Remember that time they tried to link Sarah Palin’s ‘crosshairs’ map to Gabby Giffords attempted murder? How about that time they said the Colorado or Newtown killers were probably ‘far-right extremists or Tea-partiers.’ Then they were sure the Boston Marathon Bombers attacked the marathon because ‘far-right’ elements used ‘Patriots Day & Tax Day’ and… ohmygawsh ‘the Boston Tea Party!?’ Each time they were wrong, but isn’t it sad how to legitimize your cause you try to link evil deeds to the other-side? Salon.com even ‘wished’ for the bomber to be a homegrown far right extremists. Pathetic
—Both sides do this, but 4/5 times it is the Left.
The biggest problem the RIGHT has is that they allow the LEFT to re-define them in a way that is negative… allowing for the often “emotion” appealing LEFT to Label, accuse and win the argument (emotionally) before dialogue begins.
Pro-Traditional Marriage = Anti-gay rights / homophobia
Anti-Affirmitive Action = Anti-Black / Racist
Pro-Life / Anti-Abortion = Anti-Women / Anti-Choice
Pro-Gun = Pro-killing / Pro-murder
Anti- (excessive) Welfare = Anti-poor / Greedy
Pro-States Rights = Pro-Confederate / Pro-Bureaucracy
How does the Right counter? It spends time explaining itself in paragraphs whereas the left can sum us up in 1-Loaded word.
The Right needs to “come out” first. It needs to be able to sum up it’s positions quicker… without need of explanation. Should it push the “emotional” argument above the “reason” - no. Unfortunately though, this position is harming us because today’s society will not take the time to listen to an argument it traditionally and immediately finds opposing or offensive.
This is the first line in long list of challenges faced by the Right. What are some solutions?
The left never can help themselves. An international hero dies and the left responds, not with sympathy or even silence, but with vitriolic hate.
They started a #DingDongTheWitchIsDead hash tag:
Not satisfied to simply celebrate the death of an icon, there was also the usual Bush-bashing and Cheney-death-wishing:
It wasn’t just a few nobody’s on Twitter delighting in Thatcher’s death, the mainstream media added their own fuel to the fire. The Associated Press, who lionized socialist dictator Hugo Chavez as some sort of hero, dumped on Thatcher’s legacy:
Love her or loathe her, one thing’s beyond dispute: Margaret Thatcher transformed Britain. The Iron Lady who ruled for 11 remarkable years imposed her will on a fractious, rundown nation — breaking the unions, triumphing in a far-off war, and selling off state industries at a record pace.
For admirers, Thatcher was a savior who rescued Britain from ruin and laid the groundwork for an extraordinary economic renaissance. For critics, she was a heartless tyrant who ushered in an era of greed that kicked the weak out onto the streets and let the rich become filthy rich.
Again, did the AP even suggest that Chavez was a “heartless tyrant”? Nope, even though he clearly was. J.P. Freire posted a marvelous takedown of the APs ridiculous double standard.
That photo was, of course, taken a very long time ago. Savile’s horrible actions didn’t come to light until very recently.
CNN also aired reports saying that Thatcher “decimated entire communities and industries” during her tenure as Prime Minister, which is patently untrue, of course. MSNBC described Thatcher’s legacy as the “antithesis of freedom.” MSNBC’s Martin Bashir trashed her as “divicive and selfish” and even accused her of inciting “race riots.” CBS called Thatcher the “plunder woman.” Virtually ever media outlet made sure to counterweight any mention of her accomplishments by describing how much she was hated by her opponents.
Perhaps the dumbest quote of the day came from CNN and ABC contributor Donna Brazile who actually questioned whether Margaret Thatcher has any meaningful legacy at all…
Oh, let me think, Donna. Hmm… She helped bring down Communist Russia and the Berlin Wall. She helped restore freedom and a democratic government to the Falkland Islands. She completely turned around an ailing economy in Great Britain. She saw income levels rise across the entire spectrum of British citizens. She fought back socialism’s creeping rise in British politics. She was the first female Prime Minister of England, shattering the so-called “glass ceiling” that liberals love to talk about so much.
No, liberals have no idea what to do with Maggie Thatcher because she doesn’t fit their mold. She was a powerful, independent woman who championed independence in others. She stood on her own two feet instead of leaning on the government. She was conservative to the core. She altered the course of history and left a peace-time legacy in England as great as the war-time legacy of Winston Churchill.
It wasn’t Ronald Reagan or one of her conservative allies who nicknamed Margaret Thatcher “The Iron Lady.” It was Communist Russia, who gave her that name because they feared her. To this day, the left continues to fear her, even in death.
LIBERALS MAD I’M DARING TO COME OFF THE PLANTATION
—Dr. Ben Carson: Listen Here
The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.
Keep up the fight, my fellow right-wingers :]
(Of course Im being partially humorous here, relax).
An awesome story of who and what the Chic-fil-a leadership is like and what they REALLY stand for.
In many ways, getting to know Dan better has reminded me of my relationship with my uncle, who is a pastor at a Pentecostal church. When I came out as openly gay in college, I was aware that his religious views were not supportive of homosexuality. But my personal relationship with my uncle reassured me of his love for me — and that love extends to my husband. My uncle would never want to see any harm come to me or Tommy. His beliefs prevented him from fully reconciling what he understood as the immorality of homosexuality with the morality of loving and supporting me and my life. It was, and remains, an unsolvable riddle for him, hating the sin and loving the sinner.
My relationship with Dan is the same, though he is not my family. Dan, in his heart, is driven by his desire to minister to others and had to choose to continue our relationship throughout this controversy. He had to both hold to his beliefs and welcome me into them. He had to face the issue of respecting my viewpoints and life even while not being able to reconcile them with his belief system. He defined this to me as “the blessing of growth.” He expanded his world without abandoning it. I did, as well.
As Dan and I grew through mutual dialogue and respect, he invited me to be his personal guest on New Year’s Eve at the Chick-fil-A Bowl. This was an event that Campus Pride and others had planned to protest. Had I been played? Seduced into his billionaire’s life? No. It was Dan who took a great risk in inviting me: He stood to face the ire of his conservative base (and a potential boycott) by being seen or photographed with an LGBT activist. He could have been portrayed as “caving to the gay agenda” by welcoming me.
I find this storing and inspiring breathe of fresh-air. It’s unadulterated by an agenda.
I want to point out how Cathy did not use this friendship as a “token gay - look at me!” friendship, but an actual sincere attempt to find understanding and love. It’s a great example of what we as Christians should do with those who even antagonize us. I love this. I wish the commenters weren’t so against it.
Looking at the comments, I found not one negative pro-traditional marriage commenter, but tons of negative pr0-gay commenters. Isn’t that odd?
“Now it is all about the future, one defined, let’s hope, by continued mutual respect. I will not change my views, and Dan will likely not change his, but we can continue to listen, learn and appreciate “the blessing of growth” that happens when we know each other better.”
Now, this is the kind of liberalism I used to enjoy and respect!
We’ve won this fight because of this. And these blatant PR attempts from Dan Cathy to repair the companies’ image. So that alone shows you that, obviously, people realize being anti-gay and having that reputation staining their businesses reputation isn’t good. On that this doesn’t offend me as much as it would, although I’m still offended. I hope conversations are still on-going and the donations to ALL groups that are explicitly anti-gay rather than just Christian groups, and workplace policies protecting LGBTQ employees are enacted. Until that happens, CFA will continue to be boycotted, and their brand rating will continue to be low.
Our pastor shared this story this morning in his sermon. It’s really an interesting piece. If these two seemingly enemies who have such disparate belief & faith systems can become friends and agree to get along while disagreeing, the why can’t we all?
Hallelujah! Congratulations to 2 adult men willing to resist our cultural love of polarization…willing to resist the posers on both sides who seek to prove their “strength” and “courage” by demonizing those who don’t think as they do. Congratulations for resisting our childish tendency to surround ourselves exclusively with others who think exactly as we do, and then “courageously” proclaim that “we are good, they are bad; we are enlightened, they are neandertals; we are loving, they are hateful; we are Godly, they are Godless; we are tolerant, they are intolerant; we are open-minded, they are close-minded,” and on and on and FREAKING ON! Mr. Windmeyer is correct. Our country’s love of dualism and its inevitable result - polarization - has led us to this point in which our “leaders” concept of “debate” is actually nothing more than a childish name-calling contest, and the result has been nothing less than a fruitless quagmire in which we fail to address very real challenges. God willing, their personal growth will be contagious!
We’re friends! My new best bud still donates millions to groups that want me to be a second-class citizen forever…but I don’t mind that so much as I do missing out on his delish chicken sandwiches. Yummy with a side of self-loathing.