I copied-and-pasted this from a different thread, to save the time of typing it out again. This isn't directed at my_porsche, but I had to include the quote to put it in context.
The question I would like answered is the one in paragraph three (below).
Originally Posted by my porsche
I've heard you talk before defending Republicans as a whole after tiny portions of negative right-wing have been critisized, saying that they, of course, do not represent the whole picture at all. This of course is a logical argument, and is true. The problem comes when you start holding obvious double standards like this.
Making up some lame story that you think a blind uninsightful left-winger might say is hardly a way to make an argument. As I said before to Quattro man, political arguments can't even really be made on a lower-level scale of intelligence, because at that point, a lot of people don't really get it. I know a few 8 and 9 year old kids who like to bash Bush, but they haven't got the foggiest idea what he's done. They are politically irrelevent.
So, all blunders and political figures aside, what do you have against the left-wing ideals? I don't want to hear any mentions of "some people", "Micheal Moore", "John Kerry", "Many Libs", etc. Get right down to the philosophical level and tell me what is wrong with our ideals, why right-wing ones are better, etc, because that's what it is really all about (and relevant on a global scale as well).
The real caring, supportive, and progressively-thinking liberals all over the world are just as sick of being associated with John Kerry and Micheal Moore (etc) as right-wingers are with the fact that Bush can't speak.