tagged w/ Liberals
-
So, if you do not know the meaning of a word, I would suggest you not use it in a sentence, without knowing the true meaning of the word]So, if you do not know the meaning of a word, I would suggest you not use it in a... more
-
-
-
...the implication is that the conservative electorate in this country is actually more conservative than the slate of GOP candidates vying for the nomination. For 57% to think Obama liberal (while the left often considers him right-moderate) would seem to indicate that 57% polled (from my left perspective) fall to the right of right-moderate, else their perspective wouldn’t lean that way.
57% are to the right of right-moderate....the implication is that the conservative electorate in this country is actually... more
-
-
Press is still helping their guy
Remember 2008, when inconvenient questions about our beloved 44th president’s religious practices were off-limits for journalists? Fast forward to 2011–when the press has no compunction to quizzing Mitt Romney about his “cult” of Mormonism. Jamie remembers.
For 22 years, Barrack Hussein Obama sat in a church listening to an America-hating bigot that believed we got what we deserved on 9/11. The press was not only not curious – they leaped upon anyone who brought it up… Now, for some strange reason they are burrowing into Rick Perry’s ass because at ONE function, he was introduced by a pastor (not his) who stated that Mormonism is a cult.
If Romney winds up being the Republican nominee, just wait for the “thoughtful” pieces in the press asking if Mormonism is indeed a cult.
We are so screwed…
http://deathby1000papercuts.com/2011/10/same-press-that-ignored-obamas-rev-wright-is-curious-about-romneys-mormon-cult/Press is still helping their guy
Remember 2008, when inconvenient questions about... more
-
-
If you believe that man is causeing global warming then you have been sold on false pretensesIf you believe that man is causeing global warming then you have been sold on false... more
-
-
According to polls — Pew Research Center, the National Science Foundation — and studies such as Arthur Brooks’s Gross National Happiness, conservative Americans are happier than liberal Americans.
Liberals respond this way: “If we’re unhappier, it’s because we are more upset than conservatives over the plight of those less fortunate than ourselves.”
But common sense and data suggest other explanations.
For one thing, conservatives on the same socioeconomic level as liberals give more charity and volunteer more time than do liberals. And as regards the suffering of non-Americans, for at least half a century conservatives have been far more willing to sacrifice American treasure and American blood (often their own) for other nations’ liberty.
Both of these facts refute the liberals-are-more-concerned-about-others explanation for liberal unhappiness.
So, let’s look at other explanations.
Perhaps we are posing the question backwards when we ask why liberals are less happy than conservatives. The question implies that liberalism causes unhappiness. And while this is true, it may be equally correct to say that unhappy people are more likely to adopt leftist positions.
Take black Americans, for example. It makes perfect sense that a black American who is essentially happy is going to be less attracted to the Left. Anyone who has interacted with black conservatives rarely encounters an angry, unhappy person.
Why?
Because the liberal view on race is that America is a racist society. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, a black American must abandon liberalism in order to be a happy individual. It is very hard, if not impossible, to be a happy person while believing that society is out to hurt you. So, the unhappy black person will gravitate to liberalism and liberalism will in turn make him more unhappy by reinforcing his view that he is a victim.
The unhappy gravitate toward the Left for a second reason. Life is hard for liberals and life is hard for conservatives. But conservatives assume that life will always be hard. Liberals, on the other hand, have utopian dreams. At his brother Robert’s funeral, the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy recalled his brother saying: “Some men see things as they are and say, ‘Why?’ I dream things that never were and say, ‘Why not?’”
Utopians will always be less happy than those who know that suffering is inherent to human existence. The utopian compares America to utopia and finds it terribly wanting. The conservative compares America to every other civilization that has ever existed and walks around wondering how he got so lucky as to be born or naturalized an American.
Third, imagine two Americans living in essentially identical socioeconomic conditions. They earn $45,000 a year, they have the same amount of debt on their homes, and both have the same number of dependents. One seeks governmental assistance wherever possible; the other eschews any governmental help. Which one is likely to be the liberal and which one is likely to be the happier individual?
This is not a question only an oracle can answer. The one who yearns for governmental help is the one who is likely to be both liberal and less happy. Conservatism, which demands self-reliance, makes one happier. The more a man or woman feels like captain of his or her ship (as poor as that ship may be), the happier he or she will be.
A fourth explanation for greater unhappiness among liberals is that the more people allow feelings to govern them, the less happy they will be. And the further left one goes, the more importance one attaches to feelings.
It is liberal educators and liberal parents who have clamored for protecting young people from the pain of losing games. The liberal world came up with the idea of giving trophies to kids who lose; they don’t want their children feeling bad. Conservatives, on the other hand, teach their kids how to lose well. They are less worried about their children feeling bad.
A couple of years ago, I gave a speech on happiness to the students and faculty of a prestigious high school in the Los Angeles area. The subject was the need to act happy even when one isn’t feeling happy — because it is unfair to others to inflict our bad moods on them and because we will never be happy if we allow our feelings to dictate our happiness.
From what I experienced that day and learned later, liberal students and faculty generally loathed my speech; conservative students generally loved it (there were no conservative faculty to speak of). Why? Because conservatives are far more likely to be comfortable with the idea that feelings are not as important as behavior.
Those who know that feelings must not govern us, but that we must govern our feelings, are far more likely to be happy people.
The upshot of all this? There is an amazingly simple way to defeat the Left: Raise children who are grateful to be American, who don’t complain, who can handle losing, and who are guided by values, not feelings. In other words, teach them how to be happy adults.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/253768/why-unhappy-people-become-liberals-dennis-prager?pg=2According to polls — Pew Research Center, the National Science Foundation... more
-
-
The liberal media regularly tags conservative speech as hateful or extreme. They go ballistic when conservatives call federal spending ''socialist", or say gay marriage is "immoral". Liberals even whine about the word "Obamacare". When the liberals attack conservatives, it is different on two counts. First, their attacks are more direct and ugly. Second, it is perfectly okay to them because they are just trying to stop old, repressive ideas from gaining traction. Whatever...
I need to throw out a few Liberal quotes to you and ask you, have you ever heard anything this hateful from a conservative??
Liberal Mike Malloy in 2009 said: " I have good news to report; Glenn Beck appears ever closer to suicide. I am hoping that he does it on camera."
When Republican Sharon Angle ran against Harry Reid in Nevada, ABC's Joy Behar said, "Come here bitch! Come to New York and do it!" and gleefully added 'I'm telling you right now, she's going to Hell, this bitch!"
About Sarah Palin, all the liberal media went after her. On election night 2010, Chris Matthew's wondered if Sarah would look like "an imbecile" on Jeopardy: "does she know anything?"
In 2009, liberal radio host Montel Williams called on Representative Michelle Bachmann to, "slit her wrist and then advised a better thing, move that knife up about two feet. Start right at the collarbone".
The wonderful Keith Olberman describe the Tea Party as "a group of unqualified, unstable individuals who will do what they are told and march this nation as far back as they can get, backwards to Jim Crow, or backwards to the breadlines of the '30s, or backwards to hanging union organizers."
These are just a few quotes. Let's face it, the left are the mean, hateful people. Conservatives don't say these kind of things.
Since there are many more conservatives than liberals, and conservatives have so many guns, people often wonder why conservatives don’t just round up all the liberals and ship them to Antarctica to be forced to mine for jewels and gold. Well, there is a very good reason for that: by a strict constructionist interpretation of the American Constitution, there is no support for being able to deport liberals to a mining camp.
Now, if conservatives were a bit more flexible with their view of the Constitution, they would say things like, “Well, we have to remember it’s a living document, and the Founding Fathers hadn’t even thought of the threat of hippies running around free when they wrote it.” And then they’d look to the Commerce Clause and say, “Well, keeping liberals from meddling in America and forcing them do something useful like mining sure would help the economy, so it’s within the government’s power.” And then it’d just be a manner of scheduling all the boats to get liberals to Antarctica.
But that would violate the spirit of the Constitution since, by plain English interpretations of the government’s powers, we can’t forcefully ship liberals to Antarctica no matter how much people may think that would help the country. And that’s the point of the Constitution: people are constantly changing their ideas of what is good and bad, but the Constitution is much harder to change. It puts limits on what the government can do, and those limits can only be changed when huge majorities agree to it through the amendment process. And even after ObamaCare, there inexplicably isn’t enough support for a “Liberals Are to Be Sent to Mines in Antarctica” amendment.
After the hysterical way liberals reacted to the reading of the Constitution by Republicans to open Congress, with Democrats objecting to it, left-wing newspaper editorials denouncing it, and liberals online freaking out over it, no reasonable person would argue that liberals don’t hate the Constitution, but the reasons why aren’t as obvious. So the question becomes, why do liberals hate the Constitution so much — especially when it’s the only thing protecting them from freezing to death with pickaxes in their hands? http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/who-are-the-real-haters-conservatives-or-liberals-republicans-or-democrats/question-1613631/The liberal media regularly tags conservative speech as hateful or extreme. They go... more
-
-
The answer, then, to why Nixon, why now, seems fairly obvious: His presidency, as twisted and corrupt and doomed as it was politically, was actually the last time we had a White House acting more or less in the best interests of the citizens of the United States. And we miss it. We know that power politics has always responded to wealth, but we long for the days when the sell-out wasn’t so comprehensive, so shameless, so arrogant and sneering. We wish those who control the political and economic direction of the nation would drop a crumb or two every now and then. We hate that corporations are citizens and that money is speech.The answer, then, to why Nixon, why now, seems fairly obvious: His presidency, as... more
-
-
-
Each time it's supposed to be different, imirite? You take another Republican hit thinking that this time it will be different; this time Republicanism will bring you that high you’ve been chasing since 1980. What happens? All you get is another war, more failed and debunked trickle down economics, more tax hikes for the non-uber rich, more national debt, more growth of the government, more government erosion of privacy rights, more cutbacks on social safety networks and, of course, more deregulation that leads to crap like the S&L debacle (that my grandmother lost her life savings from) and the collapse of the American banking industry under its own unregulated greed.Each time it's supposed to be different, imirite? You take another Republican hit... more
-
-
Looks like Andrew Sanger is trying to rehabilate his grandmother's image after Herman Cain plays the race card in his anti-abortion stance.
****
Andrew Sanger writes:
"Cain could use a history lesson. When my grandmother started Planned Parenthood in 1916, her first clinic was in Brownsville, Brooklyn, then a mixed neighborhood of primarily European immigrants. Within a decade and a half, her nascent organisation received the endorsement of several prominent African Americans, including Mary McLeod Bethune, WEB DuBois and Rev Adam Clayton Powell Jr. At their urging, in 1930, Harlem's first birth control clinic was opened, in partnership with the New York Urban League. In years to come, African American leaders endorsed her efforts to bring contraceptives to poor, rural black residents – the same services Planned Parenthood delivered to poor, rural white residents.
To think that my grandmother was clever enough to enlist prominent black religious and community leaders to exterminate their own race is not only nonsensical; it's racist. Throughout her career, my grandmother's driving force was to ensure that every child was a wanted child."
***
I'm not defending Cain, and I know he is just playing up a wedge issue to distract from more important issues, but it appears that Andrew Sanger appears revise history lying by ommission. He forgot to include this quote from the elder Sanger regarding the Negro Project:
"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
This quote has been used by numerous Sanger detractors, including Angela Davis and the pro-life movement, to support their claims that Sanger was racist.[86] However, according to New York University's Margaret Sanger Papers Project, Sanger, in writing that letter, "recognized that elements within the black community might mistakenly associate the Negro Project with racist sterilization campaigns in the Jim Crow South, unless clergy and other community leaders spread the word that the Project had a humanitarian aim."[87]"Looks like Andrew Sanger is trying to rehabilate his grandmother's image after... more
-
-
Obama offers no solutions but continues to acknowlegde Americans growing frustration.
***
Barack Obama offered more support for global financial system protesters after a weekend of demonstrations across the world.
Speaking at the dedication of a new memorial to Martin Luther King on National Mall, Washington, the U.S. President called on protesters not to 'demonise' Wall Street workers.
He said: 'Dr King would want us to challenge the excesses of Wall Street without demonising those who work there.'
Mr Obama is expected to use public anger at Wall Street excess to turn up the heat on congressional Republicans as he tries to gain support for his stalled jobs bill.
He will head to North Carolina and Virginia over the next three days - both vital to his 2012 reelection chances - in visits aimed at winning passage for parts of the $447billion jobs plan.
Spokesman Josh Earnest said: 'The president will continue to acknowledge the frustration that he himself shares about the need for Washington to do more to support our economic recovery and to ensure that the interest of the 99 per cent of Americans is well-represented.'Obama offers no solutions but continues to acknowlegde Americans growing frustration.... more
-
-
This is some bizarre shit. I pretty sure that not all the protests are being carried out in this fashion, but this strange call and response activity has been filmed in New York as well as Atlanta.
Incidentally, the older black gentleman to the right of the facilitaror with the mic is Rep John Lewis...elder civil rights statesman who had been invited to speak. However, the mind control 'facilitator' kept invoking the mindless, hopeless throng to echo chant until, finally, Rep Thompson said something like 'To hell with this shit' and left.This is some bizarre shit. I pretty sure that not all the protests are being carried... more
-
-
-
-
KB723
-
added this
-
8 months ago
- |
-
There probably are some racist individuals who would consider themselves Tea Party members or leaders. Michelle Bachmann has made some questionable statements that could be perceived as racist.
However I maintain that there really is no 'Tea Party' as in an official organization a sort of leadership from a few politicians who only decided to call themselves Tea Party candidates to ride a wave of legitimate grassroots populism.
***
Former U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Chairman Mary Frances Berry, a long-time prominent liberal activist, has admitted in an interview with Politico that the left is trying to smear the tea party movement as “racist” for strategic reasons, not out of genuine concern that the movement is itself racist.
Berry called the tactic an “effective strategy” and chose not to denounce it.
Berry, now the Geraldine R. Segal Professor of American Social Thought and History at the University of Pennsylvania, was asked, “will branding the tea party ‘racist’ work?”
Berry replied:
"Tainting the tea party movement with the charge of racism is proving to be an effective strategy for Democrats. There is no evidence that tea party adherents are any more racist than other Republicans, and indeed many other Americans. But getting them to spend their time purging their ranks and having candidates distance themselves should help Democrats win in November. Having one’s opponent rebut charges of racism is far better than discussing joblessness."
“This is exactly the kind of thing that has irked me all of my adult life, to put it mildly,” said Project 21 member R. Dozier Gray. “This willful and purposeful use of the race card for nothing more than political gain is toxic to race relations, and Mary Frances Berry must know that. But she evidently does not care. Based on her comment, political posturing takes primacy over whatever real issues regarding race that she might pretend are her calling cards. I have seen this all before. I find it shameful.”
Project 21 member Bob Parks added: “What’s most disturbing about this very public quote? Not only is Mary Frances Berry making this comment without fear of admonishment, and that progressives have apparently embraced and are employing these very shameful, race-baiting tactics — but Berry is likely teaching this ‘social thought’ hate to children.”
Left-wing organizer Saul Alinsky, whose tactics have been studied and followed by Barack Obama and his followers, taught his activists to “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” The Tea Party movement has unnerved the left and energized supporters of smaller government, causing the left to target it, as per Alinsky’s method, with bogus racism charges.There probably are some racist individuals who would consider themselves Tea Party... more
-
-
-
by Chris Mooney
This is an invited guest post by Andrea Kuszewski, a Behavior Therapist and Consultant for children on the autism spectrum based in Florida, and a researcher and manager with VORTEX: Integrative Science Improving Societies, based in Bogotá, Colombia. She blogs at The Rogue Neuron and tweets as @AndreaKuszewski.
Can neuroscience provide evidence for a liberal and conservative thinking style?
It may seem like a stretch to say that one could predict whether you lean left or right by looking at a brain scan—no questions asked, no opinions voiced—purely based on your neuroanatomy. However, this might not be too far from reality—at least insofar as predicting thinking style, which has been shown to be somewhat distinct based on party association.
Does brain structure determine your beliefs, or do your beliefs change your brain structure? What about those who switch parties at some point? How do they fit in to this model? We’ll be discussing all of this. It’s a complicated issue with lots of variables in play, so we’re going to take a pretty deep look into this topic from all angles, so we can draw the most accurate conclusions.
Please keep in mind from the beginning that this is not an endorsement of any one political party. This is science—we’ll just be discussing the data. Ready?
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/09/07/your-brain-on-politics-the-cognitive-neuroscience-of-liberals-and-conservatives/by Chris Mooney
This is an invited guest post by Andrea Kuszewski, a Behavior... more
-
-
Subtitle: Beck and Limpbaugh will have apolplexy!
Republicans have villainized liberals for three decades now. They have made efforts over that period of time to tear apart the policies that liberals instituted since the founding of America. Many liberals sought to make this country the greatest nation on the face of the Earth, and now Republicans are destroying what they built. Here is a list of the greatest liberals in American history and what they did to make our nation great.
http://tinyurl.com/3j64q2nSubtitle: Beck and Limpbaugh will have apolplexy!
Republicans have villainized... more
-
-
LOrion
-
added this
-
9 months ago
- |
-
To understand the workings of American politics, you have to understand this fundamental law: Conservatives think liberals are stupid. Liberals think conservatives are evil. — Charles Krauthammer
Even liberals who've accomplished a lot in their lives and have high IQs often say things on a regular basis that are stunningly, profoundly stupid and at odds with the way the world works. Modern liberalism has become so bereft of common sense and instinctually suicidal that America can only survive over the long haul by thwarting the liberal agenda. In fact, liberalism has become such a toxic and poisonous philosophy that most liberals wouldn't behave differently if their goal were to deliberately destroy the country. So, how does liberalism cause well-meaning, intelligent liberals to get this way? Well, it starts with...
1) Liberalism creates a feedback loop. It is usually impossible for a non-liberal to change a liberal's mind about political issues because liberalism works like so: only liberals are credible sources of information. How do you know someone's liberal? He espouses liberal doctrine. So, no matter how plausible what you say may be, it will be ignored if you're not a liberal and if you are a liberal, of course, you probably agree with liberal views. This sort of close-mindedness makes liberals nearly impervious to any information that might undermine their beliefs.
2) Liberals sources of information are ever present. Conservatives are regularly exposed to the liberal viewpoint whether they want to be or not. That's not necessarily so for liberals. Imagine the average day for liberals. They get up and read their local newspaper. It has a liberal viewpoint. They take their kids to school, where the teachers are liberal. Then they go to work, listen to NPR which has a liberal viewpoint on the way home, and then turn on the nightly news which also skews leftward. From there, they turn on TV and watch shows created by liberals that lean to the left, if they have any political viewpoint at all. Unless liberals actively seek out conservative viewpoints, which is unlikely, the only conservative arguments they're probably going to hear are going to be through the heavily distorted, poorly translated, deeply skeptical lens of other liberals.
3) Liberals emphasize feeling superior, not superior results. Liberalism is all about appearances, not outcomes. What matters to liberals is how a program makes them FEEL about themselves, not whether it works or not. Thus a program like Headstart, which sounds good because it's designed to help children read, makes liberals feel good about themselves, even though the program doesn't work and wastes billions. A ban on DDT makes liberals feel good about themselves because they're "protecting the environment" even though millions of people have died as a result. For liberals, it's not what a program does in the real world; it's about whether they feel better about themselves for supporting it.
4) Liberals are big believers in moral relativism. This spins them round and round because if the only thing that's wrong is saying that there's an absolute moral code, then you lose your ability to tell cause from effect, good from bad, and right from wrong. Taking being non-judgmental to the level that liberals do leaves them paralyzed, pondering "why they hate us" because they feel incapable of saying, “That's wrong," and doing something about it. If you're against firm standards and condemning immoral behavior, then your moral compass won’t work and you’ll also be for immorality, as well as societal and cultural decay by default.
5) Liberals tend to view people as parts of groups, not individuals. One of the prejudices of liberalism is that they see everyone as part of a group, not as an individual. This can lead to rather bizarre disparities when say, a man from a group that they consider to be powerless, impoverished victims becomes the leader of the free world -- and he's challenged by a group of lower middle class white people who've banded together because individually they're powerless. If you listen to the liberal rhetoric, you might think Barack Obama was a black Republican being surrounded by a KKK lynching party 100 years ago -- as opposed to the single most powerful man in America abusing the authority of his office to attack ordinary Tea Partiers who have the audacity to speak the truth to power for the good of their country.
6) Liberals take a dim view of personal responsibility. Who's at fault if a criminal commits a crime? The criminal or society? If someone creates a business and becomes a millionaire, is that the result of hard work and talent or luck? If you're dirt poor, starving, and haven't worked in 5 years, is that a personal failing or a failure of the state? Conservatives would tend to say the former in each case, while liberals would tend to say the latter. But when you disconnect what an individual does from the results that happen in his life, it's very difficult to understand cause and effect in people's lives.
7) Liberals give themselves far too much credit just for being liberal. To many liberals, all one needs to do to be wise, intelligent, compassionate, open minded, and sensitive is to BE LIBERAL. In other words, many of the good things about a person spring not from his actions, but from the ideology he holds. This has an obvious appeal. You can be a diehard misogynist, but plausibly call yourself a feminist, hate blacks, but accuse others of racism, have a subpar IQ and be an intellectual, give nothing to charity and be compassionate, etc., etc., and all you have to do is call yourself a liberal. It's a shortcut to virtue much like the corrupt old idea of religious indulgences. Why live a life of virtue when you could live a sinful life and buy your way into heaven? If you're a liberal, why actually live a life of virtue when you can merely call yourself a liberal and get credit for being virtuous, even when you've done nothing to earn it? http://current.com/1gqvekcTo understand the workings of American politics, you have to understand this... more
-
-
When conservatives successfully dismantled ACORN, a powerful voice for the disadvantaged was lost on the national, state and local levels. Although no other community organizing group has ACORN's size or power, there are still many organizations that perform similar works.When conservatives successfully dismantled ACORN, a powerful voice for the... more
-
-
Cabal
-
added this
-
9 months ago
- |
