Are Liberals psychic?

POSTED BY: TheHappyTrader
UPDATED: Thursday, March 24, 2011 17:53
VIEWED: 4796
PAGE 2 of 5

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE

THEHAPPYTRADER

Wednesday, March 23, 2011 2:39 AM

Quote:
You mean you DON'T think the teabaggers know or understand what the country needs? Why on Earth would you support any political group if you thought they had no freaking clue what your country wanted or needed?

And didn't you just make a rather large ASSumption, in ASSuming that "they always know everything"? Why, it's *almost* like you're trying to tell us liberals what we're thinking, and what we know!

Very well done my psychic Liberal friend. Indeed I do not think teabaggers know or understand much more than how to drop their balls upon the faces of their smitten enemies. That and shooting. I have noticed a strong correlation amongst 'teabagging' and victory in 'first person shooter' styled video games.

And then you finish with a delightful paradox. Clearly one or both of us is lying, unless of course I am actually liberal.

Speaking of ASSumption, you appear to assume I have earthly motivations for supporting any political group. You can't prove anything

KWICKO

Wednesday, March 23, 2011 2:53 AM

Do you not make the same ASSumption about me?

All you know of me is that I'm a liberal. And if you've been paying attention, I don't support any of our three wars. (Probably the biggest difference there is, I didn't support Afghanistan and Iraq when Bush was in office either, while it seems that pretty much every "conservative" here *did* support them, right up until January of 2009, at least. )

Tonight on MSNBC, somebody said something about "After the bombing in Libya, the debate over it." It struck me that that whole attitude is 180º backwards. You're supposed to have the debate BEFORE you start the bombing. But that's just not The American Way™ any more, is it? Nope, we're a nation of Bomb First, Ask Questions Never®.

Meanwhile, who do you think Obama picked in his brackets? I'm not talking about his NCAA brackets - that's old news (and every President since Taft has done them, it seems [/snark]) - I'm talking about his Mid-East brackets. Did he pick Bahrain to beat The Protesters? Saudi to upset Yemen? Who'd he pick in Libya? Does he have Jordan as an upset? Think he'll let Sudan go to sudden death?

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

QUESTIONABLEQUESTIONALITY

Wednesday, March 23, 2011 3:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Do you not make the same ASSumption about me?

All you know of me is that I'm a liberal. And if you've been paying attention, I don't support any of our three wars. (Probably the biggest difference there is, I didn't support Afghanistan and Iraq when Bush was in office either, while it seems that pretty much every "conservative" here *did* support them, right up until January of 2009, at least. )

Tonight on MSNBC, somebody said something about "After the bombing in Libya, the debate over it." It struck me that that whole attitude is 180º backwards. You're supposed to have the debate BEFORE you start the bombing. But that's just not The American Way™ any more, is it? Nope, we're a nation of Bomb First, Ask Questions Never®.

Meanwhile, who do you think Obama picked in his brackets? I'm not talking about his NCAA brackets - that's old news (and every President since Taft has done them, it seems [/snark]) - I'm talking about his Mid-East brackets. Did he pick Bahrain to beat The Protesters? Saudi to upset Yemen? Who'd he pick in Libya? Does he have Jordan as an upset? Think he'll let Sudan go to sudden death?

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

No one knows about obama's picks. However, as a betting man, I would bet the opposite of what he says.

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, March 23, 2011 4:50 AM

?

This thread confuses me, mostly because I've never seen Happy engage in the left-right baiting around here.

I predict he got really really bored, or he's joking.

EDIT: Ah, I see the distaff counterpart thread will shed some light on this unusual behaviour.

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, March 23, 2011 6:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
Are Liberals psychic?

No.

They are psychotic.

Next question ?

-F

DMAANLILEILTT

Wednesday, March 23, 2011 6:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
2.) They are the only ones who understand what the country really wants/needs.

Isn't that the definition of politics?

"I really am ruggedly handsome, aren't I?"

DREAMTROVE

Wednesday, March 23, 2011 3:16 PM

This explains why Bush choked on a preztel, but Happy, I think this is academic. It's a standard academic attitude, and the structure is innate to the system: Learn, know, teach. This is a pretty flawed model for information flow.

Most of what the right calls "liberal" is an academically trained or brainwashed pseudo-socialist agenda maker who has either been duped, as I was, or wants power for themselves, and actually supports the centralization of power as if it were a good idea.

Most of the people who consider themselves liberals do so because they think of themselves as caring and giving people who want to help. This group can be hijacked by the first group in a similar manner to how conservatives can be hijacked by religious and patriotic rhetoric.

If someone suggests that there is a group with a plight, then the academic liberal elite can suggest a solution of "helping" them, which inevitably involves moving more control to a central authority. I suppose you could call this left wing authoritarianism [/snark]

The underlying flaws in this are apparent to someone who is being objective: a) that the real goal here is the centralization of power, and b) that "help" and "control" are very closely related concepts and frequently those who step forward to help do not care at all about the former, only the latter. Whether it's Cabrini Green or the attacks on Lybia liberal elite policy will look like this, and be pushed in this manner. Most are more subtle than those but contain the same elements and structure.

The problem is that these are designed to *not* be looked at objectively, because they have their own built in emotional hook. Any discussion you have on them is liable to turn into an emotional argument rather than rational debate. So the well intentioned liberal will support the policy because they feel for the group that has the plight. Whether or not the plight is real is immaterial, the plight is believed, and those with it are perceived as victims, and the caring liberal wants to help. Help is provided as a solution, which is why Obama just said all this stuff about humanitarian assistance to the downtrodden etc. in Libya at the same time he was bombing hospitals.

If someone argues against the agenda of helping they are seen as uncaring, insensitive or heartless, precisely because it is an emotional debate which has been set up, not a rational one.

A rational debate might look into:
1) Is there really a plight?
2) Does this solution help? or control? Are there any other solutions?
3) Are we, or some centralized authority the best people to administer these solutions?

Years ago I ran into an African based African charity group that was focused on "information to Africa." The underlying idea was that none of Africa's problems required actual outside intervention, just the information, better farming techniques, healthcare methods, etc. Their reasoning was that past interventions to help by assistance to local govts. by international agencies had ended extremely badly, and not solved the problem, but usually ended up propping up some brutal regime and selling off natural resources to some foreign corporation.

Anyone can see why this idea isn't going to get a lot of support from the US govt. But it's the sort of debate we don't have because of the framework within which the positions are help, because it's a rational look at emotional issues, which is exploited by international interventionists.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

THEHAPPYTRADER

Wednesday, March 23, 2011 3:51 PM

Quote:
...I don't support any of our three wars. (Probably the biggest difference there is, I didn't support Afghanistan and Iraq when Bush was in office either, while it seems that pretty much every "conservative" here *did* support them...

And just how could you know what 'pretty much every conservative' thought in that manner without psychic intuition? This is why we need more Liberals in power. They know things, things only liberals can't be expected to realize or understand.

THEHAPPYTRADER

Wednesday, March 23, 2011 3:52 PM

I suppose I owe RWED an explanation for this thread. Well, probably not, but I'll provide one on account of at least one person appears curious

I've been very busy for about 5 days and come back to RWED to see like the first 4 or 5 thread topics about conservatives destroying the country, about how "this is what they really want to happen, not what they are saying and certainly not what the actual legislation or proposition says..."

Now I could explain how all these partisan based assumptions ain't doing anyone on either side any favors, but that would be an exercise in futility. Also, the Liberals are the only ones allowed to accuse others of bigotry and any discussion on how Liberals could possibly (gasp) do something better was bound to turn into a bitchfest on how conservatives were clearly far worst.

So, I thought I'd make my point in humor. Still won't change much, but at least it was kinda fun

NIKI2

Wednesday, March 23, 2011 6:12 PM

What a laugh...back and forth and back and forth about something so elemental:

Quote:
1.) They always know everything, including what you are thinking and why you are thinking it?

2.) They are the only ones who understand what the country really wants/needs.

This is as true of the right as of the left, and is utilized by virtually every candidate for every office!

Obviously some at least of this is aimed at me. I haven't judged that the right is trying to worsen the situation by their actions...I didn't want to BELIEVE it for a long time. I have come around to believing it relucantly by their ACTIONS, not what they say. They say they're about jobs, but haven't created a single one that I can see; they said they aren't about social issues, yet that's the only legislation they have offered so far; Walker and other newly-elected Republican governors and state legislatures were elected partly because of saying they would get their states out of debt, yet they immediately began giving tax credits to rich corporations while taxing the middle class, working poor and poor. Walker was DEFINITELY not elected to bust the unions, but he kept quiet about that until elected, then immediately gave tax cuts in virtually the same amount as he now cries poor! Hypocrisy is typical in politics; the right is just as guilty as the left.

How about some examples? How many right-wing candidates in the midterms CLAIMED they represented what "the people want"? Ergo they obviously THINK they know what people want, or say they do, which I think is more likely the truth. Or else they lied just to get elected, which again is the purvey of both sides, but would be more egregious than if they actually BELIEVED it.

Try to show me where liberals have claimed the above, and I can counter with the opposite from conservatives: politicians, legislators AND people right here on FFF. To say it holds true for just the left is either self-delusion, hypocrisy or ignorance...in this case deliberate ignorance? It's so easy to see on both sides, I'm amazed you can't see it!

As to "the Liberals are the only ones allowed to accuse others of bigotry"--are you freaking KIDDING ME??? How many cries do we hear almost daily from the right about how it's actually LIBERALS who are racists, and that any cry of racism aimed at the right is "reverse-racism", etc., etc. Your statement blows my mind.

Nobody needs to point fingers at one side or the other; nobody has to argue back and forth which does what you suggest more or less; both do it, always have. To say one side is more egregious about it than the other is nuts.

Pointing out what Bush/conservatives did when Obama/liberals are attacked for doing the same is by way of saying "why are you complaining? The guy on your side did exactly the same thing or worse, and where were the complaints then?" I wasn't here then, but I'll bet dollars to donuts when liberals complained about Bush, conservatives were quick to come up with "But Clinton..." So that's true on both sides as well.