Reasons why liberals can't understand the real world

[ScienceRocks]

Left is right, war is peace, slavery is freedom, etc...that's how progressives think. Everything is upside down, backwards and inside out with these types.

I'm sure you read Orwell's 1984. Did that sound like a warning to you also?

Seems do me that these bed wetters took it as a directive.

I don't think infrastructure and science has anything to do with 1984!

 

[ron4342]

I've always said liberalism is a war against the obvious.

This article nails it right down to the ground.

3) Liberals emphasize feeling superior, not superior results. Liberalism is all about appearances, not outcomes. What matters to liberals is how a program makes them FEEL about themselves, not whether it works or not. Thus a program like Headstart, which sounds good because it's designed to help children read, makes liberals feel good about themselves, even though the program doesn't work and wastes billions. A ban on DDT makes liberals feel good about themselves because they're "protecting the environment" even though millions of people have died as a result. For liberals, it's not what a program does in the real world; it's about whether they feel better about themselves for supporting it.

7 Reasons Why Liberals Are Incapable of Understanding The World - John Hawkins - Page full

That's why when you argue with liberals about the failure of the War on Poverty, the Failure of Headstart, the Failure of Obamacare (for pity sake), liberals won't address the actual FACTS about the failure.

Instead they will attack you for being against the "good intentions" of those laws and initiatives. Nor will they address the damage that's been done to the family. Nope they won't talk about any of that. Instead they will banter about the good intentions and try to change the subject to why YOU are against those good intentions.

It's never about the actual results. Nope it's about them feeling "morally" superior to you regardless of whether it helps a single solitary person.

The whole point of your article is to point out "Liberals emphasize feeling superior" about themselves. But, isn't that exactly what conservatives are doing by posting this article. Put another way you are saying conservatives are superior to liberials because liberals feel superior about themselves. If you wish to condemn those who feel superior about themselves take plenty of time to condemn yourself.

 

[Pete7469]

That is indeed how any truly rational observer would define progress. Well, instruments to progress, at least.

If we could imagine a more rational base of posters, they would see the fruitlessness of these interminable arguments, the eternal "lib vs con" battle that will never naturally end as long as humanity continues to exist in this manner. Humanity as a whole is equally conflicted, angry, and stupid. This is yet another sin of mankind, if you'll allow the religious phrasing (all organized religion, of course, would be strictly banned by punishment of public torture-to-death in an optimal society).

So you would prefer something more like an any colony where there is no emotion, individualism or critical thinking?

Oh wait...

You're another parody right?

This should be fun.

Are you "liberal media" too?


https://www.facebook.com/WomynForOmnipotentGovernment?fref=photo

Of course not. I like critical thinking and I think the democrats are wrong on many issues.

Change accounts next time.

 

[Pete7469]

I've always said liberalism is a war against the obvious.

This article nails it right down to the ground.

3) Liberals emphasize feeling superior, not superior results. Liberalism is all about appearances, not outcomes. What matters to liberals is how a program makes them FEEL about themselves, not whether it works or not. Thus a program like Headstart, which sounds good because it's designed to help children read, makes liberals feel good about themselves, even though the program doesn't work and wastes billions. A ban on DDT makes liberals feel good about themselves because they're "protecting the environment" even though millions of people have died as a result. For liberals, it's not what a program does in the real world; it's about whether they feel better about themselves for supporting it.

7 Reasons Why Liberals Are Incapable of Understanding The World - John Hawkins - Page full

That's why when you argue with liberals about the failure of the War on Poverty, the Failure of Headstart, the Failure of Obamacare (for pity sake), liberals won't address the actual FACTS about the failure.

Instead they will attack you for being against the "good intentions" of those laws and initiatives. Nor will they address the damage that's been done to the family. Nope they won't talk about any of that. Instead they will banter about the good intentions and try to change the subject to why YOU are against those good intentions.

It's never about the actual results. Nope it's about them feeling "morally" superior to you regardless of whether it helps a single solitary person.

The whole point of your article is to point out "Liberals emphasize feeling superior" about themselves. But, isn't that exactly what conservatives are doing by posting this article. Put another way you are saying conservatives are superior to liberials because liberals feel superior about themselves. If you wish to condemn those who feel superior about themselves take plenty of time to condemn yourself.

On side merits a feeling of superiority, the other should be ashamed.

A rational person can differentiate between the two. Someone who is either a bed wetting leftist malcontent, or a mindless "centrist" fence sitter may have difficulty making the choice.

Of course that's my biased opinion.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I like the private sector and this is why I support the social democracy concept so much as we're better off with both private and public sectors.

 

[GreenBean]

I've always said liberalism is a war against the obvious.

This article nails it right down to the ground.

3) Liberals emphasize feeling superior, not superior results. Liberalism is all about appearances, not outcomes. What matters to liberals is how a program makes them FEEL about themselves, not whether it works or not. Thus a program like Headstart, which sounds good because it's designed to help children read, makes liberals feel good about themselves, even though the program doesn't work and wastes billions. A ban on DDT makes liberals feel good about themselves because they're "protecting the environment" even though millions of people have died as a result. For liberals, it's not what a program does in the real world; it's about whether they feel better about themselves for supporting it.

7 Reasons Why Liberals Are Incapable of Understanding The World - John Hawkins - Page full

That's why when you argue with liberals about the failure of the War on Poverty, the Failure of Headstart, the Failure of Obamacare (for pity sake), liberals won't address the actual FACTS about the failure.

Instead they will attack you for being against the "good intentions" of those laws and initiatives. Nor will they address the damage that's been done to the family. Nope they won't talk about any of that. Instead they will banter about the good intentions and try to change the subject to why YOU are against those good intentions.

It's never about the actual results. Nope it's about them feeling "morally" superior to you regardless of whether it helps a single solitary person.

Boiled down it amounts to an inability to grasp the logic of cause-effect relationships .

The inability to accept the consequences of their own actions as being their own fault .

And their insistance on finding scapegoats for all the Worlds Injustices in people who can see past the ends of their noses.

as in pete's signature [^Above] “At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child — miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats.”-- P.J O'Rourke

 

[ron4342]

I've always said liberalism is a war against the obvious.

This article nails it right down to the ground.



7 Reasons Why Liberals Are Incapable of Understanding The World - John Hawkins - Page full

That's why when you argue with liberals about the failure of the War on Poverty, the Failure of Headstart, the Failure of Obamacare (for pity sake), liberals won't address the actual FACTS about the failure.

Instead they will attack you for being against the "good intentions" of those laws and initiatives. Nor will they address the damage that's been done to the family. Nope they won't talk about any of that. Instead they will banter about the good intentions and try to change the subject to why YOU are against those good intentions.

It's never about the actual results. Nope it's about them feeling "morally" superior to you regardless of whether it helps a single solitary person.

The whole point of your article is to point out "Liberals emphasize feeling superior" about themselves. But, isn't that exactly what conservatives are doing by posting this article. Put another way you are saying conservatives are superior to liberials because liberals feel superior about themselves. If you wish to condemn those who feel superior about themselves take plenty of time to condemn yourself.

On side merits a feeling of superiority, the other should be ashamed.

A rational person can differentiate between the two. Someone who is either a bed wetting leftist malcontent, or a mindless "centrist" fence sitter may have difficulty making the choice.

Of course that's my biased opinion.

Your statement that "On (sp) side merits a feeling of superiority .... " is pretty much as biased as you can get. If you feel conservatives are superior at taking food out of the mouths of the poor, treating women as second class citizens, trying to take the vote away from other Americans, ignoring veterans, and trying to stop millions from receiving healthcare than you are 100% correct with your baised opinion. Conservatives ARE superior in the above mentioned areas. IT IS NOTHING TO BRAG OR BE PROUD ABOUT.

 

[itfitzme]

I've always said liberalism is a war against the obvious.

This article nails it right down to the ground.

3) Liberals emphasize feeling superior, not superior results. Liberalism is all about appearances, not outcomes. What matters to liberals is how a program makes them FEEL about themselves, not whether it works or not. Thus a program like Headstart, which sounds good because it's designed to help children read, makes liberals feel good about themselves, even though the program doesn't work and wastes billions. A ban on DDT makes liberals feel good about themselves because they're "protecting the environment" even though millions of people have died as a result. For liberals, it's not what a program does in the real world; it's about whether they feel better about themselves for supporting it.

7 Reasons Why Liberals Are Incapable of Understanding The World - John Hawkins - Page full

That's why when you argue with liberals about the failure of the War on Poverty, the Failure of Headstart, the Failure of Obamacare (for pity sake), liberals won't address the actual FACTS about the failure.

Instead they will attack you for being against the "good intentions" of those laws and initiatives. Nor will they address the damage that's been done to the family. Nope they won't talk about any of that. Instead they will banter about the good intentions and try to change the subject to why YOU are against those good intentions.

It's never about the actual results. Nope it's about them feeling "morally" superior to you regardless of whether it helps a single solitary person.

Interesting diatribe. So when do we get to see the study that supports the thread title.

 

[jasonnfree]

I've always said liberalism is a war against the obvious.

This article nails it right down to the ground.

3) Liberals emphasize feeling superior, not superior results. Liberalism is all about appearances, not outcomes. What matters to liberals is how a program makes them FEEL about themselves, not whether it works or not. Thus a program like Headstart, which sounds good because it's designed to help children read, makes liberals feel good about themselves, even though the program doesn't work and wastes billions. A ban on DDT makes liberals feel good about themselves because they're "protecting the environment" even though millions of people have died as a result. For liberals, it's not what a program does in the real world; it's about whether they feel better about themselves for supporting it.

7 Reasons Why Liberals Are Incapable of Understanding The World - John Hawkins - Page full

That's why when you argue with liberals about the failure of the War on Poverty, the Failure of Headstart, the Failure of Obamacare (for pity sake), liberals won't address the actual FACTS about the failure.

Instead they will attack you for being against the "good intentions" of those laws and initiatives. Nor will they address the damage that's been done to the family. Nope they won't talk about any of that. Instead they will banter about the good intentions and try to change the subject to why YOU are against those good intentions.

It's never about the actual results. Nope it's about them feeling "morally" superior to you regardless of whether it helps a single solitary person.

So you found an article that agrees with your political outlook. Both sides can do that. Head start for example. I think it does what it was intended to do. It's pre school for those that can't afford pre school.

 

[LoneLaugher]

What I've shown is that modern day "liberals" aren't liberals at all. We have things like dictionaries and such in order to make these types of distinctions. I know, really complex shit for Progressive Authoritarians who've spent much time changing definitions around to suit their authoritarian agenda.

You have shown something?

I know you have said something. Several times, in fact. But have you shown it to be true? No. You haven't.

I have an open offer to anyone. You may ask any unloaded, honest question and I will give you an honest answer. You might then begin to grasp what a liberal thinks and believes.

Oddly enough.....I've never had one of you nutters take me up on the offer.

You want to try?

You can answer the philosophical questions associated with the dictionary definition of liberalism.

I already posted it for you. Do believe in and advocate for those things? I highly doubt it. From you personally, all I've ever seen is Obamacare type cheer-leading or the typical condescending remarks from modern Progressive Authoritarians.

But I'll wait and see how you measure up as a liberal by its definition.

I gotta tell ya.......it is weird how USMB nutters cannot bring themselves to ask honest, genuine questions. I have invited you to do so. Instead, you suggest that I answer "the philosophical questions associated with the dictionary definition of liberalism".

Why fuck around, bro? Let's take a shot at some honest discourse. I'm here for you.

 

[PratchettFan]

So it seems no one is capable of actually providing a definition of the word "liberal", other than what it is not.

In another discussion on evolution, which had no overtones of political ideology at all, someone responded to me that I was obviously a liberal. At no time was politics discussed and he never asked me anything about my political views. I disagreed with him on evolution, so I must be a liberal. Which brings me to my definition of a "liberal" as used here. BTW, you can also apply this to the word "conservative".

A liberal is an amorphous boogeyman who is responsible for all the ills of the world. By using the term, the user need not respond to any points on a given issue, simply apply the label and thus negate anything the other person might have to say. A liberal is someone who disagrees with you.

I understand many will disagree with me. Which, of course, makes me a liberal.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

You have shown something?

I know you have said something. Several times, in fact. But have you shown it to be true? No. You haven't.

I have an open offer to anyone. You may ask any unloaded, honest question and I will give you an honest answer. You might then begin to grasp what a liberal thinks and believes.

Oddly enough.....I've never had one of you nutters take me up on the offer.

You want to try?

You can answer the philosophical questions associated with the dictionary definition of liberalism.

I already posted it for you. Do believe in and advocate for those things? I highly doubt it. From you personally, all I've ever seen is Obamacare type cheer-leading or the typical condescending remarks from modern Progressive Authoritarians.

But I'll wait and see how you measure up as a liberal by its definition.

I gotta tell ya.......it is weird how USMB nutters cannot bring themselves to ask honest, genuine questions. I have invited you to do so. Instead, you suggest that I answer "the philosophical questions associated with the dictionary definition of liberalism".

Why fuck around, bro? Let's take a shot at some honest discourse. I'm here for you.

Was asking you to answer the questions too scholarly for you, Dullard? Do I really need to dumb it down so you can reciprocate what you're asking for - honesty? Fine, i'll do the heavy lifting for you since I realize it's tough.

Do you believe in individual freedom and the autonomy of the individual?

Do you believe in a gold standard, self regulating markets and no barriers (free) to competition?

Do you believe in the inherent good of human kind, the protection of civil/political liberties?

I'm sure you'll find another excuse to dodge the fucking questions again. But you're more or less just a troll so, expectations were already low.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

So it seems no one is capable of actually providing a definition of the word "liberal", other than what it is not.

In another discussion on evolution, which had no overtones of political ideology at all, someone responded to me that I was obviously a liberal. At no time was politics discussed and he never asked me anything about my political views. I disagreed with him on evolution, so I must be a liberal. Which brings me to my definition of a "liberal" as used here. BTW, you can also apply this to the word "conservative".

A liberal is an amorphous boogeyman who is responsible for all the ills of the world. By using the term, the user need not respond to any points on a given issue, simply apply the label and thus negate anything the other person might have to say. A liberal is someone who disagrees with you.

I understand many will disagree with me. Which, of course, makes me a liberal.

I gave you the definition, Corky. Good fuckin' grief.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Can you read? I gave you the definition of liberalism. It means what is in that definition.However, modern so called "liberals" do not fit that description.

You said it does not define the concept people are attempting to get across, so I was asking just what it was they meant when they used the word. Giving me a definition and saying it doesn't apply is giving me nothing at all.

When you use the word "liberal" to describe a particular position, what is it you mean by the word?

Holy shit you're 7 shades of dull.

Those who claim to be liberal, are nothing of the sort. What they are, are progressive authoritarians. I've made this all very clear. Nothing in modern day "liberal" position fits the description of liberalism. You've been given the definition of liberalism, and this has been explained to you now twice.

You either can grasp this elementary concept, or there is little hope for you.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I wasn't aware that any USMB conservatives commanded any respect from any USMB liberals --- because we're all evil.

You aren't evil. You are fucking stupid. The people who give you your marching orders are a bit evil.

In other words, any viewpoint that I espouse is rooted in evil, regardless of whether or nt I am aware of it being so --- which proves Krauthammer's statement. We represent Great Evil and you represent the Light.

If you go to 2:33 you'll see a song I wrote and played on Organ that represents how Liberals feel about themselves.

"in other words"? No, the words describing you were perfect, "You are fucking stupid". No more need be said.

 

[PratchettFan]

So it seems no one is capable of actually providing a definition of the word "liberal", other than what it is not.

In another discussion on evolution, which had no overtones of political ideology at all, someone responded to me that I was obviously a liberal. At no time was politics discussed and he never asked me anything about my political views. I disagreed with him on evolution, so I must be a liberal. Which brings me to my definition of a "liberal" as used here. BTW, you can also apply this to the word "conservative".

A liberal is an amorphous boogeyman who is responsible for all the ills of the world. By using the term, the user need not respond to any points on a given issue, simply apply the label and thus negate anything the other person might have to say. A liberal is someone who disagrees with you.

I understand many will disagree with me. Which, of course, makes me a liberal.

I gave you the definition, Corky. Good fuckin' grief.

No, you didn't. Why do you seem to have trouble with this? You gave me a definition and then said it wasn't the correct definition. What you have consistently failed to do is provide a correct definition, which I interpret to mean you just don't have one.

 

[Moonglow]

Can you read? I gave you the definition of liberalism. It means what is in that definition.However, modern so called "liberals" do not fit that description.

You said it does not define the concept people are attempting to get across, so I was asking just what it was they meant when they used the word. Giving me a definition and saying it doesn't apply is giving me nothing at all.

When you use the word "liberal" to describe a particular position, what is it you mean by the word?

Holy shit you're 7 shades of dull.

Those who claim to be liberal, are nothing of the sort. What they are, are progressive authoritarians. I've made this all very clear. Nothing in modern day "liberal" position fits the description of liberalism. You've been given the definition of liberalism, and this has been explained to you now twice.

You either can grasp this elementary concept, or there is little hope for you.

Thank you for your pigeonholing...I would like to comment on your myopic situation by adding that conservatives with their Bibles are authoritarians also..You are no conservative and many in the GOP are not conservative they are liberals, gays, anarchist and other groups that want to be part of the system...If conservative ideas were in play when the GOP is in power how can you explain the first Bush term in office? There was no fiscal restraint, no welfare reduction or elimination, no attempt to put us on a track of strong industry and manufacturing and he damn sure didn't do anything that affected illegals from entering our nation, in fact it increased during that time.

 

[PratchettFan]

You can answer the philosophical questions associated with the dictionary definition of liberalism.

I already posted it for you. Do believe in and advocate for those things? I highly doubt it. From you personally, all I've ever seen is Obamacare type cheer-leading or the typical condescending remarks from modern Progressive Authoritarians.

But I'll wait and see how you measure up as a liberal by its definition.

I gotta tell ya.......it is weird how USMB nutters cannot bring themselves to ask honest, genuine questions. I have invited you to do so. Instead, you suggest that I answer "the philosophical questions associated with the dictionary definition of liberalism".

Why fuck around, bro? Let's take a shot at some honest discourse. I'm here for you.

Was asking you to answer the questions too scholarly for you, Dullard? Do I really need to dumb it down so you can reciprocate what you're asking for - honesty? Fine, i'll do the heavy lifting for you since I realize it's tough.

Do you believe in individual freedom and the autonomy of the individual?

Do you believe in a gold standard, self regulating markets and no barriers (free) to competition?

Do you believe in the inherent good of human kind, the protection of civil/political liberties?

I'm sure you'll find another excuse to dodge the fucking questions again. But you're more or less just a troll so, expectations were already low.

Do you believe in individual freedom and the autonomy of the individual? Yes. Do you?

Do you believe in a gold standard, self regulating markets and no barriers (free) to competition? No. Do you?

Do you believe in the inherent good of human kind, the protection of civil/political liberties? No and yes. If you actually believe in the former, why would you need the latter? And you?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Of course I am a proponent of all of those things and more. I also think that anyone who is a proponent of conscription into government schemes does not believe in the autonomy and freedom of the individual.

See social security, ACA and dozens of other government schemes as examples.

Sounds like you lack a few important details in liberalism. SO I rest my case.

 

[PratchettFan]

Can you read? I gave you the definition of liberalism. It means what is in that definition.However, modern so called "liberals" do not fit that description.

You said it does not define the concept people are attempting to get across, so I was asking just what it was they meant when they used the word. Giving me a definition and saying it doesn't apply is giving me nothing at all.

When you use the word "liberal" to describe a particular position, what is it you mean by the word?

Holy shit you're 7 shades of dull.

Those who claim to be liberal, are nothing of the sort. What they are, are progressive authoritarians. I've made this all very clear. Nothing in modern day "liberal" position fits the description of liberalism. You've been given the definition of liberalism, and this has been explained to you now twice.

You either can grasp this elementary concept, or there is little hope for you.

Let me put your response in another form...

Me: What color is that?
You: It's not blue.
Me: Ok. But what color is it?
You: Are you an idiot? I said it wasn't blue!

Is it that you just don't want to admit you don't know what color it is?