Why libs hate generalizations...

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by rtwngAvngr, May 14, 2004.

  1. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511
    Generalizations can be accurate or innaccurate. Libs hate accurate generalizations of their positions, because they don't like to think about what they actually believe and how absurd it is. They also don't like such a clear identification of their beliefs made public; liberals spend half their time PRETENDING they love america.
    Let's look at Kerry. Now he says he'd stay the course in Iraq. SO how is his plan different from Bush's? Overtly it's not. The difference is this: We all know he's lying and that he'd sell america down the river the first chance he gets. Libs identify with someone who lies about supporting america. That's why kerry's their guy.
     
  2. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    I find the libs always finding some loophole to try to disprove a general statement and use some obscure exception the discredit
    the majority of the truth in the generalization.
     
  3. fuzzykitten99
    Offline

    fuzzykitten99 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,965
    Thanks Received:
    199
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    You'll have to check the Marauder's Map...
    Ratings:
    +199
    not according to this liberal from the village voice:

    http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0417/mondo1.php

    WASHINGTON, D.C.— With the air gushing out of John Kerry's balloon, it may be only a matter of time until political insiders in Washington face the dread reality that the junior senator from Massachusetts doesn't have what it takes to win and has got to go. As arrogant and out of it as the Democratic political establishment is, even these pols know the party's got to have someone to run against George Bush. They can't exactly expect the president to self-destruct into thin air.

    With growing issues over his wealth (which makes fellow plutocrat Bush seem a charity case by comparison), the miasma over his medals and ribbons (or ribbons and medals), his uninspiring record in the Senate (yes war, no war), and wishy-washy efforts to mimic Bill Clinton's triangulation gimmickry (the protractor factor), Kerry sinks day by day. The pros all know that the candidate who starts each morning by having to explain himself is a goner.

    What to do? Look for the Dem biggies, whoever they are these days, to sit down with the rich and arrogant presumptive nominee and try to persuade him to take a hike. Then they can return to business as usual—resurrecting John Edwards, who is still hanging around, or staging an open convention in Boston, or both.

    If things proceed as they are, the dim-bulb Dem leaders are going to be very sorry they screwed Howard Dean.

    ***i know i have posted this article before, but it makes a great point, which is not typical of the V.V.
     
  4. DKSuddeth
    Offline

    DKSuddeth Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    5,175
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Texas
    Ratings:
    +62
    I hate people who generalize about generalizations. :D
     
  5. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    Too late in the race to lose Kerry but considering how pathetic he is, it may happen. The big wigs and money people ( clintons) are already planning for Hillarys inauguration at some Hard Rock cafe.
    She could give a shit about '04----'08 is her baby and she has the war chest to do it---I don't see her sharing any of it with Kerry
     
  6. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    All generalizations are false! :D
     
  7. insein
    Offline

    insein Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    Messages:
    6,096
    Thanks Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Philadelphia, Amazing huh...
    Ratings:
    +356
    Thats quite a generalization.:D
     
  8. DKSuddeth
    Offline

    DKSuddeth Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    5,175
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Texas
    Ratings:
    +62
    is that a blanket statement? ;)
     
  9. no1tovote4
    Offline

    no1tovote4 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,294
    Thanks Received:
    616
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Colorado
    Ratings:
    +616
    From the Federal Dept of Redundancy and Repitition?
     
  10. nycflasher
    Offline

    nycflasher Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2004
    Messages:
    3,078
    Thanks Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    CT
    Ratings:
    +14
    consider the source, folks.

    The King of Generalizers=RWA.
     

Share This Page