Way out in "LEFT" field

In retrospect of my previous but most recent entry regarding "Left" wing ideology and the implications of re-defining terminology, I must say that for the most part the response I recieved from the "Left" wing pundits was expected and predictable.

I will add, to be fair, that there were some who displayed respectable maturity in their responses regardless of their disagreemet of the said topic. To them, some of the following may (or may not) even apply. I was pleasantly surprised to see some of those on the "Left" eager to discuss and debate these hot button issue's without resorting to school level name calling and swearing tirades. They have earned my respect as an "Admirable Adversary".

To the rest of the "Left" wing band of screamin' banshee's who decided to join in to the arena of discussion and debate, thanks for contributing your rants that had absolutley nothing to do with the post. If it is one thing that I can always count on when it comes to the "Left" and debate and that is their predictability.

One does not need to be a prophet in order to accurately determine the outcome of any discussion with them. What it always boil's down to is this...

When the topic is irrefutable they resort to the only strategy they know, (which does not amount to much) that being:

First, attack with strong word's/names that will instill guilt into the "Righty" so that he/she feels shameful and terrible for having the capability to think for themselves and offer up an opposing view. A "Righty" should never be allowed to have a differing view from the "Left" without feeling like they are some religously, homophobic, bigoted, racist. Even if the "Righty" just happens to be a black, gay, atheist, conservative.

(For those who are still convinced that there are no gay conservatives you may want to "stop in and say hello to my fellow conservative comrade and blogger." It would be rather obvious on which areas we would disagree on but this may shed a little bit of light for the "Left's" delusion that ALL homosexuals hold to leftist views.) "There is even American organisations as well! Gasp!" Anyways, back to the list.

second, if this does not work, attempt to derail and divert the topic to something else that has nothing at all to do with the topic at hand. This way the "Lefty" can now control the debate and bring it down to a level that they can understand and provide something that, well sort of, almost sounds intelligent. If the "Righty" actually falls for this tactic but the "Lefty" now finds him/herself being defeated by their very own argument then they must resort to talking circles. Example: (Lefty speaking)

"Well, no, that was not exactly my point, my point is, and our polling numbers show, that...well...uhmmm....well you know exactly what I mean. You know what? YOUR JUST A BIG RACIST, INTOLERANT, DIGRESSING, BIGOTED, HOMOPHOBE!!!!"

Another term for this type of "Lefty" circle talk is called Liberalspeak!. When they have nothing better or intelligent to say they just say anything. Which essentially is nothing!

Thirdly, If both steps one and two fail, they resort to what "Lefty's" do best. Rant, rave, swear, and call the "Righty" a bunch of ugly names while mentioning how unintelligent he/she sounds. It's rather entertaining at this point as they do not even see the irony of their own behaviour.

Ahhhh yes and number four is a personal favourite of mine. A "left" strategy that can sometimes get me in stitches because they think this (ahem, cough, gag) tactic is somehow effective. That strategy is the ever famous "Let's attack their religious beliefs and tell them how intolerant they are!!!" Naturally, they once again fail to see the irony of their own intolerance.

The above was par for the course in my June 4th entry. I wrote about the dangers of re-defining terminology. Actually I wrote about it last year as well with a complete "forecast" on the serious implications that re-defining marriage would have. That of course being that once you accomodate one group for the sake of their "sexual freedoms and RIGHTS" that other's (read: pedophiles, polyigamists, beastalists, etc.) would use the same claim to their own sexual freedoms and rights. The proverbial pandora's box has been opened.

Naturally many from the "Left" could not absorb the content of the article because they are too quick to rant and too slow to think straight.

First I was accused of homophobia. (Big yawn) Yeah sorry guys...you know I have got to remember to tell my gay friends that I live in fear of them. Of course when this tactic did not work I was then accused of Linking homosexuality too pedophilia. Yet when I challenged the "commentor" to show me just one line in the article where I linked the two, well, lo and behold they just disappeared.

Number two tactic then kicked in where another "one time comment wonder" stopped in to throw a bone at evolution. Huh? Your mad at the topic, you have no rebuttal, so let's talk about a myth so full of hole's it makes a fishing net look like a solid substance. This, of course, was not allowed to go nowhere so we then proceeded to step three....

Name calling. The "Left" could not successfully rebutt said topic sooooo....now they were so mad that by calling me a few harsh names this was somehow going to bring me to the point of saying "Uncle". Rrrriiiiiigggghhhhhtttt!

In fact I even recieved an e-mail thru my "Profile" contact link from someone blabbering on about how proud they were of Canada's mosiac culture (I have no idea what this had to do with the article but for sake of arguement I would respond that this is the reason we also have no national identity), that I was a racist??? (Even though there is not one mention of anything "racial" in the article. This "white trash" better also remember to tell his first nation's aboriginal wife and kids that he is a racist as well as a homophobe now.) and to finish it all off I was called an ignorant SOB. Siigggghhhhh...another angry rant that successfully managed to address nothing.

And then finally, my moral view was called into question because my faith in God was the underlying foundation to my social views. Duh! Apparently moral views are not allowed to apply where one has a belief in a deity. My goodness, how tolerant of the "Left". What was really bizarre about it all is the "Left" will often command that one leave their faith out of a debate. Which to my own credit I actually did. Nowhere in the article was my faith or any religion once brought into the entry. It was clearly targeted at political ideology and the train wreck of over used and abused cliches like the term "Rights".

So what did the "Left" do? The one thing they often tell me not to do. They brought my faith into the subject. (See, I told you they cannot make up their minds) What they forget in all of this is that they too hold moral values and social views and those values and views were influenced by something or someone as well. But in their cess pool of arrogance they feel their "beliefs" are the moral highground. Funny, that is the very self righteousness that they accuse the "Right" of.

As I pondered the past few weeks of the entry/comments and questioned why the discussion went everywhere except where it should have gone, that being, some acknowledgement from the "Left" that re-defining marraige is already turning out to be a bad idea with some very negative social implications, it was the words of Jack Nicholson that came to mind as I envisioned him bellowing out at the "Left"...

"YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!"


Your RIGHT Jack, they can't.

Until next time...