Why do people talk about "liberal bias" when the phrase is technically an oxymoron?

[GreenBean]

Yeah, it's clear that Republicans don't feel obligated to pay other people's bills. I don't get upset when other people don't want to pay my bills. If that makes the poor hate Republicans, then they have unmasked themselves as thugs.

In other words, you admit that Republicans are greedy, selfish bastards who care only for themselves.

Even if that were true, it would still make them better then Democrats, who are thugs.

A "greedy, selfish bastard" only wants to keep money he earned. A Democrat thug wants to take yours, and he's willing to use guns to do it. I'll take the "greedy selfish bastard" over the thug any day of the week.

That you are okay with greed and selfishness is all I need to know about you. Congratulations.

"Greed" is just the name the envious give to the success of the people they envy. No one in this forum has ever managed to post a logical argument against self-interest.

Exactly. Everyone acts in self interest. In our admission of self interest, we want to keep what we earned and let others do the same. In their lie of self interest, the left uses that to justify taking by force that which they didn't earn. Then they feel smug about it since they were acting selflessly. The consequence is clear.

A good part of the problem is well orchestrated - it's a strategy the far left has been building on and tweaking for decades with their army of zombies a/k/a liberals a/k/a useful idiots - or useless idiots depending on your vantage point.



The Cloward Piven strategy was outlined in 1966 by political activists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven. It called for deliberately forcing the U.S. public welfare system into over-drive in order to precipitate a economic collapse that would finalize in replacing the welfare system with a socialist system devoid of a work ethic, an income guaranteed and thus an end to poverty, basically a system where gnomes, fairies and elves do all the Labor and Santa Claus distributes the wealth regardless of whether you've been good or bad.

Cloward- Pliven Strategy

 

[MaxGrit]

Moron idiot and the same shit trolls.

 

[Unkotare]

It's because you have obviously never spent one moment inside the halls of academia. In other words, you're a preliterate moron.

And I suppose you have so many PhDs you can paper the walls with them?

 

[orogenicman]

It's because you have obviously never spent one moment inside the halls of academia. In other words, you're a preliterate moron.

And I suppose you have so many PhDs you can paper the walls with them?

9 years of college, and 20 years of professional experience. You?

 

[bripat9643]

It's because you have obviously never spent one moment inside the halls of academia. In other words, you're a preliterate moron.

And I suppose you have so many PhDs you can paper the walls with them?

9 years of college, and 20 years of professional experience. You?

It took you 9 years to get a bachelors degree? Perhaps we should just start calling you "Blutarsky."

BWAHAHAHAHA!!!

 

[Unkotare]

9 years of college...

That seems rather deliberately vague....

 

[Pogo]

Horseshit.
I quoted MLK III once and MLK Jr. himself several times, from speech transcripts (verbatim) and his own words in his autobiography, again verbatim, and every one of them linked. You quoted ---- nothing.

---- and right into a poison-the-well fallacy that tries to dismiss a direct relative and substitutes an indirect one. "Your son doesn't qualify but my nephew does".

Having it both ways: Priceless. And no reference at all from the man himself as I gave.

You're just digging yourself deeper here.

Link?

Didn't think so.
It does no such thing. In fact I already quoted above (from the autobiography) that King himself writes that he in fact did vote for JFK (and I quote, "I felt that Kennedy would make the best president. I never came out with an endorsement. My father did, but I never made one."
It's right there upstairs dood. You're trying to go but it ain't going away.

--- and off to Ad Homistan when all else fails. You got schooled, son. You've been exposed as bullshit and yet you double down in a dyspepsia of delusion.

So my question remains open -- are you some kind of masochist?

While I do admire your effort - you apparently lack the moral fortitude to process information in an objective manner - So kindly Fu*k Off - you're way over your head little fella

MLK was a Republican - never a Democrat . He may have voted for JFK - but then so did a lot of Republicans - hell I even made the worst mistake of my voting career when I voted for Obama on hos first term - but that was before all the media suppressed data became available.

There's no evidence he was registered with either party but there are his own words noting that he had "always voted the Democratic ticket" (as of 1956), that he voted for JFK (1960) and would have taken the step of endorsing same in 1964 had JFK lived. So you're still blowing the proverbial smoke out your ass.

The question remains unmolested-- how does your tiny little mind expect to get away with bullshit so easily refuted....
..... little fella?

In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans. Why? From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks. And as one pundit so succinctly stated, the Democrat Party is as it always has been, the party of the four S's: Slavery, Secession, Segregation and now Socialism.

During the civil rights era of the 1960's, Dr. King was fighting the Democrats who stood in the school house doors, turned skin-burning fire hoses on blacks and let loose vicious dogs

Kennedy is lauded as a proponent of civil rights. However, Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil rights Act while he was a senator, as did Democrat Senator Al Gore, Sr. And after he became president, John F. Kennedy was opposed to the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph who was a black Republican.

Pogo - Please note that I do applaud your cherry picking of the statement "always voted the Democratic ticket" [as of1956] ... MLK Never said that - and it would have been highly unlikely and out of character - he never publicly endorsed any party and it is extremely unlikely that a Black civil rights leader would have supported the party of Jim Crow in the 50s - Get a grip dude and come back to reality .

You cherry picked that quote from a so called Autobiography that King did not write - it was written and published after his death when the Al Sharptonesque rabble rousers were running amuk " We also know from his autobiography that he wrote to a supporter in 1956 that "in the past, I always voted the Democratic ticket."

Do you even know what Auto-biography means a opposed to biography - do you realize that the entire premise of the book is a joke ? wake up little fella !!!

It's not in the bio, it's in a letter, in his own words, as previously posted, with his signature on it, addressed to Miss Viva Sloan of 379 Baldwin Street in Morgantown, West Virginia. And unlike you I can link directly to the whole thing.
The Papers of Martin Luther King: Rediscovering Precious Values. page 384.

Anything else, masochist?

It's in a letter huh - okay so heres letters from viv sloan to mlk - where's the letter from mlk to sloan ??

Letter from Viva Sloan to MLK The Martin Luther King Jr. Center for Nonviolent Social Change

And here is the only letter on file from mlk to Ms.Sloan

Letter from MLK to Viva O Dean Sloan The Martin Luther King Jr. Center for Nonviolent Social Change

Here's another letter from Ms. SLoan

https://storage.synaptic.att.com/rest/objects/4a08bf2eb21f1e2004f614a538c48804f7b03ddb42bf?uid=7be5f8cb9eb14188b0e40ae93aca2099/kingcenterATpalantirDOTnet&expires=1590984000&signature=950tVOL/3l4d9nFVmzgBGr8myow=

So where's this signed letter ?? - you say it exists - lets have a look - perhaps you're right - there are hundreds of letters from MLK available and even one to the Viva Sloan in question - something about selling a house - but i can't seem to find the one you're talking about - If you can post a link to a letter with signature I'll concede your point untill then fukoff

I linked it last week. It's still embedded in the quote above.
What do you want, me to drive to your house and click it for you while you go ?

 

[Pogo]

Hello. I thought this would be the best forum to ask this and I've wondered it for a few years now. It doesn't make sense if you think about it (even by con standards). Liberalism is neutral by definition. The farther to the right you move, the more partisan you become. It's an obvious fact if you look at the US today. The Left is where all of the groups fighting for social justice and against bigotry and intolerance lay. The more right wing an individual or group is, the more they represent causes that the Left opposes.

Homosexuality is a good example. Liberals have always fought to represent their needs and educate people not to treat them poorly because of their orientation. The GOP ran on an explicitly anti-gay platform roughly a decade ago. Reproductive rights is another. It's the Left that safeguards women's right to choose when and whether to have children and gives them options to deal with unwanted pregnancies and support if they choose to keep them. The Right is where all of the misogynists find support for their explicitly anti-choice agenda. They're the ones who think it's moral to enslave half of the population just because they have wombs and force them to have as many children as possible.

These are just a few examples of why bias just isn't part of the liberal equation. The entire point of liberalism is defeating bias and giving everyone the exact same rights and quality of life regardless of their personal identity and life choices. Wouldn't it follow then that the only bias possible is conservative bias, ie towards the status quo?

Like "Hate, Gay and Racist" the world Liberal, as used by the Left is a misnomer.

There world literally conveys: 'A proponent of Individual Liberty', when in fact, the lowly "Liberal" stands in abject opposition to individual liberty; as common, garden variety Leftists.

Thus, given the Relativist nature of the would-be "Liberal", there is nothing in humanity more 'biased' than a Liberal.

But such is the nature of subjectivity... .

Indeed. You just rendered a fairly accurate definition of the term and then proceeded to declare by personal fiat that it somehow means the opposite of what it means in spite of its own definition.

Must be interesting in your head.

Curious as to how your convoluted logic came to that conclusion ?? He appears to be right on the money and summed it up with "Thus, given the Relativist nature of the would-be "Liberal", there is nothing in humanity more 'biased' than a Liberal."

You really are kinda slow huh? Let''s roll it again. It's all within one sentence:

"There [sic] (he means "their" world [sic] (he means "word") literally conveys: 'A proponent of Individual Liberty', when in fact, the lowly "Liberal" stands in abject opposition to individual liberty; as common, garden variety Leftists."

This is what we call a "self-contradiction". Puts two opposing and irreconcilable ideas and presents them both. One cancels out the other. I put these two opposing ideas in two different colors. See if you can spot 'em.

Plus the phrase at the end gives him away as ignorant of the difference between Liberalism and leftism.

 

[Pogo]

Indeed. You just rendered a fairly accurate definition of the term and then proceeded to declare by personal fiat that it somehow means the opposite of what it means in spite of its own definition.

Must be interesting in your head.

I did no such thing. What I did was to define the word, expressing the concept it represents. I then noted that the concept is taken by people to label themselves, despite their possessing nothing in common with the traits intrinsic to it.

That you people have nothing in common with the concept; that you reject the very objectivity that is essential to individual liberty precludes you from even recognizing the individual responsibilities that must be born with each and every right you claim... no responsibility, no right.

Now you can disagree, but ya can't do so and enjoy any sense of credibility... as the principles on which individual liberty rests are not negotiable.

Nature doesn't give a dam' about your needs... it provides you the means to reason and the rest is up to you. When you reject the individual responsibilities, you forfeit the correlating right. And that is truly all there is to it.

Who's "you people"?
What "individual responsibilities" have I "rejected"? What the fuck clue do you even have about me aside from Zero?

What in the wide world of fuck are you babbling about here? Pick a thought.

 

[Pogo]

Beg to differ ... Ignorance and enslavement are the hallmarks of American Liberals. Liberals are a bumbleclot of narrow minded short sighted people who can't see past the ends of their noses.

They seek to create equality - they create and feed slovenly ethics and enslavement to entitlement.

They create division and strife and feed and bolster the divisions that permeate our society. They enable the ignorant and greedy to parasitize the productive and generous to the point where their productivity and generosity is worn thread bare. They open the gates to the fortress and allow our enemies to flood into the encampment to slaughter us - they are a twisted, ignorant and foolhardy lot those Liberals

Right. That would explain why the democratic party is composed of people from all walks of life while the GOP is composed primarily of old white guys. The fact is that you so-called conservatives are deathly afraid of multiculturalism, the idea that multiple ethnic groups can live together and get along, create a new peaceful world where people of all races and creeds can be successful. How else to explain your xenophobic statement, above?

Why does "multiculturalism" require looting one of the cultures? If it wasn't for white guys paying all the bills, the Democrat agenda would be dead on arrival.

Quite frankly - I resent that remark - I'm not white and I pay much more than my fair share - Lets just say , if it wasn't for productive people paying all the bills the Democrat Parasite agenda would be DOA

Orogenicman was attacking "old white guys." I'm fully aware of the fact that not all people who opposed organized plunder are white. Some of them are even black or Hispanic, but the libs are obviously trying to make white people the enemy.

Pointing out that the Republican party is composed primarily (but not exclusively) of old white guys is not attacking old white guys any more than pointing out that a dead guy is dead is attacking a dead guy.

Ah but it is when Oprah Winfrey does it.

 

[Pogo]

Right. That would explain why the democratic party is composed of people from all walks of life while the GOP is composed primarily of old white guys. The fact is that you so-called conservatives are deathly afraid of multiculturalism, the idea that multiple ethnic groups can live together and get along, create a new peaceful world where people of all races and creeds can be successful. How else to explain your xenophobic statement, above?

Why does "multiculturalism" require looting one of the cultures? If it wasn't for white guys paying all the bills, the Democrat agenda would be dead on arrival.

Quite frankly - I resent that remark - I'm not white and I pay much more than my fair share - Lets just say , if it wasn't for productive people paying all the bills the Democrat Parasite agenda would be DOA

Orogenicman was attacking "old white guys." I'm fully aware of the fact that not all people who opposed organized plunder are white. Some of them are even black or Hispanic, but the libs are obviously trying to make white people the enemy.

Pointing out that the Republican party is composed primarily (but not exclusively) of old white guys is not attacking old white guys any more than pointing out that a dead guy is dead is attacking a dead guy.

Pointing out that Democrats are all thugs and parasites is also not attacking them.

Not if one admires thuggism and parasitism. But either way it is a blanket statement and as such, fallacious.

 

[bripat9643]

Why does "multiculturalism" require looting one of the cultures? If it wasn't for white guys paying all the bills, the Democrat agenda would be dead on arrival.

Quite frankly - I resent that remark - I'm not white and I pay much more than my fair share - Lets just say , if it wasn't for productive people paying all the bills the Democrat Parasite agenda would be DOA

Orogenicman was attacking "old white guys." I'm fully aware of the fact that not all people who opposed organized plunder are white. Some of them are even black or Hispanic, but the libs are obviously trying to make white people the enemy.

Pointing out that the Republican party is composed primarily (but not exclusively) of old white guys is not attacking old white guys any more than pointing out that a dead guy is dead is attacking a dead guy.

Pointing out that Democrats are all thugs and parasites is also not attacking them.

Not if one admires thuggism and parasitism. But either way it is a blanket statement and as such, fallacious.

Apparently the point went right over your head.

 

[Pogo]

Yeah, it's clear that Republicans don't feel obligated to pay other people's bills. I don't get upset when other people don't want to pay my bills. If that makes the poor hate Republicans, then they have unmasked themselves as thugs.

In other words, you admit that Republicans are greedy, selfish bastards who care only for themselves.

Even if that were true, it would still make them better then Democrats, who are thugs.

A "greedy, selfish bastard" only wants to keep money he earned. A Democrat thug wants to take yours, and he's willing to use guns to do it. I'll take the "greedy selfish bastard" over the thug any day of the week.

That you are okay with greed and selfishness is all I need to know about you. Congratulations.

"Greed" is just the name the envious give to the success of the people they envy. No one in this forum has ever managed to post a logical argument against self-interest.

Exactly. Everyone acts in self interest. In our admission of self interest, we want to keep what we earned and let others do the same. In their lie of self interest, the left uses that to justify taking by force that which they didn't earn. Then they feel smug about it since they were acting selflessly. The consequence is clear.

"Everyone acts in self interest" is at base, a truism, depending on how you conceive it. If I give a meal to the hungry or train an untrained person with a skill, the physical benefit is theirs, but I do so because it makes me feel good to have helped someone along, so you could say I'm acting in the self-interest of my own karma.

That line gets a little blurry when I instinctively pull the errant child out of the path of oncoming traffic though....

 

[JoeNormal]

When Republicans want to cut funding for welfare and other entitlements for the poor, it's pretty clear to the poor what they think of them.

Yeah, it's clear that Republicans don't feel obligated to pay other people's bills. I don't get upset when other people don't want to pay my bills. If that makes the poor hate Republicans, then they have unmasked themselves as thugs.

In other words, you admit that Republicans are greedy, selfish bastards who care only for themselves.

Even if that were true, it would still make them better then Democrats, who are thugs.

A "greedy, selfish bastard" only wants to keep money he earned. A Democrat thug wants to take yours, and he's willing to use guns to do it. I'll take the "greedy selfish bastard" over the thug any day of the week.

That you are okay with greed and selfishness is all I need to know about you. Congratulations.

"Greed" is just the name the envious give to the success of the people they envy. No one in this forum has ever managed to post a logical argument against self-interest.

Here's one.

Richard Wilkinson How economic inequality harms societies Talk Video TED.com

 

[DonaldFG]

That's an interesting point of view. I have always felt that this differentiation of citizens is more propaganda than real. People have differences of opinion on issues, and for each person you will find a scattering of opinion that is not easy to classify as liberal or conservative, left or right, etc. Citizens may align themselves with one of these terms or with a political party, but their stance on the issues for each person varies. This has been proven by polls when done "without bias".

And I have to laugh when anyone talks about liberal bias in the media except for Fox News. The media is biased by the military-industrial complex that owns it. This bias is pro corporate and Wall Street. Profit is the guiding principle. Truthful and accurate information is the victim. The liberal - conservative divide is the main propaganda, and it keeps us divided.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Well, gets my vote for dumbest read of the day.

 

[bripat9643]

Yeah, it's clear that Republicans don't feel obligated to pay other people's bills. I don't get upset when other people don't want to pay my bills. If that makes the poor hate Republicans, then they have unmasked themselves as thugs.

In other words, you admit that Republicans are greedy, selfish bastards who care only for themselves.

Even if that were true, it would still make them better then Democrats, who are thugs.

A "greedy, selfish bastard" only wants to keep money he earned. A Democrat thug wants to take yours, and he's willing to use guns to do it. I'll take the "greedy selfish bastard" over the thug any day of the week.

That you are okay with greed and selfishness is all I need to know about you. Congratulations.

"Greed" is just the name the envious give to the success of the people they envy. No one in this forum has ever managed to post a logical argument against self-interest.

Here's one.

Richard Wilkinson How economic inequality harms societies Talk Video TED.com

I'm not watching some propaganda video. Simply post your argument. Otherwise, go home.

 

[bripat9643]

That's an interesting point of view. I have always felt that this differentiation of citizens is more propaganda than real. People have differences of opinion on issues, and for each person you will find a scattering of opinion that is not easy to classify as liberal or conservative, left or right, etc. Citizens may align themselves with one of these terms or with a political party, but their stance on the issues for each person varies. This has been proven by polls when done "without bias".

And I have to laugh when anyone talks about liberal bias in the media except for Fox News. The media is biased by the military-industrial complex that owns it. This bias is pro corporate and Wall Street. Profit is the guiding principle. Truthful and accurate information is the victim. The liberal - conservative divide is the main propaganda, and it keeps us divided.

Whenever someone says the liberal bias of the media is a myth, we can safely dismiss them as delusional cranks.

 

[JoeNormal]

In other words, you admit that Republicans are greedy, selfish bastards who care only for themselves.

Even if that were true, it would still make them better then Democrats, who are thugs.

A "greedy, selfish bastard" only wants to keep money he earned. A Democrat thug wants to take yours, and he's willing to use guns to do it. I'll take the "greedy selfish bastard" over the thug any day of the week.

That you are okay with greed and selfishness is all I need to know about you. Congratulations.

"Greed" is just the name the envious give to the success of the people they envy. No one in this forum has ever managed to post a logical argument against self-interest.

Here's one.

Richard Wilkinson How economic inequality harms societies Talk Video TED.com

I'm not watching some propaganda video. Simply post your argument. Otherwise, go home.

TED Talks are propaganda? I can see how an uneducated buffoon might think so.

 

[bripat9643]

Even if that were true, it would still make them better then Democrats, who are thugs.

A "greedy, selfish bastard" only wants to keep money he earned. A Democrat thug wants to take yours, and he's willing to use guns to do it. I'll take the "greedy selfish bastard" over the thug any day of the week.

That you are okay with greed and selfishness is all I need to know about you. Congratulations.

"Greed" is just the name the envious give to the success of the people they envy. No one in this forum has ever managed to post a logical argument against self-interest.

Here's one.

Richard Wilkinson How economic inequality harms societies Talk Video TED.com

I'm not watching some propaganda video. Simply post your argument. Otherwise, go home.

TED Talks are propaganda? I can see how an uneducated buffoon might think so.

I don't know enough about the organization to say whether everything the publish is propaganda, but this video definitely is.