the-pi-guy said:
|
First bit is problematic. What political alignment does "Stephen Colbert roasting of George Bush" suggest? At the time Stephen Colbert was very well liked by conservatives because they thought he was one. He was a liberal pretending to be a conservative in order to satirize conservatives.
Are you a conservative? Then how do you know for certain that conservatives liked Colbert? I know plenty who have never liked him. That doesn't mean conservatives think he never makes good jokes sometimes, no matter who they're about.
It's just so filled with bizarre ideas of like "conservatives don't do drugs or dislike Jesus." Lots of statements that just aren't true, or don't seem to have any political alignment whatsoever.
Do you think that conservatives can't have crazy ideas about who Jesus is? One of my previous coworkers literally believes that Dr. Fauci is literally the anti-christ. Do you think that Atheists can't be politically conservative?
Conservatives also don't get abortions, because they're pro-life, except when they do, because they think their abortions are different, they are justified. I have incredibly conservative family members that do drugs. There are also conservatives who live off welfare. They just think that their circumstances make welfare justifiable.
Democrats aren't for violence or guns, until one of their own shows up to a Republican baseball practice and shoots some of them.
What about Q? The crazy conservative conspiracy theory, apparently? Q names both Democrats as well as Republicans, amongst others, so how does that make Q conservative? Maybe because Q is against complete globalism? Since when are all conservatives against that and all liberals for that? Some are for it, some are partially against it, and some are entirely against it.
And you'll also find that some illegal immigrants are conservatives. They also think their particular circumstances makes it justifiable.
I never said all immigrants are liberals. To assume that's what I meant would be a very poor assumption, and since so many assumptions are being made in these conversations, you can't help but wonder how incorrect they may be.
It's a big reason why conservatives get called hypocrites and selfish. Because even if/when there aren't any differences between how liberals and conservatives act in their daily lives (whether it's drug use, abortion rates, welfare, etc), conservatives will frequently view their actions as being better/justifiable. They're "hard working Americans down on their luck. They're not like those other people that are getting so much out of the system even though they could be working instead".
Conservatives say the same thing about liberals, about how they automatically think they're better and are hypocrites with double standards, with plenty to back that up. So looks like that's something both sides share in common.
But I'm getting away from a very important point. It doesn't really matter if he was a leftist or if he was a centrist with lots of right wing and left wing positions. What exactly pushed him over the edge? He wasn't in Nancy's house because he supported her positions so strongly.
Finally. Someone mentions the fact that there may be something else to this. Like maybe his mentally stability is a concern, and that it has nothing to do with his political affiliation. This was the first thing I thought when I heard the story, but that's seen as a pretty poor argument unfortunately, when one side has already labelled him as a riled up conservative. Maybe more effort and time should have gone into the story before big famous names and media started labelling him. How would that help make conservatives look bad though?
On a related note, you seem to have completely skipped over the part where Elon Musk shared a tweet that alleged that this man was Pelosi's gay lover, and that it was a dispute that they had. It doesn't seem to bother you that Elon Musk tweeted out such a claim.
I'm the one who initially explained the Elon tweet to Clinton. All he was doing was making a point. If she's going to jump to conclusions about the story, then so will he. If she's going to post something that's mostly a guess, then he's going to do the same. If she's going to smear the right, he's going to smear the left.
The overall point was, you can either play clean or play dirty, and if you want to play dirty, two can play at that game. Conservatives aren't playing nice anymore. That much has been clear to me for a while now. If the left can get away with it, then so can the right. Either things can go back to being more legitimate, or they can keep getting worse and it's not the right who's going to decide that. That's the stance the right is taking, that looks to be clear, and if the left doesn't like it, the right isn't going to care going forward until things change.
Or you know, don't make any assumptions whatsoever and look at the facts.
All these conversations about this have been nothing but assumptions by everyone, so why does this only apply to me? That seems to be a trend now.
