Verifying Your Political ID

[PoliticalChic]

There is no doubt that many on the Left think some or all of those statements are true.

We on the right know many on the Left are delusional and misinformed. I suspect that we know more about how the Left thinks and what they believe, then they do.

I also believe that much of the misinformation accepted by some on the Left is the result of a media that regularly promotes propaganda that dupes lefties over and over again.

If I could be so bold as to add to your list, this one is big.

Nazism is a right wing ideology.

You really don't know everyone human in the USA, so I doubt you really know jack.

Actually he is correct.

We understand the Left, the opposite not the case.

And, the Right is far more informed.


Allow me to prove same:


1. "Stephanopoulos appeared on The Sean Hannity Show and New York radio station WOR's The Steve Malzberg Show, where both Hannity and Malzberg suggested to Stephanopoulos that he ask Obama about Ayers."
Right-wing radio hosts suggested "damn good" Ayers question to Stephanopoulos day before Dem debate | Research | Media Matters for America
He didn't know about Ayers!!




2. CBS's Bob Schieffer on Sunday said the reason he didn't ask [0] Attorney General Eric Holder about the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case on last week's "Face the Nation" was because he didn't know about it.

Chatting with Howard Kurtz on CNN's "Reliable Sources," Schieffer said, "This all really became a story when the whistleblower came out and testified that he'd had to leave the Justice Department and so on. And, frankly, had I known about that, I would have asked the question."
His excuse?
"I was on vacation that week. This happened -- apparently, it got very little publicity. And, you know, I just didn't know about it" (video follows with transcript and commentary):
Bob Schieffer: What Black Panther Story? 'I Was on Vacation' - Fox Nation


3. Several Chicago readers and Twitterers report that ABC News anchor Charlie Gibson told WLS-AM Chicago talk show hosts Don Wade and Roma this morning that the reason he hasn’t covered the ACORN scandal is that he didn’t know about it.

“…Charlie Gibson on as their usual Tuesday morning guest. Don asked Charlie, why, after the senate last night voted to halt funding to ACORN and after three of those video tapes of ACORN employees helping the pimp and prostitute set up shop, there was no mention of it anywhere on the network news. Charlie gave out a most uncomfortable laugh and said that that was the first he heard of it!”

ABC’s Jake Tapper reported on the Census Bureau’s decision to drop ACORN from its data collection partnerships on Friday as a result of BigGovernment.com’s video stings.
Gibson also admitted to Don and Roma that he didn’t know about the Senate vote to de-fund ACORN.
Michelle Malkin | ACORN Watch: Charlie Gibson and the ostrich media; Update: Audio added «






But, of course, there is the alternative view, as revealed by Aldous Huxley in “Ends and Means.”

“Most ignorance is vincible ignorance. We don’t know because we don’t want to know, It is our will that decides how and upon what subjects we shall use our intelligence. Those who detect no meaning in the world generally do so because, for one reason or another, it suits their books that the world should be meaningless.”(p. 312)

 

[gipper]

There is no doubt that many on the Left think some or all of those statements are true.

We on the right know many on the Left are delusional and misinformed. I suspect that we know more about how the Left thinks and what they believe, then they do.

I also believe that much of the misinformation accepted by some on the Left is the result of a media that regularly promotes propaganda that dupes lefties over and over again.

If I could be so bold as to add to your list, this one is big.

Nazism is a right wing ideology.

You really don't know everyone human in the USA, so I doubt you really know jack.

Actually he is correct.

We understand the Left, the opposite not the case.

And, the Right is far more informed.


Allow me to prove same:


1. "Stephanopoulos appeared on The Sean Hannity Show and New York radio station WOR's The Steve Malzberg Show, where both Hannity and Malzberg suggested to Stephanopoulos that he ask Obama about Ayers."
Right-wing radio hosts suggested "damn good" Ayers question to Stephanopoulos day before Dem debate | Research | Media Matters for America
He didn't know about Ayers!!




2. CBS's Bob Schieffer on Sunday said the reason he didn't ask [0] Attorney General Eric Holder about the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case on last week's "Face the Nation" was because he didn't know about it.

Chatting with Howard Kurtz on CNN's "Reliable Sources," Schieffer said, "This all really became a story when the whistleblower came out and testified that he'd had to leave the Justice Department and so on. And, frankly, had I known about that, I would have asked the question."
His excuse?
"I was on vacation that week. This happened -- apparently, it got very little publicity. And, you know, I just didn't know about it" (video follows with transcript and commentary):
Bob Schieffer: What Black Panther Story? 'I Was on Vacation' - Fox Nation


3. Several Chicago readers and Twitterers report that ABC News anchor Charlie Gibson told WLS-AM Chicago talk show hosts Don Wade and Roma this morning that the reason he hasn’t covered the ACORN scandal is that he didn’t know about it.

“…Charlie Gibson on as their usual Tuesday morning guest. Don asked Charlie, why, after the senate last night voted to halt funding to ACORN and after three of those video tapes of ACORN employees helping the pimp and prostitute set up shop, there was no mention of it anywhere on the network news. Charlie gave out a most uncomfortable laugh and said that that was the first he heard of it!”

ABC’s Jake Tapper reported on the Census Bureau’s decision to drop ACORN from its data collection partnerships on Friday as a result of BigGovernment.com’s video stings.
Gibson also admitted to Don and Roma that he didn’t know about the Senate vote to de-fund ACORN.
Michelle Malkin | ACORN Watch: Charlie Gibson and the ostrich media; Update: Audio added «






But, of course, there is the alternative view, as revealed by Aldous Huxley in “Ends and Means.”

“Most ignorance is vincible ignorance. We don’t know because we don’t want to know, It is our will that decides how and upon what subjects we shall use our intelligence. Those who detect no meaning in the world generally do so because, for one reason or another, it suits their books that the world should be meaningless.”(p. 312)

And it has been studied and confirmed here....

But University of Virginia Professor Jonathan Haidt’s new book The Righteous Mind doesn’t simply suggest that conservatives may not be as close-minded as they are portrayed. It proves that the opposite is the case, that conservatives understand their ideological opposite numbers far better than do liberals.

But during that time when conservatives’ mouths are shut, their ears are open. They’re listening and understanding what liberals think—and what liberals think of them. Conservatives understand their own world—whether it’s of religious organizations, talk radio, Fox News, or whatever—along with the New York Times, network news world of liberals.

But let me present a complementary, more practical explanation: If you’re a conservative who lives in a major metropolitan area or who simply reads the New York Times, you get used to being outnumbered by liberals. Liberals, by contrast, get used to being surrounded by other liberals, both in person and in culture and the media. As a result, liberals speak their minds freely, often in ways that are harshly condemnatory of conservatives and their stands on issues. As a conservative, you can defend your values against friends and acquaintances who essentially just called you stupid and evil or you can keep quiet.

As a conservative, you can defend your values against friends and acquaintances who essentially just called you stupid and evil or you can keep quiet.
Most conservatives, most of the time, choose the latter. That is, they stay in the closet to avoid being accused of hating the poor, gays, or polar bears. As a result, liberals aren’t gaining any commensurate information. In fact, the silence of their conservative friends helps reinforce their views. Much of the time, liberals’ views of conservative positions and values are simply a caricature that bear little resemblance to what conservatives actually think and, more importantly, why they think it.

That helps explain why a conservative’s reaction to a liberal critique often isn’t “you’re wrong.” It’s “you don’t even know what I’m trying to say.” Haidt’s research seems to show that this reaction is warranted.Liberals or Conservatives: Who?s Really Close-Minded? ? The American Magazine

 

[JoeB131]

You do get that McCarthy didn't find any actual spies, and that a lot of people's lives were ruined because of false accussations, right?

You DO get that no innocent persons life was ruined and that McCarthy exposed DOZENS of actual spies, don't you shit fer brains?

Actually, he exposed NO spies. No one McCarthy ever accused was convicted of espinoge.

A few were convicted of "perjury" when their testimony didn't line up with what Congress claimed...

 

[PoliticalChic]

You do get that McCarthy didn't find any actual spies, and that a lot of people's lives were ruined because of false accussations, right?

You DO get that no innocent persons life was ruined and that McCarthy exposed DOZENS of actual spies, don't you shit fer brains?

Actually, he exposed NO spies. No one McCarthy ever accused was convicted of espinoge.

A few were convicted of "perjury" when their testimony didn't line up with what Congress claimed...

1. Good to see you running away from your statement that " a lot of people's lives were ruined because of false accussations (sic)'....

I love to watch that kind of retreat.


2. "No one McCarthy ever accused was convicted of espinoge (sic)."

McCarthy’s primary goal was not to expose individual Communists, he was simply demanding of the liberal establishment: Why were they sheltering traitors? It was the exact same point Eisenhower was making when he directed Attorney General Brownell to inform the public that President Truman had wittingly place a Soviet spy in a key position at the IMF… For decades, people who should not have been allowed anywhere a government job were strolling into sensitive positions with the US government. For the most part, accusations were not aimed at sending the accused to a gulag, only to private practice.



'The final chapter in this first half of Reds [Reds: McCarthyism in Twentieth-Century America, by Ted Morgan] details Harry Truman's moves to cope with the problem, or at least the public perception, of Soviet penetration of the government. The most important was his creation of a program to administer loyalty checks to more than two million federal employees. Only a tiny number—102—were actually dismissed ("there were far more resignations than there were dismissals"), but Truman undercut his own credibility on the subject when he subsequently pooh-poohed the entire Congressional investigation into the Chambers and Bentley spy rings as "a red herring." Very little about the subject was known to the public at the time (1948), but what was known (or reasonably suspected) was by no means trivial, and could certainly not be dismissed as simply "a red herring."
" Even in 1950, when Bradley allegedly told Truman that Alger Hiss and Harry Dexter White were confirmed by Venona as Soviet spies, Truman : "That goddamn stuff. Every time it bumps into us it gets bigger and bigger. It's likely to take us down."
The Claremont Institute - A Closer Look Under The Bed



"...kept his eyes firmly shut."
Sounds kinda like you, Erroneous Joe.....

 

[itfitzme]

This is only fun when someone bites it big time: that’s where you come in!


.....I can see I was correct!

"What your trying to do is ascribe any consideration for your list of bs to anyone that you label "liberal".


So....that's why you won't admit that you believe all to the statements in the OP.



Just as it says:
"The following is a series of statements which our Liberal pals fervently believe to be true.....at least they subscribe to the majority of them."

Gotcha!

You didn't "get" anything. You haven't attributed the ideas to "liberals" or to me, not in reality. What you've attributed is out of some paranoid delusion of your own making.

This is why I say you are absolutely clueless as to how logic, reason, and the scientific method works. You simply make up shit then make claim to it having the subjective meaning that you imagine.

There is nothing to admit. I don't have any belief one way or another. You simply imagine that I must because I clearly think you are a moron.

This is my point, and remains my point, that you make shit up based on no substantiating evidence.

"What you've attributed is out of some paranoid delusion of your own making."

So.....how come you won't admit that you found all of the statements true?


Snagged.

Because I don't find them either true or false. Like most of your crap, they aren't worth consideration.

See, what you don't seem to get is that I don't hold unqualified opinions. If I don't have facts, I don't have anything.

And, the OP didn't say, "itfitzme believes", it says, "liberals".

Here is the problem. The probability of any single individual having definitive opinions with respect to every single one of the list is so unlikely as to be essentially non existant. The other is true, that the probability of anyone having the opposite is so unlikely as to be essentially non existant. And, among people that register as Dems or Republs, the likely hood is that they hold a few of them in the affirmative and a few in opposition.

And, with out a doubt, you niether know enough people to have a statistically relavent sample nor have you done a survey and obtained a statistically relavent sample.

As such, I am addressing the simple fact that your OP is complete bullshit, demonstrating that you have absolutely no clue as to the scientific method. You simply make up shit, whole cloth, based on some delusion of your own making.

 

[JoeB131]

You DO get that no innocent persons life was ruined and that McCarthy exposed DOZENS of actual spies, don't you shit fer brains?

Actually, he exposed NO spies. No one McCarthy ever accused was convicted of espinoge.

A few were convicted of "perjury" when their testimony didn't line up with what Congress claimed...

1. Good to see you running away from your statement that " a lot of people's lives were ruined because of false accussations (sic)'....

I love to watch that kind of retreat.

Okay, well, I really didn't, but if needing to think I did helps you feel better about your awful argument, have at it.

[
2. "No one McCarthy ever accused was convicted of espinoge (sic)."

McCarthy’s primary goal was not to expose individual Communists, he was simply demanding of the liberal establishment: Why were they sheltering traitors? It was the exact same point Eisenhower was making when he directed Attorney General Brownell to inform the public that President Truman had wittingly place a Soviet spy in a key position at the IMF… For decades, people who should not have been allowed anywhere a government job were strolling into sensitive positions with the US government. For the most part, accusations were not aimed at sending the accused to a gulag, only to private practice.

I guess the problem with this is, besides the fact that none of these guys were actually "spies", saying you shouldn't hold your job because of your political beliefs matched up with a country THAT WAS OUR ALLY in the war, or worse, because you pointed out that the folks we were propping up were losers, is kind of insane.

Let's review that. During WWII, the USSR was our ALLY. Mao was our ALLY. Ho Chi Mihn was our ALLY. After the war, we decided they weren't anymore. Then we hysterically started trashing at ourselves. Then we felt really, really bad about it and turned on the drunk who instigated the whole thing.

You conservatives are all about "Freedom".

Unless someone makes a choice you don't like.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You didn't "get" anything. You haven't attributed the ideas to "liberals" or to me, not in reality. What you've attributed is out of some paranoid delusion of your own making.

This is why I say you are absolutely clueless as to how logic, reason, and the scientific method works. You simply make up shit then make claim to it having the subjective meaning that you imagine.

There is nothing to admit. I don't have any belief one way or another. You simply imagine that I must because I clearly think you are a moron.

This is my point, and remains my point, that you make shit up based on no substantiating evidence.

"What you've attributed is out of some paranoid delusion of your own making."

So.....how come you won't admit that you found all of the statements true?


Snagged.

Because I don't find them either true or false. Like most of your crap, they aren't worth consideration.

See, what you don't seem to get is that I don't hold unqualified opinions. If I don't have facts, I don't have anything.

And, the OP didn't say, "itfitzme believes", it says, "liberals".

Here is the problem. The probability of any single individual having definitive opinions with respect to every single one of the list is so unlikely as to be essentially non existant. The other is true, that the probability of anyone having the opposite is so unlikely as to be essentially non existant. And, among people that register as Dems or Republs, the likely hood is that they hold a few of them in the affirmative and a few in opposition.

And, with out a doubt, you niether know enough people to have a statistically relavent sample nor have you done a survey and obtained a statistically relavent sample.

As such, I am addressing the simple fact that your OP is complete bullshit, demonstrating that you have absolutely no clue as to the scientific method. You simply make up shit, whole cloth, based on some delusion of your own making.

'Fess up, Itzy.....

....are you a Liberal?


Confession is good for the soul.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Actually, he exposed NO spies. No one McCarthy ever accused was convicted of espinoge.

One thing I've noticed about you, Comrade JoeB Stalin, is that you lie as easily as most people breath.

{We need to remember that during the entire period, from 1947 to 1958, no American citizens were interrogated without benefit of legal counsel, none was arrested or detained without due judicial process, and no one went to jail without trial. As George Kennan, no admirer of the investigations, stated, "Whoever could get his case before a court was generally assured of meeting there with a level of justice no smaller than at any time in recent American history." All through the "worst" of the McCarthy period, the Communist Party itself was never outlawed, membership in the party was never declared a crime, and it continued to maintain public offices, publish books and the Daily Worker, and recruit new members (admittedly a tough sell by then). }

Joseph McCarthy

You're a liar and a scumbag JoeB, in other words, a typical democrat.

A few were convicted of "perjury" when their testimony didn't line up with what Congress claimed...

While you are a stupid man, and thus a leftist, you should know that the HUAC and McCarthy were two distinct, and separate events.

 

[Uncensored2008]

1. Good to see you running away from your statement that " a lot of people's lives were ruined because of false accussations (sic)'....

I love to watch that kind of retreat.


2. "No one McCarthy ever accused was convicted of espinoge (sic)."

McCarthy’s primary goal was not to expose individual Communists, he was simply demanding of the liberal establishment: Why were they sheltering traitors? It was the exact same point Eisenhower was making when he directed Attorney General Brownell to inform the public that President Truman had wittingly place a Soviet spy in a key position at the IMF… For decades, people who should not have been allowed anywhere a government job were strolling into sensitive positions with the US government. For the most part, accusations were not aimed at sending the accused to a gulag, only to private practice.



'The final chapter in this first half of Reds [Reds: McCarthyism in Twentieth-Century America, by Ted Morgan] details Harry Truman's moves to cope with the problem, or at least the public perception, of Soviet penetration of the government. The most important was his creation of a program to administer loyalty checks to more than two million federal employees. Only a tiny number—102—were actually dismissed ("there were far more resignations than there were dismissals"), but Truman undercut his own credibility on the subject when he subsequently pooh-poohed the entire Congressional investigation into the Chambers and Bentley spy rings as "a red herring." Very little about the subject was known to the public at the time (1948), but what was known (or reasonably suspected) was by no means trivial, and could certainly not be dismissed as simply "a red herring."
" Even in 1950, when Bradley allegedly told Truman that Alger Hiss and Harry Dexter White were confirmed by Venona as Soviet spies, Truman : "That goddamn stuff. Every time it bumps into us it gets bigger and bigger. It's likely to take us down."
The Claremont Institute - A Closer Look Under The Bed



"...kept his eyes firmly shut."
Sounds kinda like you, Erroneous Joe.....

The case of McCarthy is a study in demagoguery. Long before Quayle, Bush, or Sarah Palin were savaged by a corrupt press that campaigns through the distortion of fact on behalf of the ruling democrats, there was McCarthy.

The "crime" of McCarthy was simply that he was right. Outside of delusional liars such as JoeB, no one can deny that McCarthy was correct. But even in admitting the McCarthy was right all along, leftist media such as the Washington Post and NY Times post shit like;

{In a 1996 piece that appeared in the Washington Post, provocatively titled "Was McCarthy Right About the Left," Nicholas von Hoffman acknowledged that McCarthy's charges did rest against a background of genuine Communist subversion and of liberal excuses for it, but still felt it necessary to add that he was "a loutish, duplicitous bully, who carried, not the names of Reds but bottles of hootch in his briefcase." }

The REAL hatred by the left is always founded on a challenge to elitist rule, which is what McCarthy offered;

{ he and other liberals thought they saw the same spirit among their fellow Americans on the political right. McCarthyism was part of "a popular revolt against the upper classes," as Harvard sociologist Talcott Parsons put it, and Rovere for one had no doubt about which side he himself was on.}

Joseph McCarthy

The leftist elite set out to destroy McCarthy, partially because he exposed them and their subversion on behalf of the Soviet Union, but also because he challenged the concept of a ruling elite, which is the foundation of the American left, the idea that the leftist ruler is better suited to manage the lives of people than they, themselves are.

The coordinated and concerted assault on McCarthy was a rousing success, in large part due to America's own Josef Goebbels, Edward R. Murrow, an operative of the far left and a master of the new media of television.

Stopping McCarthy was not the goal of the democrats, rather he was to be destroyed. The attacks continue to this day, as a lesson to any who would oppose the democrats, there is a terrible price extracted from those who expose our ruling party.

McCarthy was not stopped, A grand total of 108 Communist Party members were convicted under the antisubversion provisions of the Smith Act - despite the slobbering idiocy of JoeB.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You do get that McCarthy didn't find any actual spies, and that a lot of people's lives were ruined because of false accussations, right?

You DO get that no innocent persons life was ruined and that McCarthy exposed DOZENS of actual spies, don't you shit fer brains?

Funny thing is, he really DOESN'T get that, despite having it explained to him in excruciating detail in at least four threads I can remember.

 

[Cecilie1200]

There is no doubt that many on the Left think some or all of those statements are true.

We on the right know many on the Left are delusional and misinformed. I suspect that we know more about how the Left thinks and what they believe, then they do.

I also believe that much of the misinformation accepted by some on the Left is the result of a media that regularly promotes propaganda that dupes lefties over and over again.

If I could be so bold as to add to your list, this one is big.

Nazism is a right wing ideology.

You really don't know everyone human in the USA, so I doubt you really know jack.

Nice try, fuckstain, but that leftist "all-or-nothing" shit doesn't work around here. We know - and I suspect you know, too - that it's not necessary to know every individual person in the country in order to identify movements and trends of thought and behavior . . . particularly in politics, which comes with handy-dandy little guides like parties, polls, PACs, advocacy groups, etc.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You really don't know everyone human in the USA, so I doubt you really know jack.

Actually he is correct.

We understand the Left, the opposite not the case.

And, the Right is far more informed.


Allow me to prove same:


1. "Stephanopoulos appeared on The Sean Hannity Show and New York radio station WOR's The Steve Malzberg Show, where both Hannity and Malzberg suggested to Stephanopoulos that he ask Obama about Ayers."
Right-wing radio hosts suggested "damn good" Ayers question to Stephanopoulos day before Dem debate | Research | Media Matters for America
He didn't know about Ayers!!




2. CBS's Bob Schieffer on Sunday said the reason he didn't ask [0] Attorney General Eric Holder about the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case on last week's "Face the Nation" was because he didn't know about it.

Chatting with Howard Kurtz on CNN's "Reliable Sources," Schieffer said, "This all really became a story when the whistleblower came out and testified that he'd had to leave the Justice Department and so on. And, frankly, had I known about that, I would have asked the question."
His excuse?
"I was on vacation that week. This happened -- apparently, it got very little publicity. And, you know, I just didn't know about it" (video follows with transcript and commentary):
Bob Schieffer: What Black Panther Story? 'I Was on Vacation' - Fox Nation


3. Several Chicago readers and Twitterers report that ABC News anchor Charlie Gibson told WLS-AM Chicago talk show hosts Don Wade and Roma this morning that the reason he hasn’t covered the ACORN scandal is that he didn’t know about it.

“…Charlie Gibson on as their usual Tuesday morning guest. Don asked Charlie, why, after the senate last night voted to halt funding to ACORN and after three of those video tapes of ACORN employees helping the pimp and prostitute set up shop, there was no mention of it anywhere on the network news. Charlie gave out a most uncomfortable laugh and said that that was the first he heard of it!”

ABC’s Jake Tapper reported on the Census Bureau’s decision to drop ACORN from its data collection partnerships on Friday as a result of BigGovernment.com’s video stings.
Gibson also admitted to Don and Roma that he didn’t know about the Senate vote to de-fund ACORN.
Michelle Malkin | ACORN Watch: Charlie Gibson and the ostrich media; Update: Audio added «






But, of course, there is the alternative view, as revealed by Aldous Huxley in “Ends and Means.”

“Most ignorance is vincible ignorance. We don’t know because we don’t want to know, It is our will that decides how and upon what subjects we shall use our intelligence. Those who detect no meaning in the world generally do so because, for one reason or another, it suits their books that the world should be meaningless.”(p. 312)

And it has been studied and confirmed here....

But University of Virginia Professor Jonathan Haidt’s new book The Righteous Mind doesn’t simply suggest that conservatives may not be as close-minded as they are portrayed. It proves that the opposite is the case, that conservatives understand their ideological opposite numbers far better than do liberals.

But during that time when conservatives’ mouths are shut, their ears are open. They’re listening and understanding what liberals think—and what liberals think of them. Conservatives understand their own world—whether it’s of religious organizations, talk radio, Fox News, or whatever—along with the New York Times, network news world of liberals.

But let me present a complementary, more practical explanation: If you’re a conservative who lives in a major metropolitan area or who simply reads the New York Times, you get used to being outnumbered by liberals. Liberals, by contrast, get used to being surrounded by other liberals, both in person and in culture and the media. As a result, liberals speak their minds freely, often in ways that are harshly condemnatory of conservatives and their stands on issues. As a conservative, you can defend your values against friends and acquaintances who essentially just called you stupid and evil or you can keep quiet.

As a conservative, you can defend your values against friends and acquaintances who essentially just called you stupid and evil or you can keep quiet.
Most conservatives, most of the time, choose the latter. That is, they stay in the closet to avoid being accused of hating the poor, gays, or polar bears. As a result, liberals aren’t gaining any commensurate information. In fact, the silence of their conservative friends helps reinforce their views. Much of the time, liberals’ views of conservative positions and values are simply a caricature that bear little resemblance to what conservatives actually think and, more importantly, why they think it.

That helps explain why a conservative’s reaction to a liberal critique often isn’t “you’re wrong.” It’s “you don’t even know what I’m trying to say.” Haidt’s research seems to show that this reaction is warranted.Liberals or Conservatives: Who?s Really Close-Minded? ? The American Magazine

This is very true. Many of my friends - often simply by virtue of being under 30 - are quite liberal on some issues, and often parrot opinions and attitudes about the right that they hear around without giving them any real thought at all. Any conversation that is allowed to touch on politics, religion, or social issues (the big three that bartenders are told to never discuss if they don't want trouble) invariably results in me being insulted, all unknowingly, by someone who just assumed that all "correct-minded, good" people - or anyone he or she knows, in other words - must view the world the same way he or she does. I am left, at that point, with deciding whether to point out that, in fact, they know and quite like one of those "eeevil" conservatives, and should rethink their mindless intolerance and bigotry, or just saving myself the effort and discomfort and changing the subject.

 

[itfitzme]

"What you've attributed is out of some paranoid delusion of your own making."

So.....how come you won't admit that you found all of the statements true?


Snagged.

Because I don't find them either true or false. Like most of your crap, they aren't worth consideration.

See, what you don't seem to get is that I don't hold unqualified opinions. If I don't have facts, I don't have anything.

And, the OP didn't say, "itfitzme believes", it says, "liberals".

Here is the problem. The probability of any single individual having definitive opinions with respect to every single one of the list is so unlikely as to be essentially non existant. The other is true, that the probability of anyone having the opposite is so unlikely as to be essentially non existant. And, among people that register as Dems or Republs, the likely hood is that they hold a few of them in the affirmative and a few in opposition.

And, with out a doubt, you niether know enough people to have a statistically relavent sample nor have you done a survey and obtained a statistically relavent sample.

As such, I am addressing the simple fact that your OP is complete bullshit, demonstrating that you have absolutely no clue as to the scientific method. You simply make up shit, whole cloth, based on some delusion of your own making.

'Fess up, Itzy.....

....are you a Liberal?


Confession is good for the soul.

Are you simply a moron or are you intentionally ignorant? Fess up, which one is it?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Leftism is essentially a lap band for the brain.

 

[itfitzme]

Leftism is essentially a lap band for the brain.

There are two kinds of people, those that catagorize everyone into two kinds of people and those that don't.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Because I don't find them either true or false. Like most of your crap, they aren't worth consideration.

See, what you don't seem to get is that I don't hold unqualified opinions. If I don't have facts, I don't have anything.

And, the OP didn't say, "itfitzme believes", it says, "liberals".

Here is the problem. The probability of any single individual having definitive opinions with respect to every single one of the list is so unlikely as to be essentially non existant. The other is true, that the probability of anyone having the opposite is so unlikely as to be essentially non existant. And, among people that register as Dems or Republs, the likely hood is that they hold a few of them in the affirmative and a few in opposition.

And, with out a doubt, you niether know enough people to have a statistically relavent sample nor have you done a survey and obtained a statistically relavent sample.

As such, I am addressing the simple fact that your OP is complete bullshit, demonstrating that you have absolutely no clue as to the scientific method. You simply make up shit, whole cloth, based on some delusion of your own making.

'Fess up, Itzy.....

....are you a Liberal?


Confession is good for the soul.

Are you simply a moron or are you intentionally ignorant? Fess up, which one is it?

So....you are a Liberal...and that's why you are so upset that the OP nailed you....you believe all of 'em.


Got it.

 

[JoeB131]

Actually, he exposed NO spies. No one McCarthy ever accused was convicted of espinoge.

One thing I've noticed about you, Comrade JoeB Stalin, is that you lie as easily as most people breath.

{We need to remember that during the entire period, from 1947 to 1958, no American citizens were interrogated without benefit of legal counsel, none was arrested or detained without due judicial process, and no one went to jail without trial. As George Kennan, no admirer of the investigations, stated, "Whoever could get his case before a court was generally assured of meeting there with a level of justice no smaller than at any time in recent American history." All through the "worst" of the McCarthy period, the Communist Party itself was never outlawed, membership in the party was never declared a crime, and it continued to maintain public offices, publish books and the Daily Worker, and recruit new members (admittedly a tough sell by then). }

Joseph McCarthy

You're a liar and a scumbag JoeB, in other words, a typical democrat.

A few were convicted of "perjury" when their testimony didn't line up with what Congress claimed...

While you are a stupid man, and thus a leftist, you should know that the HUAC and McCarthy were two distinct, and separate events.

Guy, just because we gave them a lawyer before we ruined their lives doesn't mean what happened wasn't completely terrible to SANE people.

Okay. Let's imagine this. Next election, Republicans get wiped out, and a Liberal McCarthy decides he's going to go after any conservatives...

I mean, as long as you get the same fair treatment accused (not really) Communists got, that's totally fair, right?

And most of these folks weren't even fucking communists, much less spies.

 

[Plasmaball]

Oh good the child of usmb made another overly simple thread where if you dont agree with her, then you are dumb.

 

[gipper]

Actually he is correct.

We understand the Left, the opposite not the case.

And, the Right is far more informed.


Allow me to prove same:


1. "Stephanopoulos appeared on The Sean Hannity Show and New York radio station WOR's The Steve Malzberg Show, where both Hannity and Malzberg suggested to Stephanopoulos that he ask Obama about Ayers."
Right-wing radio hosts suggested "damn good" Ayers question to Stephanopoulos day before Dem debate | Research | Media Matters for America
He didn't know about Ayers!!




2. CBS's Bob Schieffer on Sunday said the reason he didn't ask [0] Attorney General Eric Holder about the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case on last week's "Face the Nation" was because he didn't know about it.

Chatting with Howard Kurtz on CNN's "Reliable Sources," Schieffer said, "This all really became a story when the whistleblower came out and testified that he'd had to leave the Justice Department and so on. And, frankly, had I known about that, I would have asked the question."
His excuse?
"I was on vacation that week. This happened -- apparently, it got very little publicity. And, you know, I just didn't know about it" (video follows with transcript and commentary):
Bob Schieffer: What Black Panther Story? 'I Was on Vacation' - Fox Nation


3. Several Chicago readers and Twitterers report that ABC News anchor Charlie Gibson told WLS-AM Chicago talk show hosts Don Wade and Roma this morning that the reason he hasn’t covered the ACORN scandal is that he didn’t know about it.

“…Charlie Gibson on as their usual Tuesday morning guest. Don asked Charlie, why, after the senate last night voted to halt funding to ACORN and after three of those video tapes of ACORN employees helping the pimp and prostitute set up shop, there was no mention of it anywhere on the network news. Charlie gave out a most uncomfortable laugh and said that that was the first he heard of it!”

ABC’s Jake Tapper reported on the Census Bureau’s decision to drop ACORN from its data collection partnerships on Friday as a result of BigGovernment.com’s video stings.
Gibson also admitted to Don and Roma that he didn’t know about the Senate vote to de-fund ACORN.
Michelle Malkin | ACORN Watch: Charlie Gibson and the ostrich media; Update: Audio added «






But, of course, there is the alternative view, as revealed by Aldous Huxley in “Ends and Means.”

“Most ignorance is vincible ignorance. We don’t know because we don’t want to know, It is our will that decides how and upon what subjects we shall use our intelligence. Those who detect no meaning in the world generally do so because, for one reason or another, it suits their books that the world should be meaningless.”(p. 312)

And it has been studied and confirmed here....

But University of Virginia Professor Jonathan Haidt’s new book The Righteous Mind doesn’t simply suggest that conservatives may not be as close-minded as they are portrayed. It proves that the opposite is the case, that conservatives understand their ideological opposite numbers far better than do liberals.

But during that time when conservatives’ mouths are shut, their ears are open. They’re listening and understanding what liberals think—and what liberals think of them. Conservatives understand their own world—whether it’s of religious organizations, talk radio, Fox News, or whatever—along with the New York Times, network news world of liberals.

But let me present a complementary, more practical explanation: If you’re a conservative who lives in a major metropolitan area or who simply reads the New York Times, you get used to being outnumbered by liberals. Liberals, by contrast, get used to being surrounded by other liberals, both in person and in culture and the media. As a result, liberals speak their minds freely, often in ways that are harshly condemnatory of conservatives and their stands on issues. As a conservative, you can defend your values against friends and acquaintances who essentially just called you stupid and evil or you can keep quiet.

As a conservative, you can defend your values against friends and acquaintances who essentially just called you stupid and evil or you can keep quiet.
Most conservatives, most of the time, choose the latter. That is, they stay in the closet to avoid being accused of hating the poor, gays, or polar bears. As a result, liberals aren’t gaining any commensurate information. In fact, the silence of their conservative friends helps reinforce their views. Much of the time, liberals’ views of conservative positions and values are simply a caricature that bear little resemblance to what conservatives actually think and, more importantly, why they think it.

That helps explain why a conservative’s reaction to a liberal critique often isn’t “you’re wrong.” It’s “you don’t even know what I’m trying to say.” Haidt’s research seems to show that this reaction is warranted.Liberals or Conservatives: Who?s Really Close-Minded? ? The American Magazine

This is very true. Many of my friends - often simply by virtue of being under 30 - are quite liberal on some issues, and often parrot opinions and attitudes about the right that they hear around without giving them any real thought at all. Any conversation that is allowed to touch on politics, religion, or social issues (the big three that bartenders are told to never discuss if they don't want trouble) invariably results in me being insulted, all unknowingly, by someone who just assumed that all "correct-minded, good" people - or anyone he or she knows, in other words - must view the world the same way he or she does. I am left, at that point, with deciding whether to point out that, in fact, they know and quite like one of those "eeevil" conservatives, and should rethink their mindless intolerance and bigotry, or just saving myself the effort and discomfort and changing the subject.

Yes...many on the Left merely follow what they are told in the government schools, heard from the MSM, or saw in a lib movie. And when they run into a person of the right, whose opinions and viewpoints are opposite theirs, they are shocked. They are so insulated in their little liberal worlds, that they can't believe anyone would think differently.

They consider anyone on the right a Nazi and as result, think we are EVIL! Of course, anyone capable of THINKING, knows Nazism is a left wing ideology. How ironic!!!

The internet, with forums like this one, is helping educate leftists and forcing them to face opposing views.

It is much more difficult being on the Right. We must endure their hatred, slanders, and idiocy...on top of all the dumb left wing policies our government enacts.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Oh good the child of usmb made another overly simple thread where if you dont agree with her, then you are dumb.

Possibly true....

Unfortunately for the both of us, you'd still be dumb whether you agree or not.






Does this mean a lump of coal in my stocking?