Liberals you have a decision to make

[dannyboys]

The two biggest problems facing the middle class are wages and the economy. Democrats are the ONLY party to not only have a plan to fix both, but have actually tried and were blocked by Republicans.

The LIBs had the Oval office, the Senate and Congress for two years. What SPECIFICALLY did they accomplish to help the middle class? Ask the fucking middle class what Obama's 100% control of the system accomplished.
This should be interesting.
The assholes could have passed ANY legislation they could have dreamed up!
They sat with their collective thumbs up their asses and spent two fucking years arguing among themselves whether the White house canteen should serve lasagna on Wednesdays or Thursdays. LITERALLY!!!!!!!!

 

[JoeMoma]

The left has to ask themselves whether this is the road they wish to go down.

That is the road they are going down, but they blame it all on Trump.

That seems to be one of the defining clichés of wrong-wing ideology, is that it never takes responsibilities for the consequences of its own policies and behaviors, seeking instead to always blame these consequences on their opposition.

So when Trump loses, can we count on you to blame him and not the:

The Media
The Establishment
The debate Moderators
The dirty tricks by the Democrats
The democrat voter fraud
The weather
The voters

I don't know about Bob, but if Trump loses I will blame or perhaps credit the voters.

 

[miketx]

I will blame the lying scum infesting the media and other places.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

What damage has he done to the country? The country was damaged almost beyond repair when he got in. If you want to blame the president for the whole country fucking up, then you need to take a long hard look at the country.

what do you think "fundamentally transform" means to a far left ideologue?

What has he done to the country?

1 doubled the national debt
2 divided the country like never before
3 destroyed the best medical system in the history of the world
4 created ISIS
5 funded the muslim brotherhood
6 made the US the laughing stock of the world
7 made Putin look like a strong leader
8 allowed radical muslims to infiltrate our country
9 lied to the American people about everything
10 abused the office of the presidency with illegal EOs

Don't forget his 64 Constitutional Violations. Think that's a record.

Why do you think that is a record?

From my memory, the only other President that even came close, or may have even surpassed that number, was Franklin Roosevelt.

We seem to be dealing a lot with your memory. I don't want to deal with what you think as this could easily be what you have just made up, do you see my point?

It's why I didn't claim it's a fact that it was a record, I said I think it is. The fact in that post is that he has violated the Constitution 64 times.

 

[frigidweirdo]

what do you think "fundamentally transform" means to a far left ideologue?

What has he done to the country?

1 doubled the national debt
2 divided the country like never before
3 destroyed the best medical system in the history of the world
4 created ISIS
5 funded the muslim brotherhood
6 made the US the laughing stock of the world
7 made Putin look like a strong leader
8 allowed radical muslims to infiltrate our country
9 lied to the American people about everything
10 abused the office of the presidency with illegal EOs

Don't forget his 64 Constitutional Violations. Think that's a record.

Why do you think that is a record?

From my memory, the only other President that even came close, or may have even surpassed that number, was Franklin Roosevelt.

We seem to be dealing a lot with your memory. I don't want to deal with what you think as this could easily be what you have just made up, do you see my point?

It's why I didn't claim it's a fact that it was a record, I said I think it is. The fact in that post is that he has violated the Constitution 64 times.

Which means what? It's just an unsubstantiated claim. It's pointless.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

It says that he failed to keep the economy from recovering, despite all of his efforts. So, uh, congrats, it's better than it was during the recession? Also, good job having a higher approval rating than one of the presidents who got the worst media attention... probably ever. We can keep comparing pond scum, but you're really not proving me wrong, just shifting the topic. If we want to be really specific, he's actually Bi-Racial or "Mulatto". He just calls himself black, and Liberals just call him black, so they can accuse those criticizing him of being racist.

Wow, that's an argument, that the president did exactly what you wanted him to do, but failed at doing it.

It's like saying Dubya did everything in his power to not invade Iraq, but failed, or he did everything in his power to make the post war period a success but failed.

I'm sorry, but it sounds like you're just making shit up.

Attributing the economy's recovery to Obama is inaccurate. Under any president, the economy repairs itself, it's how capitalism works. For any president, all you have to do is sit back and watch. The biggest thing with any president that has damaged or slowed the economy is that they refused to sit back and watch, they couldn't keep their dirty mitts off of our free market. Nothing Obama has done has actually 'caused' economic growth, he just loves taking credit for things, whether he actually had anything to do with it or not.

You don't have to apologize, I know it's hard for a lot of Liberals to accept reality.

I didn't attributing it to him was right. However you're claiming he tried to screw it up but failed. That's not true. A president can mess the economy up, or they can do the right things and the economy will go as it should. It's not just the president though. But of course, politicians try and take the praise for everything they can. You wouldn't be a successful politician if you didn't.

Obamacare and his recent Executive Order are a very good example of Obama's war on the Private Sector. I'm pretty sure he also continued the war on coal, which would also slow economic growth.

The funny thing here is that when Obamacare comes out everyone on the right shouts about how much money it will cost. However when the whole of the healthcare system is as corrupt as hell, with potentially 20-30% of all spending going on corruption and the right don't care, in fact they encourage it, you know there's a problem.

Is encouraging corruption promoting the Private Sector?

Coal, jeez, can't believe you're talking about coal. Maggie Thatcher got rid of much of the coal in the UK, and the right in the US LOVES her.

I was mainly referring to forced benefits and the tax on employees. I don't actually know who Maggie Thatcher is, but if she's warring on the coal industry also, she's contributing to the high price of energy.

 

[dannyboys]

We see college kids who obviously would identify as being liberal, who simply want to shutdown any opposing opinions to their beliefs.
Used to be the left was open to other ideas. Not today.

The left is plenty open to ideas, just not bad ones.

According to Leftists ANY idea that's not Leftist is a "bad" idea.

They're the MOST intolerant of people.

We see college kids who obviously would identify as being liberal, who simply want to shutdown any opposing opinions to their beliefs.
Used to be the left was open to other ideas. Not today.

The left is plenty open to ideas, just not bad ones.

I'll pretend, I tell myself. Pretending is safer than believing.
― Sarah Miller, The Lost Crown
​

Baby, you are barking up the wrong tree....

You just keep on believing what you write and want to believe....For my part, kidding aside, I don't know what inspires liberal's views, but I know that four researchers -- John T. Jost, Arie W. Kruglanski, Jack Glaser, and Frank J. Sulloway -- have identified the motivational factors that lead folks to adhere to conservative ideology. And just what are those motivating factors?

Many different theoretical accounts of conservatism over the past 50 years have stressed motivational underpinnings, but they have identified different needs as critical. Our review brings these diverse accounts together for the first time. Variables significantly associated with conservatism, we now know, include:

• fear and aggression
• dogmatism [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dogmatism]
• intolerance of ambiguity
• uncertainty avoidance
• need for cognitive closure
• personal need for structure
• terror management
• group-based dominance
• system justification.

Though you make the claim that liberals are "the most" intolerant of people, I cannot find any credible research that supports that assertion, or even that supports the charge that liberals are at all by and large, if not "the most," intolerant people. In contrast, I can find lots that supports a similar assertion that conservatives are intolerant. Indeed the conservative phenomenon and the behaviors exhibited by conservatives has so mystified deep thinkers that they have looked exhaustively into just what's going on in the hearts and minds of conservatives. What are some of their findings?

• "Reliance on quick, efficient, and "low effort" thought processes yields conservative ideologies, while effortful and deliberate reasoning yields liberal ideologies."

[P]olitical conservatism is promoted when people rely on low-effort thinking. When effortful, deliberate responding is disrupted or disengaged, thought processes become quick and efficient; these conditions promote conservative ideology… low-effort thought might promote political conservatism because its concepts are easier to process, and processing fluency increases attitude endorsement.

Four studies support our assertion that low-effort thinking promotes political conservatism... Our findings suggest that conservative ways of thinking are basic, normal, and perhaps natural.

Source: "Low-Effort Thought Promotes Political Conservatism"​

• "Liberals have more tolerance to uncertainty (bigger anterior cingulate cortex), and conservatives have more sensitivity to fear (bigger right amygdala)."

In a large sample of young adults, we related self-reported political attitudes to gray matter volume using structural MRI [magnetic resonance imaging]. We found that greater liberalism was associated with increased gray matter volume in the anterior cingulate cortex, whereas greater conservatism was associated with increased volume of the right amygdala...

...[O]ur findings are consistent with the proposal that political orientation is associated with psychological processes for managing fear and uncertainty. The amygdala has many functions, including fear processing. Individuals with a larger amygdala are more sensitive to fear, which, taken together with our findings, might suggest the testable hypothesis that individuals with larger amygdala are more inclined to integrate conservative views into their belief systems... our finding of an association between anterior cingulate cortex [ACC] may be linked with tolerance to uncertainty. One of the functions of the anterior cingulate cortex is to monitor uncertainty and conflicts. Thus it is conceivable that individuals with a larger ACC have a higher capacity to tolerate uncertainty and conflicts, allowing them to accept more liberal views.

Source: "Political Orientations Are Correlated with Brain Structure in Young Adults"​

• "Liberals are more open-minded and creative whereas conservatives are more orderly and better organized."

We obtained consistent and converging evidence that personality differences between liberals and conservatives are robust, replicable, and behaviorally significant, especially with respect to social (vs. economic) dimensions of ideology. In general, liberals are more open-minded, creative, curious, and novelty seeking, whereas conservatives are more orderly, conventional, and better organized... A special advantage of our final two studies is that they show personality differences between liberals and conservatives not only on self-report trait measures but also on unobtrusive, nonverbal measures of interaction style and behavioral residue.

Source: "The Secret Lives of Liberals and Conservatives: Personality Profiles, Interaction Styles, and the Things They Leave Behind"​

• "When faced with a conflict, liberals are more likely than conservatives to alter their habitual response when cues indicate it is necessary."

[We] found that greater liberalism was associated with stronger conflict-related anterior cingulate activity, suggesting greater neurocognitive sensitivity to cues for altering a habitual response pattern...

Our results are consistent with the view that political orientation, in part, reflects individual differences in the functioning of a general mechanism related to cognitive control and self-regulation. Stronger conservatism (versus liberalism) was associated with less neurocognitive sensitivity to response conflicts. At the behavioral level, conservatives were also more likely to make errors of commission. Although a liberal orientation was associated with better performance on the response-inhibition task examined here, conservatives would presumably perform better on tasks in which a more fixed response style is optimal.

Source: "Neurocognitive Correlates of Liberalism and Conservatism"​

I can't do anything to stop you from believing the claim you made, but I can and have provided plenty of credible research that contradicts it. I haven't asked you to simply accept my assertions in refutation of your claim. I haven't that degree of arrogance. You, on the other hand, have done precisely that: offered your claim with nothing, not one damn thing, that credibly shows it to be so.

So I ask you....Have you found any credible research -- peer reviewed, methodologically documented and sound -- that supports your assertion? If so, let's see it because right now, your claim, while it may be reassuring to readers here, quite simply doesn't "hold water."

It sounds plausible enough tonight, but wait until tomorrow. Wait for the common sense of the morning.
― H.G. Wells, The Time Machine​

Each of the points you put up can be interpreted as Republicans tend to live a 'binary' life.
Black is black. White is white. Evil is bad. Committing crimes is wrong. Etc.
LIBs see the world in a 'thousand shades of gray'.
Black is never really black. There's no such thing as white.
There's no way to change either of those groups.
But if your house is being broken into and the neighbor on your right has a NRA sign on his fence and your neighbor on you left has a 'Gay Pride' sign on his fence I KNOW who you are going to run to for help.
And so do you all.

 

[dannyboys]

The closes thing to real freedom is the ability to be who you're without society shitting on you.

If you believe Obama increased one's personal freedoms over the last 7+ years and the racial divide has lessened and the economy is "bouncing back" and by the genius of Obama to "lead from behind" has been a net positive by all means vote for Obama's third term.
Hillary has promised to continue with Obama's policies.
Just think how much even better it will be for the middle class after another four years of Obama's policies.
(HOPE NO ONE IN YOUR FAMILY GETS SICK OR IS INVITED TO A CHRISTMAS PARTY WHERE YOUR LOVELY GENEROUS LIB NEIGHBOR HAS INVITED HIS NEW FOUND MUSLIM FRIENDS TO ATTEND).
On second thought I think you ought to go to the Christmas party. Take your whole family.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Don't forget his 64 Constitutional Violations. Think that's a record.

Why do you think that is a record?

From my memory, the only other President that even came close, or may have even surpassed that number, was Franklin Roosevelt.

We seem to be dealing a lot with your memory. I don't want to deal with what you think as this could easily be what you have just made up, do you see my point?

It's why I didn't claim it's a fact that it was a record, I said I think it is. The fact in that post is that he has violated the Constitution 64 times.

Which means what? It's just an unsubstantiated claim. It's pointless.

It not only goes to show that he's pushing the power of the Executive Branch of government beyond the bounds of what it was meant to be, but also that he doesn't care about the Constitution. If he cared, he wouldn't be stomping all over it, basically. Not to mention that none of the Constitutional Violations actually helped the country. He's violating the document that protects the freedom of the people, and our government structure.

 

[dannyboys]

We see college kids who obviously would identify as being liberal, who simply want to shutdown any opposing opinions to their beliefs.
Used to be the left was open to other ideas. Not today.

When's the last time you were open to liberal ideas?

It's the Lib policy to welcome tens of thousands of unvetted 'young muslim men' who are totally illiterate, who use the koran as an excuse to abuse women, who have fucking ZERO to offer America. Who have ZERO intention of EVER 'assimilating' with Western values. Whose national sport is throwing queers off high buildings.
I can't WAIT to watch a few thousands 'young muslim men' standing along the biggest 'Gay Pride Parade' in the country.
That ought to be good for a laugh.
Fucking LIB fairies invite tens of thousands of 'fairy haters' to take over and destroy their 'gay safe spaces'. I'm laughing so hard the Doctor Pepper is coming out my nose.

 

[billyerock1991]

More and more we are seeing signs that the left not only does not believe in free speech, but in fact they are getting violent in order to shut down events they do not agree with.

We have the left attacking Trump supporters, we have them getting violent with right wing peaceful demonstrators.

The left has to ask themselves whether this is the road they wish to go down.

so stop speaking

 

[dannyboys]

Why do you think that is a record?

From my memory, the only other President that even came close, or may have even surpassed that number, was Franklin Roosevelt.

We seem to be dealing a lot with your memory. I don't want to deal with what you think as this could easily be what you have just made up, do you see my point?

It's why I didn't claim it's a fact that it was a record, I said I think it is. The fact in that post is that he has violated the Constitution 64 times.

Which means what? It's just an unsubstantiated claim. It's pointless.

It not only goes to show that he's pushing the power of the Executive Branch of government beyond the bounds of what it was meant to be, but also that he doesn't care about the Constitution. If he cared, he wouldn't be stomping all over it, basically. Not to mention that none of the Constitutional Violations actually helped the country. He's violating the document that protects the freedom of the people, and our government structure.

And the First AA President has LOST EVERY COURT DECISION after he tried to, with his 'Haaaaaaarvard Professor; genius he attempted to sneak around the US Constitution.
It turned out he ended up having the fucking political genius of a fucking shoeshine boy.
Or as Bill Clinton said "He ought to be bringing us our coffee in the terrace".

 

[dannyboys]

More and more we are seeing signs that the left not only does not believe in free speech, but in fact they are getting violent in order to shut down events they do not agree with.

We have the left attacking Trump supporters, we have them getting violent with right wing peaceful demonstrators.

The left has to ask themselves whether this is the road they wish to go down.

You need to reverse your decision to support Trump, and then apologize for having done so in the first place.

You should do the same when you vote for Hillary this November.

The "left" is not the same as "liberals".... another fallacy that ignorance prostates....

That's what we call 'em so go ahead with your smoking and spinning and failing....

Then point out the liberal posters on this forum who are violent.

How the fuck would I know what they do in their spare time ?

You're the one making the accusations, fuckwit.

When are you going to have the ability to post more than one-liners?
You're a fucking bore.

 

[dannyboys]

Wow, that's an argument, that the president did exactly what you wanted him to do, but failed at doing it.

It's like saying Dubya did everything in his power to not invade Iraq, but failed, or he did everything in his power to make the post war period a success but failed.

I'm sorry, but it sounds like you're just making shit up.

Attributing the economy's recovery to Obama is inaccurate. Under any president, the economy repairs itself, it's how capitalism works. For any president, all you have to do is sit back and watch. The biggest thing with any president that has damaged or slowed the economy is that they refused to sit back and watch, they couldn't keep their dirty mitts off of our free market. Nothing Obama has done has actually 'caused' economic growth, he just loves taking credit for things, whether he actually had anything to do with it or not.

You don't have to apologize, I know it's hard for a lot of Liberals to accept reality.

I didn't attributing it to him was right. However you're claiming he tried to screw it up but failed. That's not true. A president can mess the economy up, or they can do the right things and the economy will go as it should. It's not just the president though. But of course, politicians try and take the praise for everything they can. You wouldn't be a successful politician if you didn't.

Obamacare and his recent Executive Order are a very good example of Obama's war on the Private Sector. I'm pretty sure he also continued the war on coal, which would also slow economic growth.

The funny thing here is that when Obamacare comes out everyone on the right shouts about how much money it will cost. However when the whole of the healthcare system is as corrupt as hell, with potentially 20-30% of all spending going on corruption and the right don't care, in fact they encourage it, you know there's a problem.

Is encouraging corruption promoting the Private Sector?

Coal, jeez, can't believe you're talking about coal. Maggie Thatcher got rid of much of the coal in the UK, and the right in the US LOVES her.

I was mainly referring to forced benefits and the tax on employees. I don't actually know who Maggie Thatcher is, but if she's warring on the coal industry also, she's contributing to the high price of energy.

Maggie has been dead for a long time. She and Reagan were buddies.
The bitch could ROLL!
I fondly remember the Falklands Is. war. She kicked the Argentians ass big time.
Too bad Obama wasn't born with any balls. Just a shoe shine boy Ayers and Co. thought they could use to promote Socialism.
Almost worked. But not quite.

 

[320 Years of History]

We see college kids who obviously would identify as being liberal, who simply want to shutdown any opposing opinions to their beliefs.
Used to be the left was open to other ideas. Not today.

The left is plenty open to ideas, just not bad ones.

According to Leftists ANY idea that's not Leftist is a "bad" idea.

They're the MOST intolerant of people.

We see college kids who obviously would identify as being liberal, who simply want to shutdown any opposing opinions to their beliefs.
Used to be the left was open to other ideas. Not today.

The left is plenty open to ideas, just not bad ones.

I'll pretend, I tell myself. Pretending is safer than believing.
― Sarah Miller, The Lost Crown
​

Baby, you are barking up the wrong tree....

You just keep on believing what you write and want to believe....For my part, kidding aside, I don't know what inspires liberal's views, but I know that four researchers -- John T. Jost, Arie W. Kruglanski, Jack Glaser, and Frank J. Sulloway -- have identified the motivational factors that lead folks to adhere to conservative ideology. And just what are those motivating factors?

Many different theoretical accounts of conservatism over the past 50 years have stressed motivational underpinnings, but they have identified different needs as critical. Our review brings these diverse accounts together for the first time. Variables significantly associated with conservatism, we now know, include:

• fear and aggression
• dogmatism [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dogmatism]
• intolerance of ambiguity
• uncertainty avoidance
• need for cognitive closure
• personal need for structure
• terror management
• group-based dominance
• system justification.

Though you make the claim that liberals are "the most" intolerant of people, I cannot find any credible research that supports that assertion, or even that supports the charge that liberals are at all by and large, if not "the most," intolerant people. In contrast, I can find lots that supports a similar assertion that conservatives are intolerant. Indeed the conservative phenomenon and the behaviors exhibited by conservatives has so mystified deep thinkers that they have looked exhaustively into just what's going on in the hearts and minds of conservatives. What are some of their findings?

• "Reliance on quick, efficient, and "low effort" thought processes yields conservative ideologies, while effortful and deliberate reasoning yields liberal ideologies."

[P]olitical conservatism is promoted when people rely on low-effort thinking. When effortful, deliberate responding is disrupted or disengaged, thought processes become quick and efficient; these conditions promote conservative ideology… low-effort thought might promote political conservatism because its concepts are easier to process, and processing fluency increases attitude endorsement.

Four studies support our assertion that low-effort thinking promotes political conservatism... Our findings suggest that conservative ways of thinking are basic, normal, and perhaps natural.

Source: "Low-Effort Thought Promotes Political Conservatism"​

• "Liberals have more tolerance to uncertainty (bigger anterior cingulate cortex), and conservatives have more sensitivity to fear (bigger right amygdala)."

In a large sample of young adults, we related self-reported political attitudes to gray matter volume using structural MRI [magnetic resonance imaging]. We found that greater liberalism was associated with increased gray matter volume in the anterior cingulate cortex, whereas greater conservatism was associated with increased volume of the right amygdala...

...[O]ur findings are consistent with the proposal that political orientation is associated with psychological processes for managing fear and uncertainty. The amygdala has many functions, including fear processing. Individuals with a larger amygdala are more sensitive to fear, which, taken together with our findings, might suggest the testable hypothesis that individuals with larger amygdala are more inclined to integrate conservative views into their belief systems... our finding of an association between anterior cingulate cortex [ACC] may be linked with tolerance to uncertainty. One of the functions of the anterior cingulate cortex is to monitor uncertainty and conflicts. Thus it is conceivable that individuals with a larger ACC have a higher capacity to tolerate uncertainty and conflicts, allowing them to accept more liberal views.

Source: "Political Orientations Are Correlated with Brain Structure in Young Adults"​

• "Liberals are more open-minded and creative whereas conservatives are more orderly and better organized."

We obtained consistent and converging evidence that personality differences between liberals and conservatives are robust, replicable, and behaviorally significant, especially with respect to social (vs. economic) dimensions of ideology. In general, liberals are more open-minded, creative, curious, and novelty seeking, whereas conservatives are more orderly, conventional, and better organized... A special advantage of our final two studies is that they show personality differences between liberals and conservatives not only on self-report trait measures but also on unobtrusive, nonverbal measures of interaction style and behavioral residue.

Source: "The Secret Lives of Liberals and Conservatives: Personality Profiles, Interaction Styles, and the Things They Leave Behind"​

• "When faced with a conflict, liberals are more likely than conservatives to alter their habitual response when cues indicate it is necessary."

[We] found that greater liberalism was associated with stronger conflict-related anterior cingulate activity, suggesting greater neurocognitive sensitivity to cues for altering a habitual response pattern...

Our results are consistent with the view that political orientation, in part, reflects individual differences in the functioning of a general mechanism related to cognitive control and self-regulation. Stronger conservatism (versus liberalism) was associated with less neurocognitive sensitivity to response conflicts. At the behavioral level, conservatives were also more likely to make errors of commission. Although a liberal orientation was associated with better performance on the response-inhibition task examined here, conservatives would presumably perform better on tasks in which a more fixed response style is optimal.

Source: "Neurocognitive Correlates of Liberalism and Conservatism"​

I can't do anything to stop you from believing the claim you made, but I can and have provided plenty of credible research that contradicts it. I haven't asked you to simply accept my assertions in refutation of your claim. I haven't that degree of arrogance. You, on the other hand, have done precisely that: offered your claim with nothing, not one damn thing, that credibly shows it to be so.

So I ask you....Have you found any credible research -- peer reviewed, methodologically documented and sound -- that supports your assertion? If so, let's see it because right now, your claim, while it may be reassuring to readers here, quite simply doesn't "hold water."

It sounds plausible enough tonight, but wait until tomorrow. Wait for the common sense of the morning.
― H.G. Wells, The Time Machine​

Each of the points you put up can be interpreted as Republicans tend to live a 'binary' life.
Black is black. White is white. Evil is bad. Committing crimes is wrong. Etc.
LIBs see the world in a 'thousand shades of gray'.
Black is never really black. There's no such thing as white.
There's no way to change either of those groups.
But if your house is being broken into and the neighbor on your right has a NRA sign on his fence and your neighbor on you left has a 'Gay Pride' sign on his fence I KNOW who you are going to run to for help.
And so do you all.

Red:
Well, yes, one could interpret what I wrote in myriad ways, some of which will logically issue from what I posted and some of which will not.

The assertion my post addressed is the one that claims liberals are intolerant people, indeed "the most intolerant of people." My post's content makes and argues in support of only one assertion: it has not been shown that liberals are intolerant or that liberals are more intolerant than is anyone else, and liberals, however intolerant they be, are less intolerant than are conservatives. (The post's thesis is in the paragraph immediately preceding the first emboldened bullet point.) My post's thesis is in direct opposition to the assertion member Lucy Hamilton made.

[Careful readers will observe that Ms. Hamilton didn't say anything else, so there's no way for me to have addressed anything else without putting words in her mouth.]

I supported my thesis by stating that I looked for and found nothing credible that supported the claim of liberals being intolerant and by showing that I found multiple credible research studies that do show conservatives are motivated by intolerance and several other things. I also shared the results from one study that shows liberals are more open-minded than are conservatives (the "Secret Lives" study) and from another that discovered that liberals are more likely than conservatives to alter their habitual responses (the "Neurocognitive" study). In light of the content I shared, the accurate interpretation to have of it is that if liberals can rightly be called intolerant, and even if one may credibly assert that liberals are intolerant, multiple credible research studies have shown/found that liberals are yet less intolerant than are conservatives.

Now if one wants to refute or discredit those studies results, and thereupon the conclusions and inferences drawn from them, there are legitimate ways to do so, not all of which necessarily apply to the studies I cited, but all of which call one to prove the study does not comply with one or more of the tenets of the scientific method..

Strong bases for legitimately discrediting the study, its results, conclusions and inferences, provided the refutations are contextually accurate, include:

• Methodologically -- One can prove (not merely claim) that the mathematical/statistical methods the researchers/scientists used are materially flawed or misapplied.
• Pragmatically -- If one is not going to dispute a study's methodology, one can conduct one's own scientific-method-compliant study/tests and legitimately show that the results obtained by the researchers I noted are not repeatable using the same methodology they did.
• Pragmatically -- If one is not going to dispute a study's methodology, one can use the study's raw data and evaluate it using the same methodology and determine whether the same results occur.
• Integrity -- Prove (not merely claim) the data collected/presented in the study was fabricated.
• Interpretively -- Prove (not merely claim) that the test fails to meet the "independence" requirement of the scientific method.

Weak and/or partial bases of counterargument -- Theses bases for opposing a study's results, conclusions, and credibility/merit use the same approaches noted above; however, they present immaterial flaws, that is shortcomings that do not alter the merit/veracity of key conclusions, but that indicate additional research is necessary to confirm or clarify a minor aspect of the study's results, conclusions and inferences. This tends to be something that happens with many studies.

When one reads a study and sees the remarks about the study's limitations, it's possible that a majority of the pre-publication reviewers of the study presented minor points of contention and those points in turn led to the "limiting factors" remarks/disclaimers being included in the study. Of course, some researchers know the limits of the valid and truthful interpretations of their study's findings and will just include them from the get-go. There's no way to know what inspired the inclusion of "limiting factor" remarks and disclaimers.​

One thing that is not a legitimate refutation of a credible study is to merely say one doesn't agree with the findings and that makes the findings invalid/inaccurate. To do that with regard to a study that's been published in a peer reviewed journal is to basically say that at least four highly trained experts in a field whose "business" it is to know what they are doing and talking about don't, but "you" do. If that's not the height of arrogance, I don't know what is.


Blue, which is Off Topic:
That has nothing to do with the thesis of my post nor that of Lucy Hamilton, or whether liberals or conservatives are tolerant or intolerant of anything politically oriented.

FWIW, if my house were being broken into and I'm unable to stop it from happening and therefore decide flight is the immediately best option, the one course of action I would not pursue after successfully and safely escaping from the felon/building will not be returning to the building to confront them.

Where is the sense in even considering that option? Why would I opt to flee to a place of safety, only to then return and willfully put my being and/or someone else's at risk over objects in my home? Whatever is in my home that they want to steal, they can have if they can carry it out and I, in that situation, determined that fleeing instead of staying and fighting them over my possessions be what I'm going to do and I manage to do so effectively and safely. I don't own anything for which I'd choose to risk being mortally harmed to retain possession of it, not even the stuff I have that's pricey, rare, and/or irreplaceable.

 

[hazlnut]

More and more we are seeing signs that the left not only does not believe in free speech, but in fact they are getting violent in order to shut down events they do not agree with.

We have the left attacking Trump supporters, we have them getting violent with right wing peaceful demonstrators.

The left has to ask themselves whether this is the road they wish to go down.

Me telling you to STFU is not a violation of the 1st.

The bill of rights protects you from Government intrusion, not fellow citizen backlash.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I don't think many liberals have a problem with Obama, it's the racists who hate Obama.

No, that's just a claim people make so he can avoid criticism. Joke's on the people claiming that, though, since he's white, and that claim is usually used against white people.

Half-white. His mother was white. His deadbeat father was black.

I think a good argument could be made that he isn't really “black”, in the sense that most black Americans are. Most black Americans are descended from people who were brought here centuries ago, against their will, to be used as slaves. They have a long heritage rooted in that background, and of the struggle to overcome slavery and achieve their freedom within this nation. Obama has no part in that heritage at all. All of his American ancestors were white; none of his black ancestors were ever Americans.

It is much, much more likely that Obama has ancestors who owned slaves, or who participated in the slave trade, than that he has any ancestors who were slaves or who were otherwise victims of that trade.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Attributing the economy's recovery to Obama is inaccurate. Under any president, the economy repairs itself, it's how capitalism works. For any president, all you have to do is sit back and watch. The biggest thing with any president that has damaged or slowed the economy is that they refused to sit back and watch, they couldn't keep their dirty mitts off of our free market. Nothing Obama has done has actually 'caused' economic growth, he just loves taking credit for things, whether he actually had anything to do with it or not.

You don't have to apologize, I know it's hard for a lot of Liberals to accept reality.

Don't let it be forgotten what the Obama Administration did, early on, by way of trying to “fix the economy”.

There was the “Cash for Klunkers” scam, which amounted to the gratuitous destruction of trillions of dollars worth of valuable, serviceable automobiles—a perfect example of the Broken Window Fallacy in action.

There were also all the big, giveaways of taxpayer funds to various “too big to fail” corporations, to bail them out that way rather than allowing them to go through the normal and proper bankruptcy processes that exists for that purpose.

And don't forget the ObamaCare scam, which has probably done more than any other government policy to destroy jobs and employment opportunities, not to mention the disastrous effect that it has had on health care costs.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Half of all you write is just insults...... how old are you?

It is not possible to tell the truth about what liberalism has become, and how those who adhere to this wretched ideology behave, without being insulting.

It's an insult to call someone a murderer, but if he is a murderer, then it's the truth.

It's an insult to call someone a thief, but if he is a thief, then it's the truth.

It's an insult to call someone a liberal, but if he is a liberal, then it's the truth.

There is little point in acting stupid or evil or whatever, and then complaining that someone who calls you on it is insulting you.

 

[initforme]

How do you so called "experts" define leftists? The small business owners that worship at my christian church are leftists according to some of you, cuz they will not be voting for trump. Since you are closer to god you know they are leftists. Your broad brush shows your IQ...below zero.