More Double Standards of the Antis

Blah, the antis blogs have been VERY boring still I was just skimming Joan Peterson’s blog and I saw a trend. Seems she constantly attacks the source of a rebuttal information. “Oh you can’t cite Wikipedia!” “Oh, that guy works for X Right-wing thinktank/ or is an NRA member, you can’t cite them!” “Examiner Articles are biased!” Etc.

Seems Joan likes to avoid arguments because such-an-such a source is “Biased”, but oddly enough she has no problem getting 90% of her world view from the very Joyce Foundation sources that she works for.

Remember “Its only bad when YOU do it!” is the “Progressive” way!

See also Calling anybody who doesn’t like President Obama a “Racist”, but looking the other way with left-wing racists.

Jerks, the lot of them.

This entry was posted in Guns, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

0 Responses to More Double Standards of the Antis

  1. BobG says:

    “Liberals are very broadminded: they are always willing to give careful consideration to both sides of the same side.”
    – Anonymous

    • Weerd Beard says:

      Ain’t that the truth. I have a similar thought when I see those “Coexist” bumper stickers.

      Oh, I wonder what they think of the tea party? Female Genital mutilation? Open Carry?

      First up there is some merit in intolerance. I’m pissed when I hear some booger-eater call our President a Ni**er, just as much as when I heard his pastor bashing White people and Jews.

      That being said the “Tolerant” left always seems to have the least desire to “Coexist” with those who they disagree with, and certainly have no interest in explaining why that is.

  2. Bubblehead Les says:

    Try taking History Classes with them, then writing Term Papers proving them wrong, then having to go to the Dean to get your Failing Grade overturned.

    • Weerd Beard says:

      Thankfully I never had to deal with such shit (and I was still mostly commie for most of my College years…tho many of the Science profs were some of the big leading influences to me becoming the man you see today), but I’ve heard MANY the story of somebody pointing out an inconvenient truth to a “Progressive” professor.

  3. Blue says:

    I don’t like obama. Not even a little bit.

      • Braden Lynch says:

        Hurling the racist charge by the left, so often, and so stupidly, has reduced it to an ugly slur. So, I hope that it will lose its talisman protective effect on “The One Who Will Not Be Named, Who Occupies The Oval Office” in time for 2012.

        Meanwhile, if someone calls me a racist I will respond with an insult using such nasty words that it would make a Navy SEAL cringe. I’m not in the Tea Party, but I agree with their platform and I view the attacks on them as deplorable.

        Well, I also LOVE to point out that “TOWWNBNWOTOO” is not black, and he’s not white, he’s bi-racial. Thus, it is a bit odd to hurl the racism charge. To all the liberals out there that were motivated to vote for him because it would be cool to have the first “black” president…the jokes on you!

  4. Gunnutmegger says:

    “Attacking the source” is a tactic that cuts both ways.

    Feel free to use it against the anti-‘s.

  5. Daniel in Brookline says:

    “Attacking the source”… thanks. I knew there was a name for it.

    I’ve seen that time and again when arguing with liberals. (It’s not unique to them by any means, but for some reason it seems more prevalent on the left.) The principle is: if I can discredit YOU, you’re out of the fight, and I win by default.

    But that lazy tactic has its hazards too. A colleague of mine at work used to enjoy trying it: “But Daniel, you said [insert something ridiculous here]. Why should I listen to ANYTHING you have to say?” He seemed to like looking for “existence theorems” — a detail that would prove his point just by its existence. The fun part is that his argument was hanging on one (supposed) fact… and when I refuted it, he was left with nothing. He could then choose to walk away or start the argument from scratch, and he usually chose the former.

    Alternatively, you can just reject the desire to put an argument (or a person) out of bounds. “Why shouldn’t you argue politics with a lifetime NRA member? She’s an American, isn’t she? And her vote cancels yours out; seems like you have a vested interest in talking her around.”


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *