At what point does right wing just mean racist/d1ck/heartless baxtard?

riffmongous wrote: »

I do find it interesting how the right like to proclaim themselves the bastion of free speech against left wing fascists at the moment, then of course the first thing right wing parties do once they get into power is start curtailing press freedom, e.g. Hungary, Poland

Oh yes those terrible Hungarians and Poles.
I remember when the Hungarians were labelled racist right wing fascists when they just thought it wasn't a good idea to have so called refugees, who happened to be thousands of miles from the war they were supposedly fleeing and as it turns out most weren't actually form the countries at war at all, wandering wholesale into their country.

Funny how a year later other countries have had to adopt the same "fascist" views about these so called refugees :rolleyes:

Of course I would probably be termed a right wing fascist racist, because I just don't fancy a bunch of single adult males wandering into Western Europe from some of the most backward, misogynist and discriminatory parts of the world.
And these have been found to include those who have absolutely shag all respect for the way of life and freedoms I have grown up with and would like my children, including my daughter, to enjoy in the future.

I also find it funny how the right wing is equated with conservative christians, fiscal conservatives, libertarians, anti immigrants, racists, fascists, tea party republicans in the US and FF/FG Irish governments.
Oh and anyone that doesn't believe in helping freeloaders who can't be bothered getting off their ar**es to help themselves.

And don't forget anyone heartless is of course staunchly right wing. :rolleyes:

Remind me again if the ultra leftie communists that ruled Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, China, Cambodia, etc were heartless or not ?

The other funny thing in this is that ex property developers, tax evaders and vineyard owners are somehow now seen as lefties.

Next thing someone will be telling us Peter Goldman Sachs Sutherland is a leftie.

A good example is if somebody is from a disadvantaged inner city area. Somebody going to college and doing well from there would be looked at as an example of how "everybody can do it if they work hard enough" from a right wing view point. Whereas left wing would view it as what can happen if the right supports and attitude is there.

I think there has to be an element of the carrot and the stick applied. People there need help otherwise there's a high chance they'll succumb to drugs, leave school early, crime, all those things just by virtue of where they live. The stick is cutting welfare if they don't avail of training or education, a prison system that is an actual deterrent, stuff like that.

Left wing looney types expect the state to solve everything in that scenario with little consequences, while right wing retard types would cut everything because there are no economic benefits or it costs too much, and look at the anecdotal examples of people making it from those areas as if that's proof everybody can do it.

mariaalice wrote: »

It is not the well off who give out about Aoife in general (there are exception to every rule ) that is a bit of myth. I find it is generally those who are only one or two steps up from Aoife who rage about her the most.

Maybe it has something to do with fact that the ones a few steps above get lumped with the high tax take, relative to their income, to pay for the ones a few steps below who often can't be ar**ed doing anything abut their situation.
The ones at the very top often get away with paying shag all so they couldn't care less.
How would you feel if you scrimp and save, work long hours to afford a home and then someone who doesn't do anything is handed a similar home, probably to an extent courtesy of your taxes.

Also the ones a few steps up may have gotten there through sheer hard work and then they see some lazy fooks who expect everything to be handed to them.

There are a fair few Aoifes out there who are trying to make a better life for themselves and for their children, but lets not beat about the bush we all know there are a fair few who are just interested in the social welfare train.

I find a lot of lefties to be 'virtue signalling narcissists' for whom 'caring' is little more than an ugly self-aggrandizing opportunity to express their moral superiority over others rather than actually giving even the tiniest $h1t about their purported cause, the kind of individuals that would step over a homeless person in the street on their way to a free Palestine rally.

Most of the truly compassionate individuals I’ve met have tended to be small ‘c’ conservatives who genuinely go out of their way to uphold their values regards community, fairness and charity, all without expeting a fanfare on social media for doing so.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Indeed libertarianism views a prostitute as engaging in an economic activity by free will. Nice in theory but that's about it.

unfortunately wrote: »

Conservatives do this and liberals that, right-wingers and lefties want this, jeez they're people. I've never heard such nonsense in my life. These terms are completely vague and ill-defined and people have contradictory definitions. No-one actually thinks and talks the way you are all portraying them in this conversation.

Instead of caricaturing each other and blaming the other side for being stupid and wrongheaded; realise that there is no clear "side".

If you disagree talk and try and find a solution or compromise, entrenching yourself and slurring the other side doesn't nothing. You all sound like children.

That isn't reality though otherwise you wouldn't have political parties with core support bases.

When it comes to election time there are as many people like that as independent or floating voters.

Jayop wrote: »

You keep saying what you think the left will say or do rather than listen to any of the many replies you've had regarding this exact subject. It's incredibly infuriating to have someone tell you what you think rather than actually listen to what you think.

Is this not what you did when you said the below?

Jayop wrote: »

They want to be left alone and have their own freedoms, providing they can still tell others what to do with their lives and bodies. (generally)