Obama's Killing Liberalism

[hipeter924]

You don't know the difference between butt-hurt, and a logical fallacy. Because you just engaged in both.

But I kept you on ignore for a while now, as 90% of your posts are pointless insults, and this post of yours has been no different.

I know COWARDS always put me on ignore, when THE TRUTH, and logic shuts you scum down, Please insult me, I find it invigorates my creativity!

No. I put people on ignore until I feel they have calmed down or posted something sensible. It is just like not picking up a newspaper that has sucky content, until it puts out a good story. What you call truth, I call face-palm material.

A low IQer, such as yourself would, where others are always interested at laughing at stupid people!

I would work on your grammar before you start going on about IQ score.

I have never taken an IQ test that hasn't put me high in the hundreds (or higher than that), and that is without trying.

Though, the intelligence of a poster still doesn't undermine the validity of an argument, so keep up the nonsense and make yourself look silly.

It is like claiming because someone claims that a ball is round, and someone with a higher IQ claims the ball is a square, that the later argument wins on basis of a higher IQ - even if the ball is round.

Just to show people, HOW do you get "an IQ test that hasn't put me high in the hundreds (or higher than that)?.... Can someone show me an IQ test that's 200 or more? Do I really have to deal with this idiot? These people simply pull SHIT out of their ass, throw it on the NET and expect YOU to believe them.... They are MY ENTERTAINMENT!

Now begins the rage. Didn't take long for you to lose control of your emotions.

Thanks for also demonstrating your lack of knowledge of the IQ scale. High in the hundreds means 'High Average', but IQ scales differ on IQ range scores.

If I am lazy I can score 'High Average', but if I try then I can at least get a 'Superior/Well above average' score.

Continue the rage, maybe even rage quit, makes no difference to me. Besides further emphasis on how willfully silly your posts are right now.

 

[hipeter924]

I know COWARDS always put me on ignore, when THE TRUTH, and logic shuts you scum down, Please insult me, I find it invigorates my creativity!

No. I put people on ignore until I feel they have calmed down or posted something sensible. It is just like not picking up a newspaper that has sucky content, until it puts out a good story. What you call truth, I call face-palm material.

A low IQer, such as yourself would, where others are always interested at laughing at stupid people!

I would work on your grammar before you start going on about IQ score.

I have never taken an IQ test that hasn't put me high in the hundreds (or higher than that), and that is without trying.

Though, the intelligence of a poster still doesn't undermine the validity of an argument, so keep up the nonsense and make yourself look silly.

It is like claiming because someone claims that a ball is round, and someone with a higher IQ claims the ball is a square, that the later argument wins on basis of a higher IQ - even if the ball is round.

Just to show people, HOW do you get "an IQ test that hasn't put me high in the hundreds (or higher than that)?.... Can someone show me an IQ test that's 200 or more? Do I really have to deal with this idiot? These people simply pull SHIT out of their ass, throw it on the NET and expect YOU to believe them.... They are MY ENTERTAINMENT!

Well, there is several ways to take "high in the hundreds"

High in the hundreds means 'High Average' and above, though exact numbers depends on the IQ classification scale you are using: IQ classification - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[mudwhistle]

America is becoming more and more fed up with the left. With every symbolic victory they are almost certainly assuring their electoral defeat in the next election.

July 12, 2015
Obama's Killing the Left: Let's Help Him
By Clarice Feldman

I have enormous respect for Victor Davis Hanson and read with great interesthis account this week that the people are getting fed up with the liberal elites.

Amid all this leftish high-fiving about court decisions and executive orders, we forget political and electoral reality. Barack Obama has done more to destroy liberal political power in the Congress and in the statehouses than any Democratic politician since the 1920s. His executive orders and neglect of enforcing existing law have green-lighted the executive power of the next Republican president in a way that Richard Nixon could hardly imagine. He has discredited the idea of a disinterested media to such a degree that its biased audits of the next future Republican administration will be seen as laughable.

Europe and the United States are seeing glimpses of the ultimate leftist trajectory -- a mixture of Greece and Detroit, de facto non-enforcement of the law, the Iranian nuke deal, a new McCarthyism, and race, class, and gender hatred -- and are becoming afraid and perhaps appalled. A growing number of people sense that 21st century leftist elites are not pragmatic working people, but a privileged sect that callously experiments with other people’s lives on the understanding that they are insulated and immune from the inevitable disasters that follow from their own ideas.

A great pushback is awakening here and abroad, but its timing, nature, and future remain mysterious.

And there is plenty of evidence to support his view. For example, 70% of the people who voted for Obama’s re-election now regret doing so, according to a YouGov poll, and the astounding response Donald Trump is getting suggests that it is not just name recognition and “nativism” in play.

Indeed, if you’re of a conspiratorial mindset you might conclude that Obama’s a deep undercover conservative who decided that making crystal clear the idiocies of the liberal elite would force people to finally reject them for good. Here are just a few of this week’s epic fails by Obama and his fellow travelers and supporters which evince a deliberate plan to disaffect us from the left.

Polling questions your thread:

Party Affiliation Gallup Historical Trends

Liberal Self-Identification Edges Up to New High in 2013

and,

"Democrats hold advantages in party identification among blacks, Asians, Hispanics, well-educated adults and Millennials. Republicans have leads among whites – particularly white men, those with less education and evangelical Protestants – as well as members of the Silent Generation."
A Deep Dive Into Party Affiliation Pew Research Center

Most of the damage that has been done to the liberal brand has happened in the last 18 months.....so if that poll was taken in 2013....it's not accurate, nor does it reflect the anger that is building in this country against the radical left that seems to be running roughshod over our institutions.

 

[mudwhistle]

I know COWARDS always put me on ignore, when THE TRUTH, and logic shuts you scum down, Please insult me, I find it invigorates my creativity!

No. I put people on ignore until I feel they have calmed down or posted something sensible. It is just like not picking up a newspaper that has sucky content, until it puts out a good story. What you call truth, I call face-palm material.

A low IQer, such as yourself would, where others are always interested at laughing at stupid people!

I would work on your grammar before you start going on about IQ score.

I have never taken an IQ test that hasn't put me high in the hundreds (or higher than that), and that is without trying.

Though, the intelligence of a poster still doesn't undermine the validity of an argument, so keep up the nonsense and make yourself look silly.

It is like claiming because someone claims that a ball is round, and someone with a higher IQ claims the ball is a square, that the later argument wins on basis of a higher IQ - even if the ball is round.

Just to show people, HOW do you get "an IQ test that hasn't put me high in the hundreds (or higher than that)?.... Can someone show me an IQ test that's 200 or more? Do I really have to deal with this idiot? These people simply pull SHIT out of their ass, throw it on the NET and expect YOU to believe them.... They are MY ENTERTAINMENT!

Now begins the rage. Didn't take long for you to lose control of your emotions.

Thanks for also demonstrating your lack of knowledge of the IQ scale. High in the hundreds means 'High Average', but IQ scales differ on IQ range scores.

If I am lazy I can score 'High Average', but if I try then I can at least get a 'Superior/Well above average' score.

Continue the rage, maybe even rage quit, makes no difference to me. Besides further emphasis on how willfully silly your posts are right now.

 

[mudwhistle]

No. I put people on ignore until I feel they have calmed down or posted something sensible. It is just like not picking up a newspaper that has sucky content, until it puts out a good story. What you call truth, I call face-palm material.

A low IQer, such as yourself would, where others are always interested at laughing at stupid people!

I would work on your grammar before you start going on about IQ score.

I have never taken an IQ test that hasn't put me high in the hundreds (or higher than that), and that is without trying.

Though, the intelligence of a poster still doesn't undermine the validity of an argument, so keep up the nonsense and make yourself look silly.

It is like claiming because someone claims that a ball is round, and someone with a higher IQ claims the ball is a square, that the later argument wins on basis of a higher IQ - even if the ball is round.

Just to show people, HOW do you get "an IQ test that hasn't put me high in the hundreds (or higher than that)?.... Can someone show me an IQ test that's 200 or more? Do I really have to deal with this idiot? These people simply pull SHIT out of their ass, throw it on the NET and expect YOU to believe them.... They are MY ENTERTAINMENT!

Well, there is several ways to take "high in the hundreds"

High in the hundreds means 'High Average' and above, though exact numbers depends on the IQ classification scale you are using: IQ classification - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Well....I always score over 130......so why am I a Republican?

 

[boedicca]

This pretty much sums it up:

 

[boedicca]

“Obama's Killing Liberalism”

Confirmation of he OP’s comprehensive ignorance of ‘liberalism.’

Actually, you are confirming your own lack of cognitive ability and your thorough brainwashing.

 

[hipeter924]

A low IQer, such as yourself would, where others are always interested at laughing at stupid people!

I would work on your grammar before you start going on about IQ score.

I have never taken an IQ test that hasn't put me high in the hundreds (or higher than that), and that is without trying.

Though, the intelligence of a poster still doesn't undermine the validity of an argument, so keep up the nonsense and make yourself look silly.

It is like claiming because someone claims that a ball is round, and someone with a higher IQ claims the ball is a square, that the later argument wins on basis of a higher IQ - even if the ball is round.

Just to show people, HOW do you get "an IQ test that hasn't put me high in the hundreds (or higher than that)?.... Can someone show me an IQ test that's 200 or more? Do I really have to deal with this idiot? These people simply pull SHIT out of their ass, throw it on the NET and expect YOU to believe them.... They are MY ENTERTAINMENT!

Well, there is several ways to take "high in the hundreds"

High in the hundreds means 'High Average' and above, though exact numbers depends on the IQ classification scale you are using: IQ classification - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Well....I always score over 130......so why am I a Republican?

IQ doesn't determine political affiliation, any more than a religious or ideological view does.

I like to look at IQ, the way I look at a highly advanced computer, which is essentially what the human brain is.

Meaning IQ is processing power. So while someone with a lower IQ can take longer to process an idea or concept, they could still understand the basics of an idea or concept (without understanding everything behind it).

Then there is the situation of specialization, meaning how that processing power is used, and what data is stored i.e. X understands psychology and has a higher IQ, but Y has a lower IQ yet understands how to construct and repair components of vehicles and put them together.

So obviously X is not as useful as Y (who has experience and knowledge of fixing cars), when you want to understand what is wrong with your car.

When it comes to politics, a high IQ might be useful, but it doesn't automatically determine whether someone has a more in depth knowledge of how politics works. So a 130 IQ could mean you have the best grasp of politics on the forum, but someone with an Average IQ could have a better grasp because they have been engaged more in it.

Hope that answers your question.

 

[mudwhistle]

I would work on your grammar before you start going on about IQ score.

I have never taken an IQ test that hasn't put me high in the hundreds (or higher than that), and that is without trying.

Though, the intelligence of a poster still doesn't undermine the validity of an argument, so keep up the nonsense and make yourself look silly.

It is like claiming because someone claims that a ball is round, and someone with a higher IQ claims the ball is a square, that the later argument wins on basis of a higher IQ - even if the ball is round.

Just to show people, HOW do you get "an IQ test that hasn't put me high in the hundreds (or higher than that)?.... Can someone show me an IQ test that's 200 or more? Do I really have to deal with this idiot? These people simply pull SHIT out of their ass, throw it on the NET and expect YOU to believe them.... They are MY ENTERTAINMENT!

Well, there is several ways to take "high in the hundreds"

High in the hundreds means 'High Average' and above, though exact numbers depends on the IQ classification scale you are using: IQ classification - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Well....I always score over 130......so why am I a Republican?

IQ doesn't determine political affiliation, any more than a religious or ideological view does.

I like to look at IQ, the way I look at a highly advanced computer, which is essentially what the human brain is.

Meaning IQ is processing power. So while someone with a lower IQ can take longer to process an idea or concept, they could still understand the basics of an idea or concept (without understanding everything behind it).

Then there is the situation of specialization, meaning how that processing power is used, and what data is stored i.e. X understands psychology and has a higher IQ, but Y has a lower IQ yet understands how to construct and repair components of vehicles and put them together.

So obviously X is not as useful as Y (who has experience and knowledge of fixing cars), when you want to understand what is wrong with your car.

When it comes to politics, a high IQ might be useful, but it doesn't automatically determine whether someone has a more in depth knowledge of how politics works. So a 130 IQ could mean you have the best grasp of politics on the forum, but someone with an Average IQ could have a better grasp because they have been engaged more in it.

Hope that answers your question.

Not really.

Liberals constantly say that Republicans are stupid. Where this attitude comes from is places like Harvard, where cop-killers are welcome and successful businessmen are considered evil. They like to think they're smarter than Republicans but the primary difference between most Liberals and most Republicans is life experience. Liberals tend to follow Democrats that repeat the same bullshit they learned in college, where they learned to recognize the difference between a Picasso and a Piero Della Francesca, but can't correctly hold their heads above water in the business world.

I.Q. is your ability to work out problems and take everything into account. The tests have questions with varying levels of difficulty which are designed to pass or fail according to your abilities. It also has nothing to do with how much common-sense you have. That's usually what makes some people pick a political party. If you're gullible and emotional rather than well-centered and realistic you tend to lean to the left.

Liberals always use two or three issues to win an argument.

1. Racism
2. Class Envy
3. Identity Politics.

Without them they have nothing.

 

[hipeter924]

Liberals constantly say that Republicans are stupid.

Naive is a better description of any individual that works against his or her interests, regardless of whether they call themselves Democrat or Republican. If you believe that humans work on a basis of self-interest, and co-operate in groups to work towards a perceived reward or goal.

Where this attitude comes from is places like Harvard, where cop-killers are welcome and successful businessmen are considered evil.

On that kind of reasoning you could claim dictatorship comes from the University of Chicago, as the Chicago Boys studied there before heading off to join their respective dictatorships in Southern and Latin America. I wouldn't attend Harvard, but that is kind of a broad brush.

[...]the primary difference between most Liberals and most Republicans is life experience.

Not always. In the political establishment itself there are few politicians that have had 'life experience' of poverty, unemployment or crime. In addition, the few that have are quickly bought off. I don't see either party 'fixing America', so long as lobbyists run Congress and the White House.

It also has nothing to do with how much common-sense you have.

Never said it did, as with each profession you learn different skills, and more emphasis is placed on mathematics and problem solving in some professions.

That's usually what makes some people pick a political party. If you're gullible and emotional rather than well-centered and realistic you tend to lean to the left.

The 'left' and 'right' scale doesn't exist (outside of political rhetoric), as only the authoritarian scale is a truthful measure of whether someone leans towards totalitarianism - due to the blame game of claiming Fascism/Nazism/Communism apply to 'Left' or 'Right'. Politics in America (regardless of party) is driven by populist appeals to emotion, authority, vanity, and of course public shaming.

 

[mudwhistle]

Liberals constantly say that Republicans are stupid.

Naive is a better description of any individual that works against his or her interests, regardless of whether they call themselves Democrat or Republican. If you believe that humans work on a basis of self-interest, and co-operate in groups to work towards a perceived reward or goal.

Where this attitude comes from is places like Harvard, where cop-killers are welcome and successful businessmen are considered evil.

On that kind of reasoning you could claim dictatorship comes from the University of Chicago, as the Chicago Boys studied there before heading off to join their respective dictatorships in Southern and Latin America. I wouldn't attend Harvard, but that is kind of a broad brush.

[...]the primary difference between most Liberals and most Republicans is life experience.

Not always. In the political establishment itself there are few politicians that have had 'life experience' of poverty, unemployment or crime. In addition, the few that have are quickly bought off. I don't see either party 'fixing America', so long as lobbyists run Congress and the White House.

It also has nothing to do with how much common-sense you have.

Never said it did, as with each profession you learn different skills, and more emphasis is placed on mathematics and problem solving in some professions.

That's usually what makes some people pick a political party. If you're gullible and emotional rather than well-centered and realistic you tend to lean to the left.

The 'left' and 'right' scale doesn't exist (outside of political rhetoric), as only the authoritarian scale is a truthful measure of whether someone leans towards totalitarianism - due to the blame game of claiming Fascism/Nazism/Communism apply to 'Left' or 'Right'. Politics in America (regardless of party) is driven by populist appeals to emotion, authority, vanity, and of course public shaming.

Your response was utter nonsense. Leaving more questions to be asked than you answered.

One doesn't need to be dirt poor to be a Democrat, or understand that there are people who are dirt poor. Life experience should show you that what Democrats preach during every election cycle is total hogwash. They've been pandering to the poor for decades and haven't addressed their poverty.....anyone with half a brain knows that poverty has been in existence since before the creation of money and will always exist.

Democrats specialize in paying lip-service to issues that are impossible to solve. Income inequality, Global Warming, What they're really concerned with is taking people's money and giving it to themselves.

A millionaire from Arkansas is assumed to be a friend to blacks when in fact she's a racist bitch that has been screwing them over most of her adult life. People that live in multi-million dollar homes aren't poor as some Democrats claim to be. They do everything they can to divide us and they think we can pull everything together and get things done somehow.

Who is the idiot that believes that bringing millions of the world's poor into this country is going to make this country a better place to live? Why is it so many Americans don't want to work, and why is it so many who came to this country legally understand the value of a dollar more than most Americans? Who thinks that racism is worse in America today than it was 50 years ago? A Democrat. Who thinks that if everyone was paid the same wage we would all end up with the same wealth? A Democrat.

I.Q. shows intelligence level.....but not how well you apply what you learn to the real world. Democrats have a pie in the sky attitude. Republicans are realists. That's the difference.

So thanks for wasting my time trying to straighten you out. My guess is not one bit of this sunk in.

 

[hipeter924]

Your response was utter nonsense. Leaving more questions to be asked than you answered.

I was waiting to see how long it took till you stopped discussing, and went right through to partisan hackery.
Didn't take long.

One doesn't need to be dirt poor to be a Democrat, or understand that there are people who are dirt poor.

You spent your last post going on and on about 'life experience', but there is no greater experience of poverty than knowing poor or being poor. If you think inheriting money is 'life experience', or being a CEO of a multi-national corporation of itself helps you 'understand poor people', but going to university or interacting with poor people doesn't, then you are more out of touch from reality than Romney (who went to Harvard). I would pick a Harvard Sociologist, Psychologist, or Anthropologist over you any day.

Life experience should show you that what Democrats preach during every election cycle is total hogwash.

More partisan nonsense. Republican politicians lie and are caught out by the public more than enough every election cycle. Hogwash isn't exclusive to Democrats or Republicans.

They've been pandering to the poor for decades and haven't addressed their poverty....anyone with half a brain knows that poverty has been in existence since before the creation of money and will always exist.

Democrats have done plenty to help people out of poverty, but it gets harder when funding to programs are cut, and corrupt bankers crash the economy and demand bailouts. Blaming the Democrats only though, automatically gives you away as a partisan, as both parties are responsible for America's economic situation - including poverty, crime, and unemployment. Have fun getting out of the hole you dug for yourself, as Democrats can just as easily quote crumbling disasters in the South, as Republicans can quote crumbling disasters in the North.

Democrats specialize in paying lip-service to issues that are impossible to solve. Income inequality, Global Warming, What they're really concerned with is taking people's money and giving it to themselves.

More partisan nonsense. Two can play this game. 'Republicans specialize in paying lip-service to issues that are impossible to solve. Immigration, Abortion. What they're really concerned with is robbing the poor to pay the rich.'

A millionaire from Arkansas is assumed to be a friend to blacks when in fact she's a racist bitch that has been screwing them over most of her adult life. People that live in multi-million dollar homes aren't poor as some Democrats claim to be.

Cut out the straw man argument, and provide a link. Though even if you do, your whole argument is ridiculous. You claim people who go to Harvard think rich people are 'evil', then you use 'millionaire' as if being rich somehow distinguishes someone from the rest. Then you demand that multi-millionaires give up their homes, and become black, to meet your absurd concept of 'life experience'.

They do everything they can to divide us and they think we can pull everything together and get things done somehow.

It is partisans like yourself that divide America and stop solutions to problems, as you are more interested in ideological purity than in practical solutions. I remain independent and a swing voter, rather than fixate on idolizing and sucking up to a particular party as you do. I will just as easily disagree with a Democrat as a Republican, but you focus entirely on Democrats in your post.

Who is the idiot that believes that bringing millions of the world's poor into this country is going to make this country a better place to live? Why is it so many Americans don't want to work, and why is it so many who came to this country legally understand the value of a dollar more than most Americans? Who thinks that racism is worse in America today than it was 50 years ago? A Democrat. Who thinks that if everyone was paid the same wage we would all end up with the same wealth? A Democrat.

More loaded nonsense. Here is your argument, just substituting Democrats:
'Who is the idiot that believes that allowing millions of the world's poor to starve to death or live on the street, creates prosperity and jobs? Why is it that so many Americans lost their homes and jobs in '08, and why is it so many who came to this country legally support Democrats more than Republicans? Who thinks that racism isn't a result of economic hardship and policies of segregation but 'laziness'? A Republican. Who thinks that if all wage protections were dropped and unions banned that money would 'trickle down'? A Republican.

I.Q. shows intelligence level.....but not how well you apply what you learn to the real world.

IQ tests look at problem solving ability, as well as knowledge of mathematics and other skills that relate to determining intelligence. Real world ability does contribute to higher IQ scores, whether you are talking about humans or birds. You obviously have never heard of 'practice makes perfect'.

Democrats have a pie in the sky attitude. Republicans are realists. That's the difference.'

That's a broad generalization, that makes little sense, but neither did the rest of your posts. There are some Democrats that think practically, and some Democrats that live in theory land; the same is true of some Republicans who claim to support a 'free market' but have no clue on how to carry it out and make it work.

So thanks for wasting my time trying to straighten you out. My guess is not one bit of this sunk in.

Now self-importance, and a feeling of superiority? What next, grand claims?

Nothing will 'sink in', as your post is full of partisan one-liners, broad brush stroke generalizations, and attacks on Democrats that could just as easily be applied to Republicans.

I expected better, but I obviously held that expectation too high, as all I got in return was Republican party propaganda.