Liberal Intellectual Elite ("LIE")

[Charles_Main]

One must remember the I part is and can be all in the head of the LIE. They THINK they are smarter, they think they are better.

How do you tell a LIE? When they utter comments like, I know best, we know best, the Government knows best. Or, we only want to help you by taking away your rights. We know how best to regulate your life and future. It is for your own good we have taken away this or that right.

What network reporter was it who was talking about the Health care bill and how many people were against it and actually said something like. "people are opposed to this bill, but they might not know whats good for them"

Wasn't it kattie?

lol

 

[daveman]

And where were they taught it?

Colleges and universities. I suppose some weak-minded fools learned it by reading leftist websites.

Which colleges and universities?

Liberal-controlled ones. Like Evergreen State College, Rachel Corrie's alma mater.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So quick to call another man a liar. So slow to back it up.

That speaks to your integrity. Not mine.

I'd rather not waste anymore bandwidth on this thread with a dishonest dealer.

Because you can not refute the simple fact that the investigation was run by a man with a Stake in its findings. An unelected Politician with ties to Carbon selling. He OWNS companies that DEPEND on man made global warming being the accepted view of things. BUT you would pretend otherwise.

Talk about a coward and a dishonest broker, you are both.

Like I said: "so slow to back it up".

If you can demonstrate that I lied about anything, you'd look like aces on this thread.

You know I haven't.

Like I said, you have the integrity problem. Not me.

I did not call you a liar as much as a fool. You on one hand accuse others of being liars and then claim anyone doing the same to you is dishonest. You character assassinate then whine when others do it to your side. You find problems with investigations by parties involved in the matter EXCEPT when they find in your favor.

Your ignorance is appalling. So lets take your word your not a liar, that just leaves MORON.

I repeat, you find no problem with an investigation of man made warming being conducted by a man with a personal and professional stake in the outcome, when that outcome SUPPORTS your views, BUT you do find problems if such an investigation were lead by someone with the same problems that did not support your views.

That leaves us with 2 options. You are an unmitigated liar, or you are just to plain stupid to see how untenable your ignorant position is.

YOU pick.

 

[daveman]

And where were they taught it?

Colleges and universities. I suppose some weak-minded fools learned it by reading leftist websites.

You should have just said "at that one place".

Like I said, this is starting to sound more and more like an urban legend.

What makes you think your acceptance is required to validate the idea? Isn't that proof of your own liberal intellectual elitism?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Wait, so leaving an investigation to a party that has a stake in the findings is not dishonest or problematic? You haven't a leg to stand on.

So quick to call another man a liar. So slow to back it up.

That speaks to your integrity. Not mine.

I'd rather not waste anymore bandwidth on this thread with a dishonest dealer.

Because you can not refute the simple fact that the investigation was run by a man with a Stake in its findings. An unelected Politician with ties to Carbon selling. He OWNS companies that DEPEND on man made global warming being the accepted view of things. BUT you would pretend otherwise.

Talk about a coward and a dishonest broker, you are both.

.....As-opposed-to those chickenshits who fail to decide whether-or-not they'd have supported Prohibition against alcohol, right?​

You are FREE to drum up support for an AMENDMENT to make MJ legal.

Nice dodge!! (Maybe I should call it a Will.)

You never answered the question: You'd have MAINTAINED the Prohibition, against alcohol???​

Your question is pointless. An amendment was passed allowing the return to consumption of alcohol. That negates any attempt by me or the Government preventing it.

And that is EXACTLY the point. If the people actually support getting rid of the laws on MJ and recreational drugs, get them to PASS an amendment making it legal and removing the ability of the Government to intercede. Pretty simply concept.

​

 

[geauxtohell]

I did not call you a liar as much as a fool.

You are really making this too easy. Do you think I don't have the ability to scroll back and point our your own words?

So that matters now?

Not to you while you try to character assassinate and lie your way out of trouble.

You should have just stuck to your guns.

You on one hand accuse others of being liars and then claim anyone doing the same to you is dishonest. You character assassinate then whine when others do it to your side. You find problems with investigations by parties involved in the matter EXCEPT when they find in your favor.

Your ignorance is appalling. So lets take your word your not a liar, that just leaves MORON.

I repeat, you find no problem with an investigation of man made warming being conducted by a man with a personal and professional stake in the outcome, when that outcome SUPPORTS your views, BUT you do find problems if such an investigation were lead by someone with the same problems that did not support your views.

That leaves us with 2 options. You are an unmitigated liar, or you are just to plain stupid to see how untenable your ignorant position is.

YOU pick.

As I said, I don't deal with dishonest people. There are plenty of other people on this thread who can discuss this in an honest manner.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So quick to call another man a liar. So slow to back it up.

That speaks to your integrity. Not mine.

I'd rather not waste anymore bandwidth on this thread with a dishonest dealer.

Because you can not refute the simple fact that the investigation was run by a man with a Stake in its findings. An unelected Politician with ties to Carbon selling. He OWNS companies that DEPEND on man made global warming being the accepted view of things. BUT you would pretend otherwise.

Talk about a coward and a dishonest broker, you are both.

.....As-opposed-to those chickenshits who fail to decide whether-or-not they'd have supported Prohibition against alcohol, right?

​

Hey retard? The Constitution decided that issue. An Amendment was passed making it legal to sell, possess and imbibe alcohol. The people spoke and they did so in such a manner that unless YOU can get a new amendment passed it is a mute point.

By the way RETARD, I don't drink. I think anyone that does is wasting their time. I personally would not care if alcohol was banned, along with cigarettes.

Guess what though MORON? I don't get to make those decisions, nor do you.

 

[geauxtohell]

Colleges and universities. I suppose some weak-minded fools learned it by reading leftist websites.

You should have just said "at that one place".

Like I said, this is starting to sound more and more like an urban legend.

What makes you think your acceptance is required to validate the idea? Isn't that proof of your own liberal intellectual elitism?

I didn't say that. Rather I am pointing out that an urban legend is an anecdote that the teller heard from "someone else" but didn't experience themselves.

That's what this sounds like.

I don't doubt that there are bad and kooky professors out there. Churchill was both. What I doubt is that they are representative of the whole. I doubt your associates would claim that either.

So it's the whole "one bad apple" thing.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I did not call you a liar as much as a fool.

You are really making this too easy. Do you think I don't have the ability to scroll back and point our your own words?

Not to you while you try to character assassinate and lie your way out of trouble.

You should have just stuck to your guns.

You on one hand accuse others of being liars and then claim anyone doing the same to you is dishonest. You character assassinate then whine when others do it to your side. You find problems with investigations by parties involved in the matter EXCEPT when they find in your favor.

Your ignorance is appalling. So lets take your word your not a liar, that just leaves MORON.

I repeat, you find no problem with an investigation of man made warming being conducted by a man with a personal and professional stake in the outcome, when that outcome SUPPORTS your views, BUT you do find problems if such an investigation were lead by someone with the same problems that did not support your views.

That leaves us with 2 options. You are an unmitigated liar, or you are just to plain stupid to see how untenable your ignorant position is.

YOU pick.

As I said, I don't deal with dishonest people. There are plenty of other people on this thread who can discuss this in an honest manner.

You are the dishonest one. You claim that an obviously biased investigation run by a man with an agenda to find a certain way is truthful and honest and above reproach.

YOU attack authors that disagree with you and name call them, implying they are on the payroll of big oil, with no evidence to support your claim. You claim it is acceptable for a biased to have an unbiased finding, BUT only when that finding is one YOU support.

I repeat, which is it? Are you a bald faced liar? Or just to damn stupid to know just how IGNORANT your claims are?

 

[geauxtohell]

You are the dishonest one. You claim that an obviously biased investigation run by a man with an agenda to find a certain way is truthful and honest and above reproach.

YOU attack authors that disagree with you and name call them, implying they are on the payroll of big oil, with no evidence to support your claim. You claim it is acceptable for a biased to have an unbiased finding, BUT only when that finding is one YOU support.

I repeat, which is it? Are you a bald faced liar? Or just to damn stupid to know just how IGNORANT your claims are?

So you did call me a liar? Your web of bullshit is getting too tangled to follow.

Again, this is why I don't deal with dishonest people.

 

[daveman]

You should have just said "at that one place".

Like I said, this is starting to sound more and more like an urban legend.

What makes you think your acceptance is required to validate the idea? Isn't that proof of your own liberal intellectual elitism?

I didn't say that. Rather I am pointing out that an urban legend is an anecdote that the teller heard from "someone else" but didn't experience themselves.

That's what this sounds like.

I don't doubt that there are bad and kooky professors out there. Churchill was both. What I doubt is that they are representative of the whole. I doubt your associates would claim that either.

So it's the whole "one bad apple" thing.

Ahhh. My claim is urban legend. Your claim:

I am now in graduate school and have yet to hear that once.

...is objective fact and covers all of academia.

 

[geauxtohell]

What makes you think your acceptance is required to validate the idea? Isn't that proof of your own liberal intellectual elitism?

I didn't say that. Rather I am pointing out that an urban legend is an anecdote that the teller heard from "someone else" but didn't experience themselves.

That's what this sounds like.

I don't doubt that there are bad and kooky professors out there. Churchill was both. What I doubt is that they are representative of the whole. I doubt your associates would claim that either.

So it's the whole "one bad apple" thing.

Ahhh. My claim is urban legend. Your claim:

I am now in graduate school and have yet to hear that once.

...is objective fact and covers all of academia.

It's a statement of fact, but it's also anecdotal.

The difference is that my account is first hand and yours is second hand.

I wouldn't say that my experience translates to the absolute truth for the entire population who has experienced academia.

However, as I said, the Ward Churchill's and Noam Chomsky's of the world are not representative of the whole or even the average.

 

[daveman]

It's a statement of fact, but it's also anecdotal.

The difference is that my account is first hand and yours is second hand.

I wouldn't say that my experience translates to the absolute truth for the entire population who has experienced academia.

However, as I said, the Ward Churchill's and Noam Chomsky's of the world are not representative of the whole or even the average.

Based on what?

 

[geauxtohell]

It's a statement of fact, but it's also anecdotal.

The difference is that my account is first hand and yours is second hand.

I wouldn't say that my experience translates to the absolute truth for the entire population who has experienced academia.

However, as I said, the Ward Churchill's and Noam Chomsky's of the world are not representative of the whole or even the average.

Based on what?

My experience and the relative lack of media coverage of event's like "Little Eichman's".

 

[daveman]

It's a statement of fact, but it's also anecdotal.

The difference is that my account is first hand and yours is second hand.

I wouldn't say that my experience translates to the absolute truth for the entire population who has experienced academia.

However, as I said, the Ward Churchill's and Noam Chomsky's of the world are not representative of the whole or even the average.

Based on what?

My experience and the relative lack of media coverage of event's like "Little Eichman's".

Your admittedly limited experience.

I wouldn't put too much stock in the media, either. Their leftward bias causes them to not report much of what makes liberals look bad.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What made Nazi ideology compelling was not its penetrating intellectualism or the cohesion of its system of ideas.

Rather it was the gripping effectivness with which popularised snippets of ideas and dogmas of salvation of a certain kind were combined with a political-emotional attachment.

What was decisive was not whether these ideas were suited to transmit insights or even comprehensive utopias based on rational arguments, but could be used for the deliberate simplification of political world-views and the creation of a political myth for the masses.

(Martin Broszat - 'Hitler and the Collapse of the Weimar Republic')

Snippets of ideas, dogmas of salvation, deliberate simplification, the creation of political myth...?

Sounds like rightwing talk radio, Glen Beck tv, and the Tea Party rolled into one.

 

[daveman]

What made Nazi ideology compelling was not its penetrating intellectualism or the cohesion of its system of ideas.

Rather it was the gripping effectivness with which popularised snippets of ideas and dogmas of salvation of a certain kind were combined with a political-emotional attachment.

What was decisive was not whether these ideas were suited to transmit insights or even comprehensive utopias based on rational arguments, but could be used for the deliberate simplification of political world-views and the creation of a political myth for the masses.

(Martin Broszat - 'Hitler and the Collapse of the Weimar Republic')

Snippets of ideas, dogmas of salvation, deliberate simplification, the creation of political myth...?

Sounds like rightwing talk radio, Glen Beck tv, and the Tea Party rolled into one.

 

[geauxtohell]

Based on what?

My experience and the relative lack of media coverage of event's like "Little Eichman's".

Your admittedly limited experience.

I wouldn't put too much stock in the media, either. Their leftward bias causes them to not report much of what makes liberals look bad.

Admittedly.

That being said, expanding the conspiracy to cover the "liberal media" doesn't help your argument either.

 

[blu]

One must remember the I part is and can be all in the head of the LIE. They THINK they are smarter, they think they are better.

How do you tell a LIE? When they utter comments like, I know best, we know best, the Government knows best. Or, we only want to help you by taking away your rights. We know how best to regulate your life and future. It is for your own good we have taken away this or that right.

sounds like republicans who are/were for the patriot act, fisa updates, and the drug war. are you a LIE RGS?

 

[blu]

Lets just remember who hates higher education, science and History?

You do. In fact your side routinely perverts all 3. Revisionist history, fake science and changing the method of teaching until no one learns a damn thing. Thanks Liberals.

republicans are pushing for intelligent design which has tens of provable flaws from a scientific perspective and their excuse is that real science hasn't yet "proven" how the world started and they would rather substitute bullshit until that time.

and only idiots talk about revisionist history of others and then try to push a form of history that shows that america can do and never has done wrong and that jesus was at the constitutional convention, much like republicans do today