to succeed with little regard for the welfare of the poorer types or women like Palin and Bachmann that essentially want everybody to have to kowtow to the worthless book known as the Bible and its teachings which actually seek to subjugate women and others. So, it's not as if they don't have some problems.
So, in other words, in your "tolerant" worldview if a woman holds a view that opposes the views of Liberals they must be a gold digging bimbo or a jesus freak? That's not stereotyping at all ...
Of course the failed economy stems directly from Bush's polciies which anyone was going to have a hard time correcting and which the Republican Tea Party types will only exacerbate for everyone other than the rich when they get in office most likely leading this country down the road to a civil war in the not too distant future or at the very least into a time of rampant lawlessness like the 1930s as many of the common people have to turn to crime and an entire generation of new Dillingers and Bonnie and Clydes rises up to express the disaffected resentments of the poor especially after The Republicans if they get back in full control following the 2012 elections manage to cut out food stamps and welfare.
If it is "Bush's policies" that are leading to the failure of the economy, why didn't the Democrats reverse these policies when they had full control of all legislative and executive branches? Why has Obama and the Democrats allowed the US to accelerate the most destructive policies of the Bush era (unsustainable deficit spending and a loose monetary policy to drive growth through consumption? Why were these policies in place long before Bush came to power? Why are Bush and the Republicans on record (many times) calling for a change to lending practices in 2003/2004 to avoid a housing bubble and the Democrats on the record as calling any tightening of mortgage rules "racist"?
The mass of poor and greatly uneducated white folks that swell the Tea Parties' numbers and make it look like anything more than just a club of rich people upset that they're going to have to pay more in taxes to help out lower class Americans certainly are against Obama due to his skin color. Of course the more affluent members of the Conservative party (though they may also share racist tendancies) are primarilly against Obama because they definitely don't want to pay any more money to help ease the lot of the lower classes in this nation and to help them in that cause they enlisted the masses of the poor whites that don't know any better due to the fact that they're blinded by their religion's teachings.
The facts dispute your world view:
Their racism is even apparent in their treatment of Herman Caine whom they're running as a Presidential candidate to deflate the charges of racism, however, you certanly don't see Caine coming anywhere near being the frontrunner of the Conservatives. No, that's Romney whom is very much emblematic of the old white religious boy's club that the Conservative party happens to be (even with Bachmann and Palin in the mix whose main role is to subjugate women as the book they follow calls for and to stroke the prejudices of the religious folks as I've mentioned before).
Are you this vocal against progressive activists who call for the linching of Clarence Thomas, or are you just one massive partisan hypocrite?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3ctO7fdrcc
|
