Quantcast

Crazy Conservative Contradictions

Foxy Warrior Guru 2012/11/23 18:35:19

More proof that republicons are either insane, hypocrites, delusional, or all of the above. FW


Crazy Conservative Contradictions
2012/09/02By


There’s a reason liberals look at conservatives like they might be insane. Often, a conservative will say one thing and then, almost immediately, contradict it. Pointing out the contradiction often angers the conservative who then accuses you of either being “stupid” or “twisting their words.”

But, because it’s funny to look at crazy people, let’s take a look at conservative contradictions:

1. There is no need to regulate corporations! The free market dictates that all corporations will act in the best interest of the consumer or be put out of business by the “Invisible Hand.”

The Contradiction: Corporations only exist to make money. You cannot expect them to do anything that will interfere with the bottom line. They cannot concern themselves with environmental issues or customer safety if it is more profitable to ignore them. You, as the consumer, need to be more careful!

2. Corporations should have all the rights of a person. They should be free to exercise their First Amendment rights and buy influence elections just like any other citizen of the United States.

The Contradiction: Corporations are not people so they cannot be treated like any other citizen of the United States. You can’t arrest them for manslaughter or negligent homicide even if they DID add known carcinogens to that baby food on purpose.

Ultimate Contradiction: Unions (basically, a group of people pooling their resources) should not be allowed to influence elections. It corrupts the democratic process.

3. You should never try to organize labor. That’s selfish. Unions extort money from corporations, inflate the salaries of workers and give them unearned benefits like maternity leave and pensions. Union workers are greedy and do not care about the companies they work for. The fact that they are paid so well is a sure sign that they are wrong.

The Contradiction: How dare you try to limit CEO pay and severance packages?! Those people work hard and earn every penny they get, even if they drove the company right into bankruptcy! So what if they took billions of tax payers’ money to stay afloat, they still deserve those bonuses!

4. All liberal celebrities should shut the hell up. They don’t know what they’re talking about and should leave politics to politicians. Liberal celebrities aren’t real Americans anyway because they’re from Hollywood!

The Contradiction: Here to explain to you how liberal policies are unpatriotic and probably illegal are Victoria Jackson, Kelsey Grammer and Jon Voight.

5. The Government cannot create any jobs at all and can never reduce unemployment, only the private sector can do that.

The Contradiction: The Government has too many people on its payroll; we have to reduce the number of public sector jobs.

Ultimate Contradiction: See how many public sector jobs we’ve lost under Obama? He made unemployment worse!

6. We really invaded Iraq to get rid of a terrible dictator and it had nothing to do with 9/11.

The Contradiction: Why is Obama invading Libya?! To take down a terrible dictator?! How is that our problem?!

7. Osama bin Laden was responsible for 9/11 because he gave the order to carry out the attack.

The Contradiction: President Obama can’t take ANY credit for the death of Osama bin Laden because all he did was give the order to carry out the attack.

8. Any journalist, politician or private citizen that questions President Bush during a time of war is a traitor.

The Contradiction: During this time of war it is our patriotic duty to question President Obama about every little detail of his agenda.

9. Providing billions in tax-payer money to people in dire financial straits is Socialism and will lead to the destruction of the country.

The Contradiction: Providing trillions in tax-payer money to banks in dire financial straits is Capitalism and will lead to the salvation of the country.

10. We must protect innocent fetuses by any means necessary. Terrorism and assassination is justifiable because we are protecting children!

The Contradiction: Providing pregnant women with medical care and proper nutrition is a burden on the tax-payers and we can’t afford it. We need that money to fight terrorism!

11. Islam is a religion of terrorists! They murder innocents in the name of Allah and that’s just wrong! That’s why we’re better than they are!

The Contradiction: All homosexuals should be put to death! They are the work of Satan! If we cannot pray away their gay then we must do as the Jayzus commands and stone them to death!

12. My freedom of religion is absolute! It says so right there in the Constitution! You can’t restrict my right to worship where and how I want! The Contradiction: Those damn Muslims keep putting up mosques wherever the hell they want! Who do they think they are?! That should be illegal!

13. The Constitution is inviolate! Why are liberals always trying to shred the Constitution?!

The Contradiction: We should just ignore the 14th Amendment! It allows anchor and terror babies! We have to protect ourselves from the furrners!

14. Damn liberals always trying to select activist judges that will just “interpret” the Constitution however they want to fit their Socialist agenda! The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing and we should also follow their intent, not just make it up as we go along!

The Contradiction: Citizens United? I think the Supreme Court did a fine job of interpreting the Constitution to fit our much more complex times, don’t you?


Edited by Sherri Yarbrough

Feel free to tell me what a terrible person I am on Facebook, at my home blog or follow me on Twitter @FilthyLbrlScum

Read More: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/09/02/crazy-cons...

You!
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

  • StanK 2012/11/23 19:35:14 (edited)
    StanK
    +32
    This is really really bad. I'm not conservative, but I have a lot of conservative friends and family. What you posted here is so off it's not funny. A lot of conservatives don't support the recent wars at all. In fact, most of them were pissed at Bush and wondered why he claimed to be religious at all (within weeks of being elected). They considered him an insult to their faith.



    Also, I know people who are Muslim, yet conservative (actually, they probably all are). That makes point 11 contradictory and stupid. I doubt Muslims view themselves as terrorists, especially considering that only a small portion are actually involved in any sort of attacks.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • DDogbreath 2013/01/04 04:04:56
    DDogbreath
    +1
    # 6 is absolutely correct, you are delusional to think otherwise.
  • Soundstorm 2012/12/28 01:00:23
    Soundstorm
    This list only proves Obama didn't win the election after all. His anxious followers are still fretting over imaginary conservative bogeymen and spinning conspiracy theories about them as if the election were still on. This is the behavior of bitter resentful losers. Not self assured victors taking responsibility for healing and uniting our country.
  • RJ~PWCM~JLA 2012/12/01 03:10:01
  • YouSirName 2012/11/30 17:10:55
    YouSirName
    Unfortunately, pointing out a delusion to a delusional person or stupidity to a stupid person is usually ineffective.
  • Ramon 2012/11/29 09:50:48
    Ramon
    Hard Left and hard Right radicals are both rife with contradictions. You did have some pretty questionable things in there....
    1) Like who is seriously advocating putting gay people do death? I think you have Conservatives confused with Muslims.

    2) I don't think anyone is seriously wanting to ignore the 14th amendment.... you can always get rid of amendments, however, if you wish. Just follow the process.
    3) Nobody said Obama didn't deserve any credit for getting Osama, but he didn't deserve all of the credit. How much credit did he give GWB for starting the programs that eventually got him?
    4) I don't know where you were going with that Supreme court "interpreting" the Constitution...but that is their job as far as I know...(cut and paste below)

    The primary responsibility of the Judicial Branch is to interpret and apply the laws, and ensure their constitutionality.

    5) Nobody wants to deny women prenatal care...they just think that birth control shouldn't fall under insurance and should be paid out of pocket. How about the Liberal mentality of a 24 week premature baby on life support having a greater right to life than a 28 week baby still in the womb.
    6) No Conservative I know was in favor of the bank bailout.
    7)The problem with public sector jobs is that they are sup...

    Hard Left and hard Right radicals are both rife with contradictions. You did have some pretty questionable things in there....
    1) Like who is seriously advocating putting gay people do death? I think you have Conservatives confused with Muslims.

    2) I don't think anyone is seriously wanting to ignore the 14th amendment.... you can always get rid of amendments, however, if you wish. Just follow the process.
    3) Nobody said Obama didn't deserve any credit for getting Osama, but he didn't deserve all of the credit. How much credit did he give GWB for starting the programs that eventually got him?
    4) I don't know where you were going with that Supreme court "interpreting" the Constitution...but that is their job as far as I know...(cut and paste below)

    The primary responsibility of the Judicial Branch is to interpret and apply the laws, and ensure their constitutionality.

    5) Nobody wants to deny women prenatal care...they just think that birth control shouldn't fall under insurance and should be paid out of pocket. How about the Liberal mentality of a 24 week premature baby on life support having a greater right to life than a 28 week baby still in the womb.
    6) No Conservative I know was in favor of the bank bailout.
    7)The problem with public sector jobs is that they are supported with tax payer funds and do not add value to the economy. Sure you can hire 1 Million people to dig ditches but will that really add to the economy?

    That's just a few observations I had from your post.
    (more)
  • phil white 2012/11/28 18:42:55
    phil white
    As to #7 there is a small problem. Osama Bin Laden organized and recruited Al Qaeda.
    He also personally financed some of it.
    Obama did not recruite the Marine corps or the Seals, nor did he finance them out of his own pocket.
    I'm a third party guy. www.american3rdposition.com
  • thefatguy 2012/11/28 17:15:35
    thefatguy
    +1
    What a load of distorted half-truths, intentional lies and ignorant, emotional arguments against straw men opponents. It doesn't even warrant a serious point-by-point response.
  • DefendnProtect 2012/11/27 21:21:42
    DefendnProtect
    +4
    The same kind of stereotyping rant you here from some fake conservatives.

    Yes the criminal neocon cabal running the GOP is more than just hypocrite.

    However it has nothing to do with true conservatives, just like Obama implementing NDAA indefinite detention, extending the patriot act, bombing 6 countries, delivering bailouts to wall street rather than main street has anything to do with true liberals.

    lesser of evils
  • DDogbreath Defendn... 2013/01/13 19:18:54
  • Grandbrother 2012/11/26 21:58:14
    Grandbrother
    +1
    Thank you for verbalizing everything I've been horrified to witness over the course of the past few years.
  • EdVenture 2012/11/26 14:25:01
    EdVenture
    On the mark
  • betz 2012/11/26 10:53:49
    betz
    +3
    Your comments about corporations really stuck in my craw. Corporatioons are the backbone of this great nation. THEY are the ones who employ. It takes intelligence to run a corporation. Quite honestly any fool can put a top on a bottle as it comes down the line.

    As for providing tax dollars to those in need....all conservaatives see the need in helping people get back on their feet. It's the leeches who milk the system who make me SICK!!!

    BTW...your post is ridiculous.
  • zbacku 2012/11/26 04:02:34
    zbacku
    +6
    liberal hypocrosy liberal hypocrosy liberal hypocrosy liberal hypocrosy liberal hypocrosy
    Hypocrisy: Thy Name Is Liberalism
  • burningsnowman 2012/11/26 03:48:54
    burningsnowman
    +2
    You forgot opposing "socialized medicine" and Obama's "big spending" then attacking Obama for "cutting Medicare by $716 billion." Give me a break.
  • American 2012/11/26 00:45:49
    American
    You nailed it! LOL
  • XQNP 2012/11/25 22:50:19
    XQNP
    +1
    1. The whole point of the conservative argument is that the happiness of the consumer determines a corporation's profitability. If your product kills people, people won't buy it.

    2. This is a fair criticism, and one of the few you have.

    3. The problem with limiting the rights of CEOs is that if too many regulations are placed on the rich, the rich leave. Favoritism of the rich is unfortunate, but there are few alternatives in a capitalist society.

    4. Conservatives honestly believe that liberal celebrities don't know what they're talking about, and conservative celebrities do (this is a generalization). Liberals inevitably believe the reverse, as the inevitable consequence of having an opinion is thinking the people who agree with you are right.

    5. You're oversimplifying. It's not that the government has too many people, it's that they have too many people who have unnecessary jobs. If the government is spending money in a way that isn't beneficial, that money shouldn't be spent. And it's harder for the government to be efficient than for corporations because the government has no competitors, and therefore cannot be replaced by something better.

    6. Actually, the Iraq war was started based on rumors of WMDs there. Had these rumors been disproven early on, we never would ha...















    1. The whole point of the conservative argument is that the happiness of the consumer determines a corporation's profitability. If your product kills people, people won't buy it.

    2. This is a fair criticism, and one of the few you have.

    3. The problem with limiting the rights of CEOs is that if too many regulations are placed on the rich, the rich leave. Favoritism of the rich is unfortunate, but there are few alternatives in a capitalist society.

    4. Conservatives honestly believe that liberal celebrities don't know what they're talking about, and conservative celebrities do (this is a generalization). Liberals inevitably believe the reverse, as the inevitable consequence of having an opinion is thinking the people who agree with you are right.

    5. You're oversimplifying. It's not that the government has too many people, it's that they have too many people who have unnecessary jobs. If the government is spending money in a way that isn't beneficial, that money shouldn't be spent. And it's harder for the government to be efficient than for corporations because the government has no competitors, and therefore cannot be replaced by something better.

    6. Actually, the Iraq war was started based on rumors of WMDs there. Had these rumors been disproven early on, we never would have invaded. It had little to do with dictatorship.

    7. Not quite legitimate; Bin Laden leads a group that has the sole purpose of attacking the U.S., while Obama has countless duties to attend to. It's likely Bin Laden personally planned the attack, while Obama did not personally plan his.

    8. Another legitimate criticism, though I doubt you could find that many people who actually say that about Bush.

    9. This is ignoring two things: the vast number of conservatives who oppose bailouts, and the fact that banks are necessary for the continued functioning of this country, while individuals are not. While it's a sad reality, if we're giving trillions to anyone, it makes more sense to save the failing banks, which will then service the nation, than to individuals who are not guaranteed to do so. But again, the concept of bailouts is opposed by many conservatives, as it goes against the whole "invisible hand" theory by keeping failed businesses running.

    10. I'm not sure why you brought terrorism into this, seeing as your argument seems to cover abortion vs. aid to pregnant women, but the best I can give you is that fetuses are defenseless, while adults should be able to take care of themselves. Not that I quite agree with this-just showing you that conservatives are people too.

    11. The fundamentalists who believe both of these don't think homosexuals are innocents. It's not their reasoning that's flawed, it's their sources.

    12. Can be explained by the groups who, for whatever reason, think that this is a christian nation. Those people simply need better information.

    13. Yet another fair point, though the existence of the amendment procedure means no one actually thinks the constitution is inviolate.

    14. People on all sides support the decisions they agree with, and oppose those they don't. It's that simple.
    (more)
  • Commander Pyle 2012/11/25 22:26:05
    Commander Pyle
    "conservatives" and "liberals" are crazy.
  • CAPISCE 2012/11/25 16:21:47
    CAPISCE
    +6
    I got one.---> Tolerant Liberal
  • XQNP CAPISCE 2012/11/25 22:51:15
    XQNP
    Accusing all liberals of being intolerant just because of this one makes you almost as bad.
  • RageFury XQNP 2012/11/26 03:40:00
    RageFury
    +2
    Can't fault him, I have seen how "tolerant" many Liberals can be...
  • XQNP RageFury 2012/11/26 23:49:24
    XQNP
    I doubt you've met a statistically significant fraction of all Liberals.
  • RageFury XQNP 2012/11/27 03:17:08
    RageFury
    Doubt that I care...
  • XQNP RageFury 2012/11/27 08:44:38
    XQNP
    I would suggest understanding the opinions of those you disagree with.
  • RageFury XQNP 2012/11/28 01:41:30 (edited)
    RageFury
    I understand the opinions of those I disagree with and usually they are wrong. I tend not to disagree with people when they are right. Doing so is futile. After I disagree with them they tend to deflect, get agitated and rude.
    I would suggest you quit commenting on that which you you have no clue about.
  • XQNP RageFury 2012/11/28 09:12:49
    XQNP
    Except you've admitted that you haven't met enough liberals to make a fair judgement on their level of tolerance, and you've also admitted that you don't care, and that you'll make the judgement anyway. That's bad logic, which is something I do "have a clue" about.
  • RageFury XQNP 2012/11/29 00:31:43
    RageFury
    Except I admitted nothing about how many I have met, I said "I doubt that I care..." in response to your irrelevant reply. You read into what I said. You have no idea how many I have met unless I tell you, which I have not. Seeing as you don't need to know, I never will.
    Does that make you angry bro?

    I did however admit that I don't care, in this you are correct. I still don't and that won't be changing anytime soon.

    Seeing as half of your assertion is based on assumption by reading into the only sentence I posted to you, your own logic is not very sound.

    When one judges other people's logic using a demonstrably flawed assertion based on unsound logic, then obviously one should not be judging other people's logic...

    Sorry about your luck.

    Logic Fail
  • XQNP RageFury 2012/12/02 08:21:10
    XQNP
    Assuming that you haven't met a majority of all liberals in existence isn't exactly a leap of logic.
  • RageFury XQNP 2012/12/02 09:09:59
    RageFury
    That is your mistake. Assuming. You always seem to be assuming. I thought you had a clue about Logic? Logic would dictate one should not assume.
    Let me clue you in on something since you originally brought up statistics. You don't need a majority of anything to extrapolate. All you need is a trend in the data.
    You ever wonder how they call States for a Presidential candidate after only a few % have reported in during Elections? Or why they call Elections based on the States they have called before all have reported 100%? Statistics and trends in the data allow them to extrapolate the outcome with good accuracy. They are almost always right to the point they continue to do it without suffering embarrassment.
    If you recall, I originally said:
    "I have seen how "tolerant" many Liberals can be..." Key word here is many. Thus a trend has clearly been set for my data. So I feel quite confident extrapolating that Liberals, such as they are today, are not very tolerant...
    Does that make you angry bro?

    There are always exceptions though which I have never denied. Who knows you may be one. Unlikely though with all your assumptions and your knee-jerk reaction to my "Logic".

    That's cool though as best you got is I am judgmental based on my data, which I don't give a 2 craps about...
  • XQNP RageFury 2012/12/02 09:42:37
    XQNP
    Well, actually, they call states and elections when there aren't enough votes left for the leading candidate to dethroned. This typically happens when any one candidate receives a majority of the vote. They make earlier predictions based on things like extrapolation, previous voting history, and earlier polls, but they don't call anything until the aforementioned conditions are fulfilled. But fine, if you want to use hard statistics, how many Liberals do you really know? Obviously short meetings wouldn't be enough, so let's use those you have spent a total amount of twenty-four hours with. Still not enough time to really know someone, I know, but It'll have to do. Now, out of the number you've spent that much time with, how many were intolerant?

    Of course, the easy way out would be to just dismiss everything I say with an "I don't care." But given how much you seem to want me to think you don't care, I doubt it's the case.

    Oh, and don't automatically assume that because I disagree with you I'm liberal (don't deny doing this; you're second-to-last paragraph wouldn't make sense otherwise). And if you want to insult me, quotations around the word "Logic" in the sense you use them imply that it isn't actually logical. This would be well and good if you were talking about my thought processes, but it backfires when you use it to refer to your own.
  • RageFury XQNP 2012/12/02 19:34:29
    RageFury
    Let us be clear on one point. You do understand that the Term Liberal in no way represents the Liberals from the days of the Founding Fathers or today's Libertarians right? Today's Liberals are nothing like the Liberals back then and Libertarians today.
    Is that why this bugs you?

    That said, guess you didn't watch the last Election, they called many a State with just a few % during the updated Live results online. Meaning there were plenty of votes left to sway said States. Didn't happen though. I remember some folks complaining about it being called way early implying fraud. Like it or not, it was done.

    How many Liberals do I know? I have said this before, Pay attention:
    "You have no idea how many I have met unless I tell you, which I have not. Seeing as you don't need to know, I never will.
    Does that make you angry bro?"
    I have met Many that set a trend in my data, that is all you will ever find out.

    You can invent that I care to massage the ego. I am cool with that.

    Putting quotes on "Logic" was not intended as an Insult, it was for Emphasis. Maybe that was improper to do and I should have used the strong tag, but there it is...
    My points about extrapolation, your original assertion and bad logic stand just fine, thanks.

    Maybe I did assume you were a Liberal, but I wasn't the one wh...
    Let us be clear on one point. You do understand that the Term Liberal in no way represents the Liberals from the days of the Founding Fathers or today's Libertarians right? Today's Liberals are nothing like the Liberals back then and Libertarians today.
    Is that why this bugs you?

    That said, guess you didn't watch the last Election, they called many a State with just a few % during the updated Live results online. Meaning there were plenty of votes left to sway said States. Didn't happen though. I remember some folks complaining about it being called way early implying fraud. Like it or not, it was done.

    How many Liberals do I know? I have said this before, Pay attention:
    "You have no idea how many I have met unless I tell you, which I have not. Seeing as you don't need to know, I never will.
    Does that make you angry bro?"
    I have met Many that set a trend in my data, that is all you will ever find out.

    You can invent that I care to massage the ego. I am cool with that.

    Putting quotes on "Logic" was not intended as an Insult, it was for Emphasis. Maybe that was improper to do and I should have used the strong tag, but there it is...
    My points about extrapolation, your original assertion and bad logic stand just fine, thanks.

    Maybe I did assume you were a Liberal, but I wasn't the one who kicked this off claiming I had a clue about Logic while saying someone elses was bad, you did. But then we already covered that above. That is cool though, I expect no less than to called on it when I assume, I try not to but I don't always succeed.
    But perhaps you should examine what it is you are doing here and why it is you are writing to me. You are the one being defensive about Liberals being intolerant and trying to assault other people's Logic for it. Not I. You shouldn't be surprised when people assume you are one when you do that sort of thing. Seems you got sore spot for the Liberals to me, not that is a bad thing. Did you use to be one? If not, then what is your real issue here? Let us cut to the chase and skip the nonsense.
    (more)
  • XQNP RageFury 2012/12/02 22:26:07
    XQNP
    I am well aware of the distinction between classical and modern liberalism, though I really have no idea why you bother to bring it up. I have in no place discussed the merits of either, and am only criticizing your own premature assumptions about the character of the second.

    Extrapolation was a component of the online results, and was just that: extrapolation. While predictions were made. these are not analogous to "calling" states.

    Your refusal to tell me implies either of two things: you don't care about this disagreement, which is unlikely, given the number and length of your responses, or you know the data you have isn't statistically significant. Or your a troll, but I feel that, you deserve to be treated like you have a legitimate opinion, and so will currently ignore that option.

    If you really don't care, you could just stop responding.

    I was not attacking your point about extrapolation by critiquing your communication skills (as I attack it elsewhere). I simply pointing out a flaw in those skills.

    You want to know why I'm calling you out for accusing liberals for intolerance? It's because assuming things about the personal character of political opponents harms the ability to cooperation. I call out both sides on such generalizations, as you could see by looking at my answer to this overall question.
  • RageFury XQNP 2012/12/03 01:23:40
    RageFury
    I brought it up because of a comment you made elsewhere for voting Gary Johnson, was merely curious.

    "am only criticizing your own premature assumptions about the character of the second."
    Nothing was assumed nor premature. That is your own assumption.

    "Extrapolation was a component of the online results, and was just that: extrapolation"
    I agree, that is why I said it :P
    I like this definition: 3) Extend (a graph, curve, or range of values) by inferring unknown values from trends in the known data
    They do it and they do it quite well.

    "While predictions were made. these are not analogous to "calling" states."
    Your opinion, not mine or many others. They DID in fact Call States, we watched it happen Live. You are free to interpret differently though.

    "you don't care about this disagreement,"
    I don't care about this statement: "I doubt you've met a statistically significant fraction of all Liberals."
    If you go back and read you will see exactly where I stated I did not care. All other references of not caring was based on that first.
    Perhaps you should read a bit more carefully.

    "which is unlikely, given the number and length of your responses"
    Which is your opinion. I reply to you because you continue to reply to me with statements containing errors in reference to me.

    "It's because assumi...






    I brought it up because of a comment you made elsewhere for voting Gary Johnson, was merely curious.

    "am only criticizing your own premature assumptions about the character of the second."
    Nothing was assumed nor premature. That is your own assumption.

    "Extrapolation was a component of the online results, and was just that: extrapolation"
    I agree, that is why I said it :P
    I like this definition: 3) Extend (a graph, curve, or range of values) by inferring unknown values from trends in the known data
    They do it and they do it quite well.

    "While predictions were made. these are not analogous to "calling" states."
    Your opinion, not mine or many others. They DID in fact Call States, we watched it happen Live. You are free to interpret differently though.

    "you don't care about this disagreement,"
    I don't care about this statement: "I doubt you've met a statistically significant fraction of all Liberals."
    If you go back and read you will see exactly where I stated I did not care. All other references of not caring was based on that first.
    Perhaps you should read a bit more carefully.

    "which is unlikely, given the number and length of your responses"
    Which is your opinion. I reply to you because you continue to reply to me with statements containing errors in reference to me.

    "It's because assuming things about the personal character of political opponents harms the ability to cooperation."
    Such as this one and one above. I am not assuming as I have already stated. Now read carefully, I have a clear trend in my data after observing many Liberals who have interacted with me. That clear trend is Intolerance. That is not assumption, it is extrapolation based on observable facts over time.
    Do you get it now?

    I am also not overly interested in cooperating with Liberals. Cooperation leads to compromise on one's principles, deficits, expansion of Government and continued loss of Liberty as we have already seen. All points that cause me to vote the way I do and I do not vote so my representatives can compromise on those points.


    Didn't bother to look at your overall answer as it does not interest me.
    (more)
  • XQNP RageFury 2012/12/03 03:25:02
    XQNP
    Ah, okay. Yes, I like Johnson quite a bit and am well aware that he's more classical than modern when it comes to liberalism.

    Your assumption was that "tolerant liberal" was a contradiction, and therefore that there are either literally or functionally no tolerant liberals. This is shown by your original statement of agreement.

    And yes, they do it as well as anyone can, though I don't think extrapolation doesn't constitute "calling" an election. This doesn't matter to our disagreement though, so let's instead focus on whether or not your assumption was statistically valid, which is what I was challenging in the first place.

    Ah. So you were just saying that you don't care whether or not your assumptions are predicated on statistical evidence. Isn't that just an admission that your positions aren't based on logic?

    If your data is sufficient to make such extrapolations, can I see it, along with an overview of your basic experimental procedures? That would clear up whether or not you're making premature assumptions.

    Refusal to compromise in a democracy is tantamount to removing oneself from politics in general. If you are unwilling to compromise and discuss politics with those you disagree with, your opinions will inevitably be passed over in favor of those of the people you are. Not t...

    Ah, okay. Yes, I like Johnson quite a bit and am well aware that he's more classical than modern when it comes to liberalism.

    Your assumption was that "tolerant liberal" was a contradiction, and therefore that there are either literally or functionally no tolerant liberals. This is shown by your original statement of agreement.

    And yes, they do it as well as anyone can, though I don't think extrapolation doesn't constitute "calling" an election. This doesn't matter to our disagreement though, so let's instead focus on whether or not your assumption was statistically valid, which is what I was challenging in the first place.

    Ah. So you were just saying that you don't care whether or not your assumptions are predicated on statistical evidence. Isn't that just an admission that your positions aren't based on logic?

    If your data is sufficient to make such extrapolations, can I see it, along with an overview of your basic experimental procedures? That would clear up whether or not you're making premature assumptions.

    Refusal to compromise in a democracy is tantamount to removing oneself from politics in general. If you are unwilling to compromise and discuss politics with those you disagree with, your opinions will inevitably be passed over in favor of those of the people you are. Not to mention that refusing to acknowledge to potential legitimacy of opposing opinions is intolerance, something which you seem to dislike.

    It's fair that you ignored my post, just as long as you're done accusing me of liberal bias.
    (more)
  • RageFury XQNP 2012/12/03 04:48:15
    RageFury
    "Ah. So you were just saying that you don't care whether or not your assumptions are predicated on statistical evidence."
    Fallacy. You don't need a majority to extrapolate a probable outcome as has been mentioned before though you refuse to acknowledge it.

    "Isn't that just an admission that your positions aren't based on logic?"
    Nope. That is simply your inability to come to terms with my position on extrapolation.

    "If your data is sufficient to make such extrapolations, can I see it, along with an overview of your basic experimental procedures? That would clear up whether or not you're making premature assumptions."
    What constitutes sufficient? A majority? Not needed friend.
    But no, that would give you the number of Liberals I have met. Not going to happen as I have stated multiple times. Not to mention, I don't need your endorsement seeing as I have one I value a bit more, my own. The only endorsement I need is my own.
    We can spin this nifty circle some more if you like, but I honestly don't see the worth in it. Do you?

    "Refusal to compromise in a democracy is tantamount to removing oneself from politics in general."
    You may have something there. However, I said I wasn't overly interested and I am not, but that does not mean that I utterly refuse. Let's just say there had best be a ...






    "Ah. So you were just saying that you don't care whether or not your assumptions are predicated on statistical evidence."
    Fallacy. You don't need a majority to extrapolate a probable outcome as has been mentioned before though you refuse to acknowledge it.

    "Isn't that just an admission that your positions aren't based on logic?"
    Nope. That is simply your inability to come to terms with my position on extrapolation.

    "If your data is sufficient to make such extrapolations, can I see it, along with an overview of your basic experimental procedures? That would clear up whether or not you're making premature assumptions."
    What constitutes sufficient? A majority? Not needed friend.
    But no, that would give you the number of Liberals I have met. Not going to happen as I have stated multiple times. Not to mention, I don't need your endorsement seeing as I have one I value a bit more, my own. The only endorsement I need is my own.
    We can spin this nifty circle some more if you like, but I honestly don't see the worth in it. Do you?

    "Refusal to compromise in a democracy is tantamount to removing oneself from politics in general."
    You may have something there. However, I said I wasn't overly interested and I am not, but that does not mean that I utterly refuse. Let's just say there had best be a damn good reason before I would consider it and it best not cause loss of Liberty. Like say the Patriot Act. Lots of compromise there don't you think? All bad compromise in my opinion and none I myself will ever consider.

    "Not to mention that refusing to acknowledge to potential legitimacy of opposing opinions is intolerance, something which you seem to dislike."
    Good point, but as I said "not overly Interested" does not equate to "refusal". I tolerate many things, equality for ALL in marriage for example. Never have I said I myself was tolerant. Some things I will not tolerate and will block for. You know those folks that flame, deflect and never offer anything relevant? Hate those types...

    "It's fair that you ignored my post, just as long as you're done accusing me of liberal bias."
    Done. As I said I assumed on that score and I shouldn't have.
    I have no reason to continue.
    (more)
  • XQNP RageFury 2012/12/04 12:26:28
    XQNP
    +1
    True. You don't need a majority, but you do need a statistically significant fraction, which, if you'll look, is exactly what you said you didn't care about having.

    Functionally speaking, hiding data is the same as not having it, as the implication is that there's some reason you don't want it to be seen. The reasonable conclusion I can draw is that your data is insufficient.

    Fair enough. I would agree with you about the Patriot Act containing compromises that shouldn't have been made. And it's true that lack of interest doesn't equal refusal. Though I doubt someone who was truly apathetic about liberal opinions would be posting about them online.

    If you have no reason to continue, then don't.
  • RageFury XQNP 2012/12/04 19:04:56
    RageFury
    Conclude what you like, as shall I.
    Gonna take my leave now.
    Had fun chatting at ya...
  • XQNP RageFury 2012/12/05 08:10:52
    XQNP
    Okay. See you around!
  • Michael McFascist 2012/11/25 16:05:16
    Michael McFascist
    +1
    I agree with alot of that...not all...but alot...I tend to think they look like hypocrites because they do in every circumstance try to take the moral high ground...and when their spokespeople, their representatives try to and sometimes succeed in passing legislation hurtful to marginalized groups and then get up on their soap boxes and tell us that being gay is a sin against God Almighty only later to find out that these very same people were caught snorting methamphetamines off of a male prostitutes penis...they just end up looking like a bunch of hypocritical ass hats.
  • jeane Michael... 2012/11/26 01:58:47
    jeane
    +3
    Funny that liberals never think of themselves as taking the moral high ground isn't it?
  • Michael... jeane 2012/11/26 02:37:14
    Michael McFascist
    that's right...they don't...I agree (at least on social issues) they don't want to end up looking like republicans...If they're gay there not going to look into a camera and shout, "Don't be gay" if they're black they're not going to put forward legislation that is perceived to hurt black communities.

    They are more than happy to let republicans take these moral stances because they know that many will fall prey to the "truths" that they have uttered, and open themselves up to charges of hypocrisy, and then, not just they, but the entire party they represent looks like...well...you know what I mean.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 14 Next » Last »

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/07/29 19:07:04

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals