The passive-aggressive game is on, and Patrick Kennedy is a fine example.
Kennedy told CNS News that 'he can't understand how the Catholic Church can be against the biggest social-justice issue of all time' when referring to the USCC's strenuous objection to forcing taxpayers to fund abortions. Kennedy is lying, of course--but it's the tactical lie.
"You mean to tell me that the Catholic Church is going to be denying these people life-saving healthcare? I thought they were pro-life."
This is the "They're MEAN!" gambit. Kennedy intends to silence the Church and others who object to ObamaCare by attempting to pin the "Meanies" label on the Church (which points out that there are serious moral problems in ObamaCare legislation.)
Individuals who voice and exercise principled positions on the question are now or will be similarly targeted.
And it's not just on this issue. The game is exactly the same regarding the faked-global-warming-data scandal now blowing up, where the Left whines that "The emails were STOLEN!", as though that affects the veracity of the evidence.
At its root, this line of attack springs from the Left's most sacred belief: that only the Left occupies the Moral High Ground. Thus, any opposition to the Left's agenda is from Moral Defectives, or Mean People. (In economic debates, the usual position is that the objector has a profit-motive.)
No, Patrick, the Church will not shut up on this issue. Nor should the Right accept your rules of the game. Some things are far too important.
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
The problem is that BOTH sides ramp up the rhetoric and engage in deception to further their agenda. And, certainly, anyone who labels a group as “simply being mean” because they voice legitimate concerns about proposed legislation is downright laughable. It’s the position, not the group itself.
“Individuals who voice and exercise principled positions on the question are now or will be similarly targeted.”
Exactly! Why do liberals AND conservatives tout their views are the only ones which are valid and refuse to find common ground?
"At its root, this line of attack springs from the Left's most sacred belief: that only the Left occupies the Moral High Ground."
Confirmation bias at its finest. The RIGHT AND LEFT embrace this position. Neither side holds the monopoly regarding morality.
"This the “They’re Mean” gambit”
Now who’s whining and playing victim? So ONLY
liberals/Democrats play this game? So, the supposed ‘CINO’s” and “RINO’s” are "frauds" for their thought processes and positions? So labeling the other side with pseudo-intellectual terms like Statist and accusing them of “un-American practices” until it becomes engrained in public consciousness serves the “greater good”? Both Republicans/conservatives AND Democrats/liberals are players in this sickening game. You deplore these tactics, yet embrace them wholeheartedly! So spare me the self-righteousness. Look in the mirror first. That’s the problem with our country. The voice of the moderates are being drowned out by extremists from the left and right.
"And it's not just on this issue. The game is exactly the same regarding the faked-global-warming-data scandal now blowing up, where the Left whines that "The emails were STOLEN!", as though that affects the veracity of the evidence."
Again, do you believe in a strict interpretation of the 10 Commandments or situational morality in which the 10 Commandments serve as a guide? It can't be both ways. The ends justify the means -or- they do not justify the means. Either stealing is wrong/immoral or stealing is justified under certain circumstances. Besides, the article you linked to specified that it remains to be seen regarding if there was a concerted effort to "cook the books".
Left does NOT hold Moral High Ground: RIGHT.
A bit more seriously,
Neither side holds the monopoly regarding morality
Sorry, that's dead wrong. And the word "dead" is used deliberately.
In the cases of abortion and gay "marriage" the Right DOES hold the high ground. There are no shades of gray there whatever.
We can argue about wars and economic issues; they are licit subjects of discussions of 'degree' and/or method; but there are some things which simply are NOT nuanced.
Ain't science grand? It offers resilience in the face of fraud. If you can't show the evidence, if your results can't be reproduced, out you go, regardless of how you voted. Science is separable from the politics, too.
Post a Comment