And everyone else remember the old saying: "Never wrestle with a pig. You just get dirty and the pig enjoys it."
Edited by maxwatt, 24 November 2010 - 11:23 AM.
Posted 22 November 2010 - 04:00 PM
Edited by maxwatt, 24 November 2010 - 11:23 AM.
Posted 22 November 2010 - 09:48 PM
LOL. You have a strange way of "ignoring" people. A bit self defeating wouldn't you say.*Ignores Mia for being an economically ignorant tard.*
Edited by mia22, 22 November 2010 - 10:44 PM.
Posted 23 November 2010 - 06:31 PM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703561604575282190930932412.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
Self-identified liberals and Democrats do badly on questions of basic economics.
(guess who does best)
Edited by the thing, 23 November 2010 - 06:32 PM.
Posted 24 November 2010 - 08:05 AM
As for the correlation between liberal preferences and mental illness, there is no such relationship. Rather, the belief is rooted in the fantastically wishful thinking, and the inanity of the inbred, gun toting, bible thumping, trailer park inhabiting, knowledge phobic, jingoistic, nativist, bigoted, sexually frustrated/confused, militant, survivalist, idol worshiping, facile, culturally primitive, hysterical, politically schizophrenic/demented, socially alienated, and functionally illiterate confederacy of dunces that predominate the vile populist movements that you evidently revere. But there is, however, a correlation between mental illness and philosophical preferences. More specifically, the correlation is between anxiety disorders and religious extremism, but remember, anxiety is a defining symptom of a number of neuropsychiatric disorders, from Alzheimer's to schizophrenia. Anyway, here's the study, I've only read executive summaries of the findings and methodology, but I'm definitely pleased: http://psycnet.apa.o...=2010-12776-011. Would you regard yourself as an anxious person? Judging by your pathological hysteria, I would probably say so....
Posted 30 January 2011 - 12:51 PM
Edited by Reverend_X, 30 January 2011 - 12:51 PM.
Posted 30 January 2011 - 02:32 PM
adherents/followers of the Democrat and GOP parties are ideological chattel, owned by the members of the parasitic elite. Their minds are owned. Their minds are basically created/molded by ideological propaganda disseminated by societal institutions created by the parasitic overclass. The dogma and ideological propaganda of both the GOP and Dem parties has been evolved to favor the interests of the parasitic overclass and to further degrade the political position of the american working class.
it is not a conspiracy. It is an ecosystem.
Posted 30 January 2011 - 06:31 PM
adherents/followers of the Democrat and GOP parties are ideological chattel, owned by the members of the parasitic elite. Their minds are owned. Their minds are basically created/molded by ideological propaganda disseminated by societal institutions created by the parasitic overclass. The dogma and ideological propaganda of both the GOP and Dem parties has been evolved to favor the interests of the parasitic overclass and to further degrade the political position of the american working class.
it is not a conspiracy. It is an ecosystem.
This is perhaps the most accurate post in this thread.
Posted 31 January 2011 - 02:13 AM
Rather, the belief is rooted in the fantastically wishful thinking, and the inanity of the inbred, gun toting, bible thumping, trailer park inhabiting, knowledge phobic, jingoistic, nativist, bigoted, sexually frustrated/confused, militant, survivalist, idol worshiping, facile, culturally primitive, hysterical, politically schizophrenic/demented, socially alienated, and functionally illiterate confederacy of dunces that predominate the vile populist movements that you evidently revere.
Posted 31 January 2011 - 02:51 AM
Rather, the belief is rooted in the fantastically wishful thinking, and the inanity of the inbred, gun toting, bible thumping, trailer park inhabiting, knowledge phobic, jingoistic, nativist, bigoted, sexually frustrated/confused, militant, survivalist, idol worshiping, facile, culturally primitive, hysterical, politically schizophrenic/demented, socially alienated, and functionally illiterate confederacy of dunces that predominate the vile populist movements that you evidently revere.
So these people's lifestyle choices make them true conservatives (rather than just conforming conservatives)? I don't understand why this is always brought up by the liberal as if it were an irrefutable argument of the flaws in conservative reasoning. Not only, of course, is it an obvious high-school level fallacy to think that because undesirables support the ideology that therefore it is itself a reflection of their personalities, rather there are also undesirables who support a liberal agenda.
-----
Liberalism is part of today's morally despicable culture. It is the newest ideology used by the elite (intellectuals, the wealthy and the famous) to keep the average and/or the poor man down.
It fears clear argument, reacting hysterically, illogically and aggressively if you assertively challenge any of the principals that they hold holy (I use the word advisedly), seeking to extinguish as quickly as possible the broadcast of challenging ideas. Indeed, the left has always feared ideological challenge, communism is a great example of what a leftist likes to do to its detractors. So yeah, Rol's elitist tirade does in no way surprise me.
And I find it Ironic how it claims to support the rights of the victims it victimises. Without victims there would be no self-righteous platform from which a progressive liberal social campaigner could make self-important declarations. It's a well known fact that crime and other undesirable behaviour will expand to meet the number of social workers in a locale. And just anecdotally, many liberals I've spoken to about black people and how much they are victims and how we need to act preemptively so that they are brought into the workforce have then looked me in the eye and told me that they are indeed different when asked if they felt there was a genetic reason for the current social position of blacks as whole. Not a surprise once you understand the liberal mindset.
Oh and feel free to down grade this post. To me it only proves the first point I make rather cleanly.
Edited by Rol82, 31 January 2011 - 09:47 AM.
Posted 01 February 2011 - 11:56 AM
Indeed, the left has always feared ideological challenge, communism is a great example of what a leftist likes to do to its detractors.
And just anecdotally, many liberals I've spoken to about black people and how much they are victims and how we need to act preemptively so that they are brought into the workforce have then looked me in the eye and told me that they are indeed different when asked if they felt there was a genetic reason for the current social position of blacks as whole. Not a surprise once you understand the liberal mindset.
Edited by chris w, 01 February 2011 - 12:03 PM.
Posted 05 February 2011 - 01:45 PM
Shucks, no I didn't to be honest. I just saw that post and then replied :(. In my defense though, it's not the first time that you've expressed a similar sentiment, also, the tone of the particular response is one that I think the left uses a lot, so I wanted to critisise that mainly and express a few opinions that were related to it....did you bother to read the posts that followed the one that you took offense to, because I made it abundantly clear that I was intentionally making a gross caricature. Later on in the thread, I also apologized for the intemperateness of the generally uncharacteristic remarks that you cited, and explained that the baseless and inflammatory qualities of the thread starter's claims is what provoked my regrettable response.
I'd save your energy for good arguments that you think will actually lead somewhere. Like I do (mostly).But really, I'm tired of taking part in very predictable and largely silly exchanges about the virtues and evils of the ideas and occupants of each hemisphere, so I don't really care to get lured into another ceaseless argument.
I never called you "unequivocally liberal;" your other assertion deserves no other response than this one.Additionally, I find it bit bizarre that both you and k4t find me to be unequivocally liberal, since many of my beliefs don't exactly endear me to most of the Birkenstock wearing, cappucino sipping, bourgeois-bohemian group that you clearly have deep rooted issues with.
Posted 05 February 2011 - 02:03 PM
Edited by Ben - Aus, 05 February 2011 - 02:17 PM.
Posted 05 February 2011 - 09:34 PM
Oh that's right, I remember taking issue with your celebration of Geert Wilders and Ronald Reagan. For the former, my sentiments are unchanged, but for the latter, I've come to appreciate some of his qualities---like his role in instilling confidence in a society that traumatically spent a decade wandering aimlessly in circles in a ceaseless wilderness. But I think too often we fail to separate the public persona from reality, and in our analysis of policymaking, attribute all actions to a single policymaker---whom usually acts as an ambassador and mediator between an amalgam of voices.Shucks, no I didn't to be honest. I just saw that post and then replied :(. In my defense though, it's not the first time that you've expressed a similar sentiment, also, the tone of the particular response is one that I think the left uses a lot, so I wanted to critisise that mainly and express a few opinions that were related to it....did you bother to read the posts that followed the one that you took offense to, because I made it abundantly clear that I was intentionally making a gross caricature. Later on in the thread, I also apologized for the intemperateness of the generally uncharacteristic remarks that you cited, and explained that the baseless and inflammatory qualities of the thread starter's claims is what provoked my regrettable response.
I'd save your energy for good arguments that you think will actually lead somewhere. Like I do (mostly).But really, I'm tired of taking part in very predictable and largely silly exchanges about the virtues and evils of the ideas and occupants of each hemisphere, so I don't really care to get lured into another ceaseless argument.
I never called you "unequivocally liberal;" your other assertion deserves no other response than this one.Additionally, I find it bit bizarre that both you and k4t find me to be unequivocally liberal, since many of my beliefs don't exactly endear me to most of the Birkenstock wearing, cappucino sipping, bourgeois-bohemian group that you clearly have deep rooted issues with.
(emphasis mine)
Edited by Rol82, 05 February 2011 - 09:36 PM.
Posted 06 February 2011 - 06:59 AM
Well, that explains disco. I'd be interested in your further thoughts on the above, if you've the time.a society that traumatically spent a decade wandering aimlessly in circles in a ceaseless wilderness
Posted 06 February 2011 - 01:56 PM
Well, that explains disco. I'd be interested in your further thoughts on the above, if you've the time.a society that traumatically spent a decade wandering aimlessly in circles in a ceaseless wilderness
Posted 06 February 2011 - 11:12 PM
Well, that explains disco. I'd be interested in your further thoughts on the above, if you've the time.a society that traumatically spent a decade wandering aimlessly in circles in a ceaseless wilderness
+1, would definitely make for an extremely interesting blog post like your other analyses.
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users