Confession: Liberal columnist says left lies, intimidates to silence right

[Dave Gray]

I'm not aware of a major religion that defines marriage as the union between a man of the same race and a woman of the same race.

I wouldn't provide positions of intolerance with any more or less leniency because they come from a major religion.  Intolerance hiding behind the veil of religion is still intolerance.  I don't find ANY position to be more valid because it's a religious position.  All ideas and positions should be held up to the same level of scrutiny.

I'm only protective of religion in what you're allowed to personally believe, but not by what you allow the state to do towards other citizens who don't hold your same belief.  So, if you want to think that it's against God for two men to marry, go ahead.  I'll think you're a douche, but whatever....I think lots of people are douches.  But when you want to create different laws for different people based on sexual orientation, it's an affront to civil rights.

[Dave Gray]

Her latest blog is titled "how Liberals have Ruined College"

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/11/how-liberals-have-ruined-college.html


Look, it's a fallacy of appeal to authority to criticize/praise someone for who they are, instead of what they say, so I don't want to weigh this too heavily.  But if she wants to have the opinion that Liberals ruined college, fine -- but this woman makes a name for herself by calling herself a liberal so that it gives her more clout when she regularly "breaks rank".  Liberal bashing liberals sells.  Moderate bashing liberals doesn't.

The left has these, too.  MSNBC parades Michael Smerconish around as a Conservative, when he's more of a left-leaning Libertarian.

[Spider-Dan]

Exactly.  She puts food on the table by being a "liberal" who gives cover to conservatives.

Here's a fun thought experiment:
See how many discussion panels on Fox News have minority guest panel members when discussing topics that are not related to race (e.g. Clinton e-mails).
Then look at the composition of the discussion panels on race-related topics.  Instant diversity!  They specifically bring on black people for the explicit purpose of criticizing blacks.  (Similarly, you will notice that there will not be a discussion panel without a woman on it criticizing Hillary.)

The absolute best part of all of this hand wringing and pearl clutching is that if you ask the people cheering this book if conservatives lie and intimidate to silence the left, they will protest with great fury.  And yet the Republican Party, at the national level, makes it a policy to stamp out anyone who even identifies as a moderate!  The GOP is empirically less tolerant of dissenting views than the Democrats; there is no GOP equivalent of Blue Dog conservative Democrats.  But the left has the tolerance problem, guys!

Yet another classic case of projection by the right.

[Spider-Dan]

One more point I think is important:

Do I believe that liberals (actual liberals, not paid FNC shills) are attacked for deviating from conventional liberal positions?
Of course they are!  The internet exists.

However, writing a book to trumpet this factoid is a waste of time, because there is no group of people who are not savagely attacked by internet commenters for the most trivial of reasons.  People who post video game reviews on YouTube for a living are regularly advised to set themselves on fire and then shoot themselves in the head.  So the internet is mean, and this is well known.

Powers' book implies that conservatives who fail to follow conservative dogma are not demonized by the right.  Jon Huntsman and Charlie Crist might have something to say about that.

[CF DolFan]

I'm reading this thread and I honestly have laughed loud with several snickers. It amazes me how people can't see the Forrest from the trees. "My way is right and if you don't believe it you are XYZ" but if the other side says the same thing in reverse it makes them Satan.

One of the best things I was ever taught is there is ALWAYS three sides to every story and perspective is everything. Good people have regrettably made some pretty horrible decisions because they were looking at things all wrong and didn't understand that until their perspective was changed through circumstance.   

[bsmooth]

Or she isn't intolerant of different view points, isn't dogmatic and can have listen to different ideas and consider them before deciding what her viewpoint is. I think that is called being open minded.

You mean how Glenn Beck was moderate and a centrist when he was on CNN, but as soon as he went to Fox News, he suddenly became far right in his beliefs. So which Beck was real? Or is it safe to say that you cannot fully trust what a paid member of a politically driven show states as far as their "true" beliefs are?

[bsmooth]

I'm not aware of a major religion that defines marriage as the union between a man of the same race and a woman of the same race.

Of the four major religions, Christianity and Islam share the same roots, so their stance is the same. However same sex marriage was legal in the Roman Empire until 342AD when the Pope decided to redefine marriage.
Hinduism does not speak to seam sex marriage directly, and neither does Buddhism.
It is humorous to hear Christians talk about how bad it is to redefine marriage, yet that is exactly what the Church did almost 1700 years ago.

[Rich]

You mean how Glenn Beck was moderate and a centrist when he was on CNN, but as soon as he went to Fox News, he suddenly became far right in his beliefs. So which Beck was real? Or is it safe to say that you cannot fully trust what a paid member of a politically driven show states as far as their "true" beliefs are?

I didn't mention Glenn Beck anywhere in my posts. Not sure how Glenn Beck is relevant.

I'll point you back to an earlier post outlining where Kirsten Powers stands on the issues.

[Rich]

Of the four major religions, Christianity and Islam share the same roots, so their stance is the same. However same sex marriage was legal in the Roman Empire until 342AD when the Pope decided to redefine marriage.
Hinduism does not speak to seam sex marriage directly, and neither does Buddhism.
It is humorous to hear Christians talk about how bad it is to redefine marriage, yet that is exactly what the Church did almost 1700 years ago.

Ok, I was talking about interracial marriage in what you quoted above...

[Rich]

It is funny to see the reaction from the liberals in this thread.

Not a one directly addressed the points Kirsten Powers is making. Instead, you all moved to discredit her. If this thread goes any further, by the time we're done you will be arguing that Kirsten Powers is to the right of Ted Cruz.

I guess the approach is.... when ya got nothing, shoot the messenger.

[Sunstroke]

I guess the approach is.... when ya got nothing, shoot the messenger.

I thought the approach was "When the message is comedy, enjoy the laugh!"

[Rich]

I thought the approach was "When the message is comedy, enjoy the laugh!"

Oh, I'm enjoying all the "sheez nawt a reel liburelz" comedy... 

[Sunstroke]

Oh, I'm enjoying all the "sheez nawt a reel liburelz" comedy... 

Interesting that the rest of the room is laughing at the comic on the stage (Kirsten Powers), but you're cracking up over the way people are laughing at her. I guess that as long as everyone's getting proper entertainment out of it, your original post has some value.

[Spider-Dan]

It is funny to see the reaction from the liberals in this thread.

Not a one directly addressed the points Kirsten Powers is making. Instead, you all moved to discredit her. If this thread goes any further, by the time we're done you will be arguing that Kirsten Powers is to the right of Ted Cruz.

I guess the approach is.... when ya got nothing, shoot the messenger.

I directly addressed the points she made: every political group attacks dissenters, so singling out liberals for it is like saying "the left uses negative ads in campaigns!"

However, the fact that Powers directly profits from advancing the narrative that she is hitting back at her own team is not some sort of minor nitpick.  For example, Powers is happy to claim that MSNBC is an arm of the Democratic Party, but bristles at the idea of Fox News being called an arm of the Republican Party, complaining that Obama is "smearing great journalists."

So no, the message is not really "she's secretly a hard right conservative" as much as it is "she is making a content-free statement that applies to all political groups in America" and "she's a paid shill who has a track record of selective outrage that just happens to dovetail with her own pocketbook."

For all I know, Powers might actually be a liberal.  But she receives a regular paycheck to come on TV and discredit liberalism.  So you'll forgive me if I have some skepticism about her biting criticism of the left.

[Dave Gray]

Not a one directly addressed the points Kirsten Powers is making. Instead, you all moved to discredit her.

I understand where you're coming from, but from my perspective, the author is relevant to this particular editorial.  She's claiming to be a liberal who is persecuted by her own by breaking rank. 

I think the point is that she is a token who is parading herself as a persecuted liberal specifically so she can take these counter positions to give herself legitimacy, where she wouldn't otherwise have it.

Attacking the messenger in this case is needed, because the message itself is about the messenger.