Customer Discussions > Politics forum

Why are liberals so immoral?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 411 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Jul 9, 2012 9:22:25 AM PDT
Steve in MT says:
Remember when Bush was President and all the howls of outrage over Guantanomo, rendition, use of drones to kill terrorists? All the outrage could have had a real moral backing but when Obama does exactly the same as Bush, or even worse, there is not a peep. Are liberals just unscrupulous or pure partisan hacks?
Another form of immorality has to be the abortion debate. If you can't understand that it is an ethical dilemma it makes it easy to attack those who would be pro-life as evil monsters. But what is it that is being aborted if not a human being?
My thinking on it is that the Left wants to be moral, but use emotions as a substitute for reasoning.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 9, 2012 9:25:45 AM PDT
I think it's just common to politics.

Kind of like how so many conservatives got concerned about government spending as soon as Bush was out of office.

It's just what people do. It's not cool, but it happens on both sides.

Speaking as a pro-choice person, I see there is a dilemma, a dilemma that is hard to solve with our current level of technology. I don't think the left is any more emotional about it than the right -- there are high levels of emotions (and poor argumentation, at times) on both sides of the issue.

Posted on Jul 9, 2012 9:28:25 AM PDT
There is a group of liberals that are very worried when Obama broke his promise on NDAA and let it pass with indefinite detention as part of the bill. There is still outrage over the patriot act being continually renewed, of his sudden toughness on marijuana.

What the average American voter is facing though is a choice between Obama who makes mentions that he would like to change some of these policies but that bends and allows the congress to push him or Romney who is vocal about endorsing the polices. Many liberal I know have decided to stick with Obama and pressure him hoping his second term he makes good on some of his promises.

As many have become frustrated with the Republican party and turn to Gary Johnson or Ron Paul to change some of these policies - the left has Jill Stein who is gathering a lot of support.

Vote Jill!

Posted on Jul 9, 2012 9:29:05 AM PDT
Steve in MT says:
But wouldn't you agree that the Left uses morality more as a weapon against their opponents by calling them selfish or hard hearted?

Posted on Jul 9, 2012 9:30:05 AM PDT
Both partisan sides are silly.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 9, 2012 9:33:22 AM PDT
The right uses spending against the left. Saying the left is irresponsible and after the tax payers hard earned dollar.

Both sides claim the high road on issues - that is why we are partisan.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 9, 2012 9:33:34 AM PDT
S. Evans says:
Steve in MT says: "But wouldn't you agree that the Left uses morality more as a weapon against their opponents by calling them selfish or hard hearted?"

Not any more than do the conservatives who call liberals "immoral" (casts eyes up at the topic) because they don't see eye-to-eye. Oh, and there's that whole meme that anti-war = traitor and that you don't support the troops. Wanting to protect social safety net programs like Medicare and food stamps = stealing from the rich to give to the (unworthy) poor.
You know, same stuff your side does, so does our side. Like Meghann said, it's what people do.

Posted on Jul 9, 2012 9:34:25 AM PDT
Steve in MT says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 9, 2012 9:35:48 AM PDT
S. Evans says:
Steve in MT says: "So, you would agree that the Left is immoral, you are just adding the Right? "

No. I think neither side is 100% righteous, nor 100% evil.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 9, 2012 9:37:02 AM PDT
The left will use the specific charges of "selfish" and "hard-hearted," but I think the right is more likely to call people "murderers" (on abortion) or accuse them of hating America. A charge that has been frequently tossed at me is that I have no values at all.

Both sides use morality as a weapon.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 9, 2012 9:37:23 AM PDT
what is your definition of immoral - if its drone attacks, indefinite dentition, warrentless wiretappings - I believe both sides are immoral than.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 9, 2012 9:37:35 AM PDT
If you use "reply to this post," people will be able to tell who you are addressing.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 9, 2012 9:39:58 AM PDT
joeyboy55 says:
Who let this rational person in here????

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 9, 2012 9:41:30 AM PDT
Aren't you, with the very title of your thread, using morality as a weapon against the left?

Your high ground is below sea level on this one, Steve.

Posted on Jul 9, 2012 9:44:19 AM PDT
Paul Crow says:
I'm going against the grain here, but what's with all the hate for drone strikes?

A drone strike makes for a much smaller area of destruction than say a missile fired from a ship or a bombing run. More than that, drones use cameras that monitor the situation on the ground. For example, a drone pilot can scrub an attack if there's a school bus parked nearby, unlike missiles or smart-bombs. There's way less chance of innocent people being killed with the strike from a drone. They aren't as pin-point accurate as a sniper, but they are a lot better than most alternatives.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 9, 2012 9:45:23 AM PDT
Steve in MT says:
I am just tired of the supposed morality arguments that don't agree with the facts. For instance, Affirmative Action, which is legalized racism, or making the rich pay their "fair share" which should mean that they would get a tax cut.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 9, 2012 9:47:18 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 9, 2012 9:50:05 AM PDT
So you do not want a discussion you just want to rant.

Okay have at it....

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2012/april/walton-affirmative-action-042612.html
Stanford Report, April 26, 2012
Affirmative action is needed to get the best candidates, Stanford psychologist says

The researchers plan on submitting their findings to the U.S. Supreme Court, which is expected to hear arguments next fall on what could become a landmark affirmative action case.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 9, 2012 9:51:11 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 9, 2012 9:51:27 AM PDT
If you're tired of those arguments, you should try to make your best argument -- not adopt the style that you pretend to be better than.

With this OP, you're no better than the people on the left who claim the only reason conservatives are against health care is because they want people to die.

If you don't want morality to be used as a weapon, don't use it as a weapon yourself. It fatally undercuts your argument.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 9, 2012 11:10:48 AM PDT
joeyboy55 says:
"legalized racism???" For a couple centuries there was actual, real "legalized racism" in the forms of slavery and Jim Crow laws, among many other examples. Are you really going to cry for the poor little rich people being taxed? Every day, there is more evidence of how the rich have gamed the system (hear about the banking/interest rate scandal? It was in all the papers.) at the expense of you (unless you are one of those fabulous rich people, and if you are, what are you doing on Amazon?) me, and most of the working stiffs of the world. They were fixing the game, and then celebrating with champagne! Forgive me if I don't share your sympathy for these cheaters.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 9, 2012 11:11:43 AM PDT
freedom4all says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 9, 2012 2:27:34 PM PDT
Steve in MT says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 9, 2012 2:33:15 PM PDT
Steve in MT says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 9, 2012 2:39:19 PM PDT
The two need not be mutually exclusive! Plus, evil requires a certain je nais se quoi that I simply can't attribute to sheep.

Posted on Jul 9, 2012 2:41:59 PM PDT
Steve in MT says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 9, 2012 2:44:32 PM PDT
MisterTee says:
<making the rich pay their "fair share" which should mean that they would get a tax cut>

They've been getting their tax cut for 10 years now.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 17 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Politics forum
Participants:  41
Total posts:  411
Initial post:  Jul 9, 2012
Latest post:  Jul 25, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 5 customers

Search Customer Discussions