7 reasons why liberals are incapable of understanding the world around them

Same applies to conservatives, socialists, anarchists, etc., as it is just human nature to resist change once ones mind is set in a narrative.

A liberal consuming liberal content is about as shocking to me as a conservative consuming conservative content. As for teachers, radio and TV... not all teachers are liberal and not all liberal teachers are biased, radio and TV stations are a matter of choice so if one does not like the content then change the channel or station!

Stereotype.

Speaking of wasting billions, how is the supply side war on drugs going? A rhetorical question. My point is that both sides are wasteful.

If there is an absolute moral code then the question is who created and adjudicates this alleged absolute moral code? Moral relativism does not mean that there is no objective moral code, it just means that from person to person morality changes ergo the "relativism" in moral relativism. A simple objective observation of humanity shows us just how relativistic morality is.

Stereotype.

Why cannot both be causal?

Why cannot both be causal?

Depends upon the context.

It is human nature to over evaluate groups that one perceives oneself to be a part of.

 

Complaint from an OP that treats all members of a group the same...

 

No , conservatives don't really run in groups, like the left does, The left needs groups to survive ..... You see it all the time...

The right promotes individuals.. personal responsibility and accountability

The left promotes Union's and a collective..

.

 

The only one of these I would criticize is the first one, not so much because liberals do not do this, but that this particular one I find is more true with conservatives than with liberals. I've gotten in discussions with liberals before who will brush off a report because it was published by the American Enterprise Institute (because it's a conservative source), and pay no attention to the fact that the article being sourced was written by an economist.

However, I've seen this kind of behavior more often with conservatives, because to them there are no neutral sources. Basically the only sources that are accepted are the self identified conservative sources. If it's a fact check (any fact check) it's too liberal. If it's the congressional budget office (whose staff was assigned by Republican congressmen) it's too liberal. If it's CSPAN it's too liberal. If it's any official government source, it's too liberal. If it's a former Fox News host instead of a current Fox News host, it's too liberal. Basically liberals will not accept any sources that are self identified as conservative, while conservatives ONLY accept self identified conservative sources. They don't deny it either, but instead give a justification for why all other sources are bad

2 through 7 I find to be quite true.

Examples:

2. This one is true, but as I expressed earlier, conservatives also don't accept any source or any report as neutral. I've been told that the congressional budget office's estimates on Trumpcare's impact has a liberal bias, even though the people in charge were appointed by the Republican congress.

3. I find this one to be very true. Liberals don't want to make any cuts to the Department of Education or the EPA, basically because of their names. It doesn't matter if you're only looking to cut the inefficiencies in the departments, any cuts are seen as bad.

4. I find this one true, but with some exceptions. When a liberal wants to put more limitations on freedom of speech, they are not supporting moral relativism so much as they are acting as moral enforcers. Again though, that's one of the exceptions

5. Absolutely right, liberals view EVERYTHING in the collective. If someone makes a politically incorrect joke, they're not just treated as making a joke in bad taste, but contributing to systemic disparity. This reflects pretty much what comedian John Cleese has talked about, where he can go on stage and make a joke about the English, then followup with a joke about the Australians. Then he mentions the Mexicans and everyone in the crowd gasps. Their mindset is entirely in the collective, so they have no sense of humor regarding groups that they consider to be politically vulnerable.

6. This one is also absolutely right, but I also think this one reflects back on #5. Liberals see everything in the collective, which at times comes at the expense of the individual

7. Yep, and if you don't agree with them enough, you are meshed into being a member of one of the groups they view as inferior. I once argued against the notion that 1 in 5 female college students in the US are raped, not because I believe that sexual assault is not under reported(especially on college campuses), but because the statistic is inaccurate, and it isn't even consistent with what the original study reported (which represented one university, and NOT all college campuses in the US).

So what does that make me? a scum MRA. You're not supposed to call an inaccurate claim inaccurate when doing so doesn't correspond with their political position. By doing so you are "just as bad" as the organizations that they have deemed to be political heresy.

 

The spotted owl did more to protect Oregon forest than any leftist Of course many humans suffered but that was a acceptable by product of leftist ideology!

 

Basically liberals will not accept any sources that are self identified as conservative, while conservatives only accept self identifiedconservative source



I am only going to refute this one post, no people like me watch everything, in my pick up trucks I turn on the AM dial and try to find out the liberal view points...which is none after Air America went off the air and can still get NPR..but it doesn't satisfy me..so I turn on the FM dial and get " George and whom ever ' in the morning..it's quiet embarrassing to hear so much filth on the radio..and then they have the game to attack conservatives saying they play the low game?

.

 

Apparently you don't know what the word inconclusive means. It means inconclusive not failure. Go ahead and get rid of Headstart. That will go over as well as getting rid of Planned Parenthood and ACA.
What you're calling useless is anything but to millions. But sure, you Conservatives know best. What works for you works should work for everyone and you yell at the sky "Why don't they understand." Your postings are typical for your type. You rail on about 52 years of data and that the results are inconclusive so that equals failure. Please tell me you're not in R & D in medicine because nothing would ever get done. "Cancer data is inconclusive.....ok, forget it, lets move on to something, forget cancer. But sir, our research has found that A, B, and C in the program are doing well. Forget it, it's a failure, time to move on. We've spent enough money here."

 

And your solution is "GUNS FOR EVERYONE!! YOU GET A GUN, AND YOU GET A GUN". What could go wrong? Ridiculous.

 

Nothing has gone wrong, since those of us legally carrying firearms commit less crime than those who aren't legally carrying a firearm.

You're welcome to review 35 years of CCW data, if you'd like.

Thanks for proving, yet again, that logic, data, and facts do not override emotion and imagination in liberal dogma.

 

You elected Trump. Proof positive that the right-wing seriously lacks anything that resembles "morals".

 

Please tell me you're not in R & D in medicine because nothing would ever get done.



It's weird That you post this because on another thread the left wants baby Charlie to die and not receive treatment at the Vatican hospital or in America..


You leftys never make sense to me.



.

 

It was revenge for the left trying to fundamentally change america.and electing Obama when Hillary was way more qualified.

.

 

As I have to do with so many progressives: I am not a conservative. I'm a right-lean Libertarian. I know we all look the same to you people, but at least try to identify it correctly. So let's go over few things super quick:

"Go ahead and get rid of Headstart. That will go over as well as getting rid of Planned Parenthood and ACA."

There's plenty of data to show that the ACA is a failure and is crashing. For that reason, yeah, I'm willing to watch the ACA leave and wait while everyone scrambles to find a system that works. As far as Planned Parenthood, can you show me any data that proves that they are not effective as an establishment? I'll wait.

"What works for you works should work for everyone and you yell at the sky `Why don't they understand.`"

Understand what? That the expectation of Federal Taxes being pushed into a system, that the system should be able to show that it's effective/working beyond a shadow of a doubt? How DARE I expect my tax dollars to be spent responsibly. I'll vote Sanders in the next election to sate you, k?

"You rail on about 52 years of data and that the results are inconclusive so that equals failure."

If you spent millions of dollars on a project and kept it going for 52 years in the business world, without any results to show for it, that would make you bankrupt and out of work, long before you ever hit year 5. When you invest into something, you expect results as to where things are effective, and where they aren't. If you can't understand this simple concept, thank Christ you're not in business.

"Cancer data is inconclusive.....ok, forget it, lets move on to something, forget cancer. But sir, our research has found that A, B, and C in the program are doing well. Forget it, it's a failure, time to move on. We've spent enough money here."

So, to point out the glaring stupidity of this comment... Firstly, if Treatment A is inconclusive, then yeah, you'd cease research on that treatment, and shift the funds into a different line of research. You don't keep researching things that are a waste of time and money, you actively search for things that DO work.

Secondly, if A,B and C are showing that a treatment is doing well, but the program has 25,000 members, yeah, drop it and move on. If A,B and C are showing the treatment is doing well, and there's only 4 members, then obviously you're on to something, and it warrants more investigation.

Your inability to put together the most basic facts tells anyone who's bothering to read this garbage you're posting that you're completely unhinged and unreasonable.

Move on, you're not convincing anyone today.

 

You are the evidence, and your response confirms it.

 

Thanks for proving my point. No "turn the other cheek" for the fake "Christians". Just pure spiteful "revenge" for a false perception of persecution by group of people that was really upset because Obama took a country in shambles from the previous GOPer Prez and turned it around.

So the result? The amoral elects a disgusting amoral pig of a man who hasn't shown anything resembling leadership skills or a work ethic that even approaches part-time.

But hey, at least you taints "grabbed America by the *****," didn't you?

 

You're obviously a die-hard liberal if you dare question their "I Hate Libruls" post of the day...

 

I consider myself a libertarian - and I eschew labels. Here is a fair and balanced viewpoint.

7 Reasons Why CONSERVATIVES are Incapable of Understanding the World Around Them

1. One can only have morals if they are Judeo-Christian. If God isn't watching, why do the right thing?
2. Detest "The Government" - (but are pro-defense, pro-oil subsidy, pro-farm subsidy, collect Social Security, etc)
3. Desire "Freedom" like our founding fathers intended- but not for gays or counter cultural folks. Let's not get crazy.
4. Science is a religion and requires faith - as they communicate over their Smart Phone. No evidence of scientific progress here.
5. Wishes to continue the drug war, as they go to the liquor store and fill their prescriptions at Walgreens. I am looking at you Rush Limbaugh!
6. Wants to make the world safe for democracy by defending nations like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Congo? Where is that even?
7. Wishes to have fewer regulations, but will immediately sic their attorney on any business that steps out of line.

 

Excuse me ? The left did a huge turn around in spite by not confirming gorsuch.,... after admiring the guy..so the right had to use the " Harry Reid nuclear option"


.

 

Wishes to continue the drug war, as they go to the liquor store and fill their prescriptions at Walgreens. I am looking at you Rush Limbaugh!


So you are telling us your a drug addict?
You know their is help for that like rush received 14 years ago...

 

And? So this is twice that you're affirming the "moral" relativism that permeates the self-righteous right-wing who loves to pretend to be a lot of things that they haven't been for a very long time. Thanks for that. I appreciate your honesty. I know that it's difficult for a right-winger to affirm such a dark truth about themselves; or any truth for that matter.

 

I am honest the right took decades to figure out the lefts children's games , now they are playing it and the left hates it.


So when is the left going to stop a game they started?


.

.

 

Which is probably why those same states have the most forest fires as well; they prefer the feel good practice of "protecting" them vs. the wise practice of "managing" them.

 

I think you are seriously misinformed on who started the "Children's games".

 

Not me Clarence Thomas hearing and a public hair on a coke can...I am well informed who started this tit for tat.


.

 

The public hair led to bill getting impeached, led to bush Jr, led to Obama over Hillary led to harry Reid's nuclear option.. led to Trump

It's a game that the left started.

.