Are conservatives smarter than liberals?

[Billo_Really]

something a third partier would say- yes it IS THAT SIMPLE and to deny it it shows how clueless you are.

It's "...THAT SIMPLE..."

So you're saying there is only two choices in life? Black or white? Yes or no? Right or wrong? Either/Or? There no other choices than those?

You're either a conservative, or a liberal?
If you're not wrong, you must be right?
You're either with us, or against us?​

You don't think you can be conservative on some issues and conservative on others? You don't think someone can be with you on some issues and against you on others? How about against you on one issue and with you on the same issue, under different circumstances?

Take the Iraq war, for example, I've been completely against it from day one, for the simple fact that we attacked country, that did not attack us first. But if we were attacked by Iraq (with a significant force and not some frontier incident), I would've completely supported us going over there and ******* up their shit!

I guess my point is this...

"Anyone who makes blanket statements, then acts like that is the truth in every case..."

Ooops, I almost made a blanket statement, in protest of blanket statements!

I'll revise my point...

Anyone who makes a blanket statement, don't beat yourself up, it's not the end of the world.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Is anyone who thinks in a 2 dimensional box intelligent?

Most people here try to boil everything down to liberal and conservative, republican or democrat, left or right.

it's simplistic, unenlightened, unsophisticated and naive to the point of mental retardation.

something a third partier would say- yes it IS THAT SIMPLE and to deny it it shows how clueless you are.

So is there some thesis which seeks to rationalize additional elements beyond 'right and wrong'? Because in truth, that is all we're really EVER discussing here.

No we are not discussing right and wrong.

Liberal vs conservative does not equal right vs wrong.

What we have are 2 factions both so stuck in their limited thinking that each thinks the other is always wrong and they are always right.

Yes, there are two factions. And there always have been.

And No... We ARE discussing right -v- wrong. Which if you look closely, you will see are two, distinct and diametrically opposed factions.

It's always the same crap.

"The Right to Take a Human Life in defense of one's RIGHT to engage in recreational sex."

That's dead ass wrong. There's nothing semi-right or wrong about it.

"Sexual Abnormality is Normal".

Wrong... totally false. Nothing even remotely 'correct' or 'true' about it.

"Anyone should just be able to come here from any country, for whatever reason, anytime they want."

False... wrong, untrue, not reasonable, unsustainable.

The Ideological Left is merely the means by which Evil is advanced: Politically. And that is why the Americans (Those who Recognize, Respect, Defend and Adhere to, the principles that define America) oppose the Left.

There is nothing complex about any of this stuff... .

 

[healthmyths]

something a third partier would say- yes it IS THAT SIMPLE and to deny it it shows how clueless you are.

It's "...THAT SIMPLE..."

So you're saying there is only two choices in life? Black or white? Yes or no? Right or wrong? Either/Or? There no other choices than those?

You're either a conservative, or a liberal?
If you're not wrong, you must be right?
You're either with us, or against us?​

You don't think you can be conservative on some issues and conservative on others? You don't think someone can be with you on some issues and against you on others? How about against you on one issue and with you on the same issue, under different circumstances?

Take the Iraq war, for example, I've been completely against it from day one, for the simple fact that we attacked country, that did not attack us first. But if we were attacked by Iraq (with a significant force and not some frontier incident), I would've completely supported us going over there and ******* up their shit!

I guess my point is this...

"Anyone who makes blanket statements, then acts like that is the truth in every case..."

Ooops, I almost made a blanket statement, in protest of blanket statements!

I'll revise my point...

Anyone who makes a blanket statement, don't beat yourself up, it's not the end of the world.

You said " [Iraq] fact that we attacked country, that did not attack us first."

So I take it you are against ALL TREATIES? You are against NATO for example?

And that is your single solitary argument for being against the Liberation of Iraq that saved 1.2 million kids from starvation?
That increased Iraqis GDP today by 1,000%?
You were for the continued murderer of 50,000 kurds, who destroyed Mesopotamia displacing 500,000 people his sons using drills on tongues..
Ahmad was Uday's chief executioner. Last week, as Iraqis celebrated the death of his former boss and his equally savage younger brother Qusay, he nervously revealed a hideous story. His instructions that day in 1999 were to arrest the two 19-year-olds on the campus of Baghdad's Academy of Fine Arts and deliver them at Radwaniyah. On arrival at the sprawling compound, he was directed to a farm where he found a large cage. Inside, two lions waited. They belonged to Uday. Guards took the two young men from the car and opened the cage door. One of the victims collapsed in terror as they were dragged, screaming and shouting, to meet their fate. Ahmad watched as the students frantically looked for a way of escape. There was none. The lions pounced. 'I saw the head of the first student literally come off his body with the first bite and then had to stand and watch the animals devour the two young men. By the time they were finished there was little left but for the bones and bits and pieces of unwanted flesh,' he recalled last week."
-- Sunday Times, London, July 27, 2003

"Ali would then draw out a pair of pliers and a sharp knife. Gripping the tongue with pliers, he would slice it up with the knife, tossing severed pieces into the street. "'Those punished were too terrified to move, even though they knew I was about to chop off their tongue,' said Ali in his matter-of-fact voice. 'They would just stand there, often praying and calling out for Saddam and Allah to spare them. By then it was too late.

"'I would read them out the verdict and cut off their tongue without any form of anaesthetic. There was always a lot of blood. Some offenders passed out. Others screamed in pain. They would then be given basic medical assistance in an ambulance which would always come with us on such punishment runs. Then they would be thrown in jail.'"

-- Fedayeen Saddam member interviewed in The Sunday Times (London), April 20, 2003

You are very disappointed that Saddam is still not in power I take it?
You were part of the 10% of americans after 9/11 AND AFTER the ANTHRAX attacks that KNEW absolutely without hesitation Saddam was not involved!
YOU knew this right?
Sounds like you definitely had some inside knowledge...hmmm...

 

[Wry Catcher]

Is anyone who thinks in a 2 dimensional box intelligent?

Most people here try to boil everything down to liberal and conservative, republican or democrat, left or right.

it's simplistic, unenlightened, unsophisticated and naive to the point of mental retardation.

something a third partier would say- yes it IS THAT SIMPLE and to deny it it shows how clueless you are.

No one thinks in a two-dimensional box; those stuck on an ideology apply every social, economic and troubling issue to the dogma which confines them to said box, and bingo they have a solution. Independent thinking, cause and effect, dependent and independent variables, unintended consequences never occur to them, and in this lies their strength.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

something a third partier would say- yes it IS THAT SIMPLE and to deny it it shows how clueless you are.

It's "...THAT SIMPLE..."

So you're saying there is only two choices in life? Black or white? Yes or no? Right or wrong? Either/Or? There no other choices than those?

You're either a conservative, or a liberal?
If you're not wrong, you must be right?
You're either with us, or against us?​

You don't think you can be conservative on some issues and conservative on others? You don't think someone can be with you on some issues and against you on others? How about against you on one issue and with you on the same issue, under different circumstances?

Take the Iraq war, for example, I've been completely against it from day one, for the simple fact that we attacked country, that did not attack us first. But if we were attacked by Iraq (with a significant force and not some frontier incident), I would've completely supported us going over there and ******* up their shit!

I guess my point is this...

"Anyone who makes blanket statements, then acts like that is the truth in every case..."

Ooops, I almost made a blanket statement, in protest of blanket statements!

I'll revise my point...

Anyone who makes a blanket statement, don't beat yourself up, it's not the end of the world.

But Iraq not only attacked us, it did so repeatedly, around the world, using the same proxy that attacked us on 9-11. Iraq also repeatedly attacked our Allies as well as our interests... for decades. The most egregious being its invasion of Kuwait.

Which resulted on our kicking the hell out of it, it signing a treaty which allowed its fascist government to remain in power; a treaty which it had chronically, consistently and continuously violated and in the post 9-11 paradigm, that chronic belligerence was incontrovertibly intolerable. So, after 18 months of intense diplomatic negotiations, when Iraq finally failed to meet the minimal requirements which were clearly set forth, in which it had A YEAR AND A HALF TO PREPARE... THEN and only then did the IS go to work to remove the socialists governing Iraq... .

So while we can disagree on many things, it is not possible for you to claim that you "Iraq didn't attack us". Your ignorance of the attacks by Iraq upon the US, her allies and interests around the world, does not suddenly strike Iraq as innocent.

In truth, the US had little choice but to remove that government from power.

 

[Billo_Really]

You said " [Iraq] fact that we attacked country, that did not attack us first."

So I take it you are against ALL TREATIES? You are against NATO for example?

Just because I listed one reason, doesn't mean that was the only reason I had. If we were operating under a UNSC resolution authorizing "all necessary means", I would've supported that. But we weren't and don't give me this shit about 1441. I've already destroyed your argument on that issue many, many times and have no desire to repeat myself.

WARNING:
Reader must roll up pant legs before continuing!
(You might get them dirty, from the heavy flow!)​

And that is your single solitary argument for being against the Liberation of Iraq that saved 1.2 million kids from starvation?
That increased Iraqis GDP today by 1,000%?
You were for the continued murderer of 50,000 kurds, who destroyed Mesopotamia displacing 500,000 people his sons using drills on tongues..
Ahmad was Uday's chief executioner. Last week, as Iraqis celebrated the death of his former boss and his equally savage younger brother Qusay, he nervously revealed a hideous story. His instructions that day in 1999 were to arrest the two 19-year-olds on the campus of Baghdad's Academy of Fine Arts and deliver them at Radwaniyah. On arrival at the sprawling compound, he was directed to a farm where he found a large cage. Inside, two lions waited. They belonged to Uday. Guards took the two young men from the car and opened the cage door. One of the victims collapsed in terror as they were dragged, screaming and shouting, to meet their fate. Ahmad watched as the students frantically looked for a way of escape. There was none. The lions pounced. 'I saw the head of the first student literally come off his body with the first bite and then had to stand and watch the animals devour the two young men. By the time they were finished there was little left but for the bones and bits and pieces of unwanted flesh,' he recalled last week."
-- Sunday Times, London, July 27, 2003

"Ali would then draw out a pair of pliers and a sharp knife. Gripping the tongue with pliers, he would slice it up with the knife, tossing severed pieces into the street. "'Those punished were too terrified to move, even though they knew I was about to chop off their tongue,' said Ali in his matter-of-fact voice. 'They would just stand there, often praying and calling out for Saddam and Allah to spare them. By then it was too late.

"'I would read them out the verdict and cut off their tongue without any form of anaesthetic. There was always a lot of blood. Some offenders passed out. Others screamed in pain. They would then be given basic medical assistance in an ambulance which would always come with us on such punishment runs. Then they would be thrown in jail.'"

-- Fedayeen Saddam member interviewed in The Sunday Times (London), April 20, 2003

You are very disappointed that Saddam is still not in power I take it?
You were part of the 10% of americans after 9/11 AND AFTER the ANTHRAX attacks that KNEW absolutely without hesitation Saddam was not involved!
YOU knew this right?
Sounds like you definitely had some inside knowledge...hmmm...

I don't give a shit about Iraqis and neither do you, so cut the crap!

 

[Billo_Really]

But Iraq not only attacked us, it did so repeatedly, around the world, using the same proxy that attacked us on 9-11. Iraq also repeatedly attacked our Allies as well as our interests... for decades. The most egregious being its invasion of Kuwait.

Which resulted on our kicking the hell out of it, it signing a treaty which allowed its fascist government to remain in power; a treaty which it had chronically, consistently and continuously violated and in the post 9-11 paradigm, that chronic belligerence was incontrovertibly intolerable. So, after 18 months of intense diplomatic negotiations, when Iraq finally failed to meet the minimal requirements which were clearly set forth, in which it had A YEAR AND A HALF TO PREPARE... THEN and only then did the IS go to work to remove the socialists governing Iraq... .

So while we can disagree on many things, it is not possible for you to claim that you "Iraq didn't attack us". Your ignorance of the attacks by Iraq upon the US, her allies and interests around the world, does not suddenly strike Iraq as innocent.

In truth, the US had little choice but to remove that government from power.

You're so full of shit!

No they did not attack us! And they told us they were going to attack Kuwait and we told them we don't get in to border disputes.

BTW, on the issue of fascist governments, the Sabah Family ain't exactly a democracy.

On the issue of "failing to meet minimal requirements", it was not Bush's call to make, it was Hans Blix. That was his job. And no report to the UNSC, said such a thing. But I will give you a $1000, if you can show me one UN resolution on Iraq, that contains the words "regime change".

If you think they attacked us, then give me 3.

 

[rdean]

People that argue they are smarter while supporting such nonsense like young earth and dissing science and education pretty much prove exactly how smart they are.

 

[Dot Com]

All I know is rw'ers on this board overwhelming don't source their assertions until they're up against the wall & even then it turns out to be WND or some other rw/lolibertarian source. Their ideology compels them to ignore facts.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

All I know is rw'ers on this board overwhelming don't source their assertions until they're up against the wall & even then it turns out to be WND or some other rw/lolibertarian source. Their ideology compels them to ignore facts.

Obamacare advisor thinks voters are stupid Opinion - CNN.com
Since the subject of his discussion was obamacare he was talking about those who support obamacare.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

People that argue they are smarter while supporting such nonsense like young earth and dissing science and education pretty much prove exactly how smart they are.

Gruber said you were stupid, but you don't seem to be bother about that.

 

[Dot Com]

Every day on this board we seem to have threads about 'how stupid are libs?', 'dimbocrats', 'typical liberal stupidity'....you know the drill.

The strange thing is, I don't see a lot of posts claiming the opposite. Some comments, sure, but I think most people will agree that there are far, far more posts labelling liberalism as being in some way stupid, a mental illness etc than there are posts about conservatism claiming the same superiority.

I don't get this at all - I see no link between political views and intelligence. I've met some brilliant socialists, a couple of brilliant fascists, and everything in between. I have met enough painfully stupid liberals and painfully stupid conservatives that I don't think either side are in too great a position to start claiming a monopoly on smarts.

Isn't claiming 'liberalism is a mental illness' the kind of Catch 22 comment that only an intellectual dwarf could assume?

Or is there a reason that some conservatives believe they are intellectually superior?

shit stains like Grampa Murked U have had infantile reactionary siggies for as long as I've been here. I asked that retard to remove it last year but he refused at the time. Its like me having a siggie which reads- "Republicans are terrorist" (which they are BTW) but I don't do it because Righties are easily flustered and many are downright idiots like Kosh, Shootspeeders, EdwardBiaimonte, etc... ALL Righties. He's also the Grampa Marked U is preeminent drama queen on this board.

 

[Faun]

People that argue they are smarter while supporting such nonsense like young earth and dissing science and education pretty much prove exactly how smart they are.

Gruber said you were stupid, but you don't seem to be bother about that.

Aren't you an American voter? Gruber called you stupid too, dumbass.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Gee, given your posts and the above faux definition, you must be a liberal.

is not the liberal agenda based on feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeling sorry for illegals, minorities, the poor, muslims, africans, chinese, and themselves? Is not the legal agenda based on a victim mentality?

Is it logical that this country is 17.5 trillion in debt? is deficit spending not a liberal concept?

and don't be confused there are liberals in both parties.

Actually, no. $17.5 trillion debt is a Conservative concept. Liberals subscribe to the tax and spend philosophy whereas Conservatives tend to be more of the borrow and spend type.

lol.....liberals believe in spend and tax and spend and spend and tax and spend.....

And yet, the years where we spent the most, occurred under a Republican House.

but that isn't true.....the Democrats had control of the House in 2009 and 2010......Obama's deficit spending in four years was greater than Bush's deficit spending in eight.....

Herein is a post which ignores the reasons why the Obama Administration needed to spend, and an example of one person - at least - who is wholly partisan and equally ignorant (or dishonest). When shit hits the fan, someone needs to clean it up. Obama came into office in shoulder deep shit, courtesy of Bush/Cheney. Remember, it was Chaney who said, "deficits don't matter" and paid for a war in Iraq, not with Iraqi petrol dollars, but on a credit card.

 

[Wry Catcher]

something a third partier would say- yes it IS THAT SIMPLE and to deny it it shows how clueless you are.

It's "...THAT SIMPLE..."

So you're saying there is only two choices in life? Black or white? Yes or no? Right or wrong? Either/Or? There no other choices than those?

You're either a conservative, or a liberal?
If you're not wrong, you must be right?
You're either with us, or against us?​

You don't think you can be conservative on some issues and conservative on others? You don't think someone can be with you on some issues and against you on others? How about against you on one issue and with you on the same issue, under different circumstances?

Take the Iraq war, for example, I've been completely against it from day one, for the simple fact that we attacked country, that did not attack us first. But if we were attacked by Iraq (with a significant force and not some frontier incident), I would've completely supported us going over there and ******* up their shit!

I guess my point is this...

"Anyone who makes blanket statements, then acts like that is the truth in every case..."

Ooops, I almost made a blanket statement, in protest of blanket statements!

I'll revise my point...

Anyone who makes a blanket statement, don't beat yourself up, it's not the end of the world.

But Iraq not only attacked us, it did so repeatedly, around the world, using the same proxy that attacked us on 9-11. Iraq also repeatedly attacked our Allies as well as our interests... for decades. The most egregious being its invasion of Kuwait.

Which resulted on our kicking the hell out of it, it signing a treaty which allowed its fascist government to remain in power; a treaty which it had chronically, consistently and continuously violated and in the post 9-11 paradigm, that chronic belligerence was incontrovertibly intolerable. So, after 18 months of intense diplomatic negotiations, when Iraq finally failed to meet the minimal requirements which were clearly set forth, in which it had A YEAR AND A HALF TO PREPARE... THEN and only then did the IS go to work to remove the socialists governing Iraq... .

So while we can disagree on many things, it is not possible for you to claim that you "Iraq didn't attack us". Your ignorance of the attacks by Iraq upon the US, her allies and interests around the world, does not suddenly strike Iraq as innocent.

In truth, the US had little choice but to remove that government from power.

You didn't quote a source or provide evidence as a basis for your opinionated rant! Those of us who were adults and have observed US Foreign Policy since the mid 1960's can't be fooled by revisionist partisan hacks like you.

 

[kaz]

People that argue they are smarter while supporting such nonsense like young earth and dissing science and education pretty much prove exactly how smart they are.

Gruber said you were stupid, but you don't seem to be bother about that.

Aren't you an American voter? Gruber called you stupid too, dumbass.

Every day on this board we seem to have threads about 'how stupid are libs?', 'dimbocrats', 'typical liberal stupidity'....you know the drill.

The strange thing is, I don't see a lot of posts claiming the opposite. Some comments, sure, but I think most people will agree that there are far, far more posts labelling liberalism as being in some way stupid, a mental illness etc than there are posts about conservatism claiming the same superiority.

I don't get this at all - I see no link between political views and intelligence. I've met some brilliant socialists, a couple of brilliant fascists, and everything in between. I have met enough painfully stupid liberals and painfully stupid conservatives that I don't think either side are in too great a position to start claiming a monopoly on smarts.

Isn't claiming 'liberalism is a mental illness' the kind of Catch 22 comment that only an intellectual dwarf could assume?

Or is there a reason that some conservatives believe they are intellectually superior?

shit stains like Grampa Murked U have had infantile reactionary siggies for as long as I've been here. I asked that retard to remove it last year but he refused at the time. Its like me having a siggie which reads- "Republicans are terrorist" (which they are BTW) but I don't do it because Righties are easily flustered and many are downright idiots like Kosh, Shootspeeders, EdwardBiaimonte, etc... ALL Righties. He's also the Grampa Marked U is preeminent drama queen on this board.

It always cracks me up when liberals claim how reasonable you are, you aren't nuts like the Republicans, and you say things like this while you do it.

 

[Wry Catcher]

People that argue they are smarter while supporting such nonsense like young earth and dissing science and education pretty much prove exactly how smart they are.

Gruber said you were stupid, but you don't seem to be bother about that.

Aren't you an American voter? Gruber called you stupid too, dumbass.

Every day on this board we seem to have threads about 'how stupid are libs?', 'dimbocrats', 'typical liberal stupidity'....you know the drill.

The strange thing is, I don't see a lot of posts claiming the opposite. Some comments, sure, but I think most people will agree that there are far, far more posts labelling liberalism as being in some way stupid, a mental illness etc than there are posts about conservatism claiming the same superiority.

I don't get this at all - I see no link between political views and intelligence. I've met some brilliant socialists, a couple of brilliant fascists, and everything in between. I have met enough painfully stupid liberals and painfully stupid conservatives that I don't think either side are in too great a position to start claiming a monopoly on smarts.

Isn't claiming 'liberalism is a mental illness' the kind of Catch 22 comment that only an intellectual dwarf could assume?

Or is there a reason that some conservatives believe they are intellectually superior?

shit stains like Grampa Murked U have had infantile reactionary siggies for as long as I've been here. I asked that retard to remove it last year but he refused at the time. Its like me having a siggie which reads- "Republicans are terrorist" (which they are BTW) but I don't do it because Righties are easily flustered and many are downright idiots like Kosh, Shootspeeders, EdwardBiaimonte, etc... ALL Righties. He's also the Grampa Marked U is preeminent drama queen on this board.

It always cracks me up when liberals claim how reasonable you are, you aren't nuts like the Republicans, and you say things like this while you do it.

Most liberals do not need to claim that they are reasonable; most posts by the set you consider to be liberal are rational, fact based and sans emotionality. Can the same be said for those whose attacks on liberals are ubiquitous?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

something a third partier would say- yes it IS THAT SIMPLE and to deny it it shows how clueless you are.

It's "...THAT SIMPLE..."

So you're saying there is only two choices in life? Black or white? Yes or no? Right or wrong? Either/Or? There no other choices than those?

You're either a conservative, or a liberal?
If you're not wrong, you must be right?
You're either with us, or against us?​

You don't think you can be conservative on some issues and conservative on others? You don't think someone can be with you on some issues and against you on others? How about against you on one issue and with you on the same issue, under different circumstances?

Take the Iraq war, for example, I've been completely against it from day one, for the simple fact that we attacked country, that did not attack us first. But if we were attacked by Iraq (with a significant force and not some frontier incident), I would've completely supported us going over there and ******* up their shit!

I guess my point is this...

"Anyone who makes blanket statements, then acts like that is the truth in every case..."

Ooops, I almost made a blanket statement, in protest of blanket statements!

I'll revise my point...

Anyone who makes a blanket statement, don't beat yourself up, it's not the end of the world.

But Iraq not only attacked us, it did so repeatedly, around the world, using the same proxy that attacked us on 9-11. Iraq also repeatedly attacked our Allies as well as our interests... for decades. The most egregious being its invasion of Kuwait.

Which resulted on our kicking the hell out of it, it signing a treaty which allowed its fascist government to remain in power; a treaty which it had chronically, consistently and continuously violated and in the post 9-11 paradigm, that chronic belligerence was incontrovertibly intolerable. So, after 18 months of intense diplomatic negotiations, when Iraq finally failed to meet the minimal requirements which were clearly set forth, in which it had A YEAR AND A HALF TO PREPARE... THEN and only then did the IS go to work to remove the socialists governing Iraq... .

So while we can disagree on many things, it is not possible for you to claim that you "Iraq didn't attack us". Your ignorance of the attacks by Iraq upon the US, her allies and interests around the world, does not suddenly strike Iraq as innocent.

In truth, the US had little choice but to remove that government from power.

You didn't quote a source or provide evidence as a basis for your opinionated rant! Those of us who were adults and have observed US Foreign Policy since the mid 1960's can't be fooled by revisionist partisan hacks like you.

The evidence exists, and is readily available to anyone who needs to see it, from the same place I would get it and that I didn't provide it, IN NO WAY, undermines the truth intrinsic to my position.

If you'd like to state a specific contest, staking your own, personal credibility on my having stated a falsehood as truth, then do so and I will happily take you down, yet another peg.

But 'feel' carefully here scamp... as you're gettin' mighty short in the credibility department.

(Let the record reflect that she will NOT specify a contest, because she understands now, that to do so is to LOSE!)

 

[kaz]

People that argue they are smarter while supporting such nonsense like young earth and dissing science and education pretty much prove exactly how smart they are.

Gruber said you were stupid, but you don't seem to be bother about that.

Aren't you an American voter? Gruber called you stupid too, dumbass.

Every day on this board we seem to have threads about 'how stupid are libs?', 'dimbocrats', 'typical liberal stupidity'....you know the drill.

The strange thing is, I don't see a lot of posts claiming the opposite. Some comments, sure, but I think most people will agree that there are far, far more posts labelling liberalism as being in some way stupid, a mental illness etc than there are posts about conservatism claiming the same superiority.

I don't get this at all - I see no link between political views and intelligence. I've met some brilliant socialists, a couple of brilliant fascists, and everything in between. I have met enough painfully stupid liberals and painfully stupid conservatives that I don't think either side are in too great a position to start claiming a monopoly on smarts.

Isn't claiming 'liberalism is a mental illness' the kind of Catch 22 comment that only an intellectual dwarf could assume?

Or is there a reason that some conservatives believe they are intellectually superior?

shit stains like Grampa Murked U have had infantile reactionary siggies for as long as I've been here. I asked that retard to remove it last year but he refused at the time. Its like me having a siggie which reads- "Republicans are terrorist" (which they are BTW) but I don't do it because Righties are easily flustered and many are downright idiots like Kosh, Shootspeeders, EdwardBiaimonte, etc... ALL Righties. He's also the Grampa Marked U is preeminent drama queen on this board.

It always cracks me up when liberals claim how reasonable you are, you aren't nuts like the Republicans, and you say things like this while you do it.

Most liberals do not need to claim that they are reasonable; most posts by the set you consider to be liberal are rational, fact based and sans emotionality. Can the same be said for those whose attacks on liberals are ubiquitous?

Gotcha, the party that calls their opponents, racists, sexists, homophobes, xenophobes, haters of the elderly and lovers of the rich and corporations who want to destroy our environment your reasonableness stands on it's own. Even is this posts where you defend a guy calling Republicans "terrorists."

You really are sick.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Most liberals do not need to claim that they are reasonable; most posts by the set you consider to be liberal are rational, fact based and sans emotionality. Can the same be said for those whose attacks on liberals are ubiquitous?

Liberals can and do claim to be all manner of things which they are not... but I gotta say, I can NOT GET MY FILL OF: Liberals 'claiming' to be rational, fact based and unemotional?

As THAT IS HYSTERICAL! And in every SENSE of the word.