Explaining Conservatives

[Truthmatters]

PC why didnt the right wing packed scotus save your party?

 

[1776]

Well dumbfuck, when you continue to vote for a nanny state....the shoes fits you.

Conservatives believe a person is responsible for themselves and their family.

Liberals believe the community is responsible for everyone thus they can tell you what to do and they can take what they want from you for the "collective."

Don't you see the error in thinking in such extremes? Its such simple minded reasoning. It keeps you from understanding political philosophy in depth.

 

[Agit8r]

I don't lie.

You have posted demonstrable falsehoods on numerous occasions, and have refused to accept correction. If you actually believe what you say in spite of the mountain of evidence that has been presented, then that is a matter of self-deception. I guess that is the genius behind the most hardcore liars.

Liberals don’t understand conservative values. And they can’t recognize this failing, because they’re so convinced of their rationality, open-mindedness and enlightenment."

I understand conservative values, because I grew up around them. They are entirely based on historical revisionism. (see signature)

 

[Darkwind]

Conservatives believe a person is responsible for themselves and their family.

Liberals believe the community is responsible for everyone thus they can tell you what to do and they can take what they want from you for the "collective."

Don't you see the error in thinking in such extremes? Its such simple minded reasoning. It keeps you from understanding political philosophy in depth.

You make no sense.

The first sentence is a reasonable, adult position to take in life.

The second is an accurate portrayal of the progressive belief structure....I would have said extremist, but progressive is extremist and by definition, redundant.

 

[Kosh]

This thread is proof that the far left only understand what their far left rich white masters tell them via their programming.

 

[rdean]

How do we judge the nature of strangers, or those we know only in passing?

Simply by assuming them to be most like the individual we know the best. That is the measuring stick we use to estimate.
Hence, the old saying 'we can only judge others by ourselves.'

What would we do in similar circumstances, how would we act, what would we say?
That's human nature.




1. I find this most explicative when one on the other side of the political divide calls the other a liar.
I don't lie. But I have found that those who do so regularly are the quickest to jump to this accusation.

Nor is it a surprise to find that those on the Left, the Liberal folks, are the fastest on the draw in this respect.





2. Another character difference between the two political persuasions is individualism. It is one of the cornerstones of conservatism, and the 'sotto voce' of America's founding documents. We want to make our own decisions.

The other side seems to feel that we lack the capability, and they should do this for us. That's why Liberal folks leap to ban things that they don't like, and use judicial decree to overturn voter's opinions.

And that goes right back to judging others by ourselves.
Liberals must feel that they need experts to 'advise' them what the right things to do are.
When Liberals hear the words ‘studies show,’ or ‘experts say,’ they cease to ‘question authority.’





3. And speaking of judging others by oneself, it seems to me a constant calumny by Liberals that Rush Limbaugh and Fox News tell right-wingers, and conservatives what to think....but I never hear conservatives claiming that those on the Left are 'programmed' by the ubiquitous variations on MSNBC or the NYTimes that echo throughout our secular society.
Why is that?

Kinda sounds like the Left is trying to prevent the reality from becoming broadcast....i.e., they are the ones who march lock-step, following orders.





4. Another difference is preparation, knowledge,...or perhaps that related to item #3.
Conservatives know more about what's going on....in fact, if Liberals knew as many of the ingredients in a story as conservatives do, they'd probably be conservatives. Instead, when they're told things they didn't know, they shout "liar!"

Examples? Sure....

a. "Stephanopoulos appeared on The Sean Hannity Show and New York radio station WOR's The Steve Malzberg Show, where both Hannity and Malzberg suggested to Stephanopoulos that he ask Obama about Ayers."
Right-wing radio hosts suggested "damn good" Ayers question to Stephanopoulos day before Dem debate | Research | Media Matters for America
He didn't know about Ayers!!

b. CBS's Bob Schieffer on Sunday said the reason he didn't ask Attorney General Eric Holder about the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case on last week's "Face the Nation" was because he didn't know about it.
Chatting with Howard Kurtz on CNN's "Reliable Sources," Schieffer said, "This all really became a story when the whistleblower came out and testified that he'd had to leave the Justice Department and so on. And, frankly, had I known about that, I would have asked the question."
His excuse?
"I was on vacation that week. This happened -- apparently, it got very little publicity. And, you know, I just didn't know about it" (video follows with transcript and commentary):
Bob Schieffer: What Black Panther Story? 'I Was on Vacation' - Fox Nation

c. Several Chicago readers and Twitterers report that ABC News anchor Charlie Gibson told WLS-AM Chicago talk show hosts Don Wade and Roma this morning that the reason he hasn’t covered the ACORN scandal is that he didn’t know about it.

“…Charlie Gibson on as their usual Tuesday morning guest. Don asked Charlie, why, after the senate last night voted to halt funding to ACORN and after three of those video tapes of ACORN employees helping the pimp and prostitute set up shop, there was no mention of it anywhere on the network news. Charlie gave out a most uncomfortable laugh and said that that was the first he heard of it!”
ABC’s Jake Tapper reported on the Census Bureau’s decision to drop ACORN from its data collection partnerships on Friday as a result of BigGovernment.com’s video stings.
Gibson also admitted to Don and Roma that he didn’t know about the Senate vote to de-fund ACORN.
Michelle Malkin | ACORN Watch: Charlie Gibson and the ostrich media; Update: Audio added «

Maybe the difference is just plain ol' laziness.





5. One more difference: insight- found more in the conservative camp than in the Liberal.
There was actually a study by Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist at the University of Virginia who, until 2009, considered himself a partisan liberal.

"In “The Righteous Mind,” Haidt seeks to enrich liberalism, and political discourse generally, with a deeper awareness of human nature.
The hardest part, Haidt finds, is getting liberals to open their minds. Anecdotally, he reports that when he talks about authority, loyalty and sanctity, many people in the audience spurn these ideas as the seeds of racism, sexism and homophobia. And in a survey of 2,000 Americans, Haidt found that self-described liberals, especially those who called themselves “very liberal,” were worse at predicting the moral judgments of moderates and conservatives than moderates and conservatives were at predicting the moral judgments of liberals.

Liberals don’t understand conservative values. And they can’t recognize this failing, because they’re so convinced of their rationality, open-mindedness and enlightenment."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/bo...anted=all&_r=0








Sadly, it is much easier in our milieu to be a Liberal than a conservative, and perhaps because there are so many more of 'em, it even takes an extra dollop of courage to be a conservative...

And....in judging others by ourselves....
.... we end up being governed by ineptitude personified.

Hey DAB, how many times do you use the word "liberal" when writing a thread titled, "Explaining Conservatives"?

 

[Vox]

Conservatives believe a person is responsible for themselves and their family.

Liberals believe the community is responsible for everyone thus they can tell you what to do and they can take what they want from you for the "collective."

that is the basic and most important difference.

collectivist irresponsible scum of the left vs individualistic personal responsibility of the right

 

[Vox]

This thread is proof that the far left only understand what their far left rich white masters tell them via their programming.

yep. they don't think for themselves, the moment one starts to thinks the moment he/she can not be connected to the left anymore

 

[Kosh]

How do we judge the nature of strangers, or those we know only in passing?

Simply by assuming them to be most like the individual we know the best. That is the measuring stick we use to estimate.
Hence, the old saying 'we can only judge others by ourselves.'

What would we do in similar circumstances, how would we act, what would we say?
That's human nature.




1. I find this most explicative when one on the other side of the political divide calls the other a liar.
I don't lie. But I have found that those who do so regularly are the quickest to jump to this accusation.

Nor is it a surprise to find that those on the Left, the Liberal folks, are the fastest on the draw in this respect.





2. Another character difference between the two political persuasions is individualism. It is one of the cornerstones of conservatism, and the 'sotto voce' of America's founding documents. We want to make our own decisions.

The other side seems to feel that we lack the capability, and they should do this for us. That's why Liberal folks leap to ban things that they don't like, and use judicial decree to overturn voter's opinions.

And that goes right back to judging others by ourselves.
Liberals must feel that they need experts to 'advise' them what the right things to do are.
When Liberals hear the words ‘studies show,’ or ‘experts say,’ they cease to ‘question authority.’





3. And speaking of judging others by oneself, it seems to me a constant calumny by Liberals that Rush Limbaugh and Fox News tell right-wingers, and conservatives what to think....but I never hear conservatives claiming that those on the Left are 'programmed' by the ubiquitous variations on MSNBC or the NYTimes that echo throughout our secular society.
Why is that?

Kinda sounds like the Left is trying to prevent the reality from becoming broadcast....i.e., they are the ones who march lock-step, following orders.





4. Another difference is preparation, knowledge,...or perhaps that related to item #3.
Conservatives know more about what's going on....in fact, if Liberals knew as many of the ingredients in a story as conservatives do, they'd probably be conservatives. Instead, when they're told things they didn't know, they shout "liar!"

Examples? Sure....

a. "Stephanopoulos appeared on The Sean Hannity Show and New York radio station WOR's The Steve Malzberg Show, where both Hannity and Malzberg suggested to Stephanopoulos that he ask Obama about Ayers."
Right-wing radio hosts suggested "damn good" Ayers question to Stephanopoulos day before Dem debate | Research | Media Matters for America
He didn't know about Ayers!!

b. CBS's Bob Schieffer on Sunday said the reason he didn't ask Attorney General Eric Holder about the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case on last week's "Face the Nation" was because he didn't know about it.
Chatting with Howard Kurtz on CNN's "Reliable Sources," Schieffer said, "This all really became a story when the whistleblower came out and testified that he'd had to leave the Justice Department and so on. And, frankly, had I known about that, I would have asked the question."
His excuse?
"I was on vacation that week. This happened -- apparently, it got very little publicity. And, you know, I just didn't know about it" (video follows with transcript and commentary):
Bob Schieffer: What Black Panther Story? 'I Was on Vacation' - Fox Nation

c. Several Chicago readers and Twitterers report that ABC News anchor Charlie Gibson told WLS-AM Chicago talk show hosts Don Wade and Roma this morning that the reason he hasn’t covered the ACORN scandal is that he didn’t know about it.

“…Charlie Gibson on as their usual Tuesday morning guest. Don asked Charlie, why, after the senate last night voted to halt funding to ACORN and after three of those video tapes of ACORN employees helping the pimp and prostitute set up shop, there was no mention of it anywhere on the network news. Charlie gave out a most uncomfortable laugh and said that that was the first he heard of it!”
ABC’s Jake Tapper reported on the Census Bureau’s decision to drop ACORN from its data collection partnerships on Friday as a result of BigGovernment.com’s video stings.
Gibson also admitted to Don and Roma that he didn’t know about the Senate vote to de-fund ACORN.
Michelle Malkin | ACORN Watch: Charlie Gibson and the ostrich media; Update: Audio added «

Maybe the difference is just plain ol' laziness.





5. One more difference: insight- found more in the conservative camp than in the Liberal.
There was actually a study by Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist at the University of Virginia who, until 2009, considered himself a partisan liberal.

"In “The Righteous Mind,” Haidt seeks to enrich liberalism, and political discourse generally, with a deeper awareness of human nature.
The hardest part, Haidt finds, is getting liberals to open their minds. Anecdotally, he reports that when he talks about authority, loyalty and sanctity, many people in the audience spurn these ideas as the seeds of racism, sexism and homophobia. And in a survey of 2,000 Americans, Haidt found that self-described liberals, especially those who called themselves “very liberal,” were worse at predicting the moral judgments of moderates and conservatives than moderates and conservatives were at predicting the moral judgments of liberals.

Liberals don’t understand conservative values. And they can’t recognize this failing, because they’re so convinced of their rationality, open-mindedness and enlightenment."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/bo...anted=all&_r=0








Sadly, it is much easier in our milieu to be a Liberal than a conservative, and perhaps because there are so many more of 'em, it even takes an extra dollop of courage to be a conservative...

And....in judging others by ourselves....
.... we end up being governed by ineptitude personified.

Hey DAB, how many times do you use the word "liberal" when writing a thread titled, "Explaining Conservatives"?

Says the far left Obama drone that has no clue of anything beyond it's programming.

 

[regent]

Conservatives talked of self-reliance, taking care of their own, the evil government and all that manly talk and then the Great Depression hit and there they were standing in the breadlines waiting for their soup. Many left their families, called a poor man's divorce, and many lined up waiting for a WPA government job, but not to worry, new economic times keep producing more conservatives all with the same brave talk. And so it goes.

 

[Agit8r]

Conservatives talked of self-reliance, taking care of their own, the evil government and all that manly talk and then the Great Depression hit and there they were standing in the breadlines waiting for their soup. Many left their families, called a poor man's divorce, and many lined up waiting for a WPA government job, but not to worry, new economic times keep producing more conservatives all with the same brave talk. And so it goes.

Yeah, Coolidge's policies led to "a chicken in every pot" until his house of cards collapsed 7 months after he left office. Same thing happened after Reagan, except in those days the federal government accounted for a higher percentage of the jobs than in 1929 or 2008, so there was more overall stability.

 

[PoliticalChic]

How do we judge the nature of strangers, or those we know only in passing?

Simply by assuming them to be most like the individual we know the best. That is the measuring stick we use to estimate.
Hence, the old saying 'we can only judge others by ourselves.'

What would we do in similar circumstances, how would we act, what would we say?
That's human nature.

.............

Liberals don’t understand conservative values. And they can’t recognize this failing, because they’re so convinced of their rationality, open-mindedness and enlightenment."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/bo...anted=all&_r=0

.................

Sadly, it is much easier in our milieu to be a Liberal than a conservative, and perhaps because there are so many more of 'em, it even takes an extra dollop of courage to be a conservative...

And....in judging others by ourselves....
.... we end up being governed by ineptitude personified.

What a pile of pixelated puffery. And your last link to the NYT is, just like you, LOST:

Page Not Found
We’re sorry, we seem to have lost this page, but we don’t want to lose you.

Being as dumb as you are, I won't waste a moment providing you with the link you sorely need.....

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/the-righteous-mind-by-jonathan-haidt.html?_r=0


I strongly suggest pen, paper, and dictionary.



Seems your post actually verified the article.

 

[Bfgrn]

Why I am Not a Conservative by F. A. Hayek

In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles, his main hope must be that the wise and the good will rule - not merely by example, as we all must wish, but by authority given to them and enforced by them.

When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike.

To live and work successfully with others requires more than faithfulness to one's concrete aims. It requires an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends.

It is for this reason that to the liberal neither moral nor religious ideals are proper objects of coercion, while both conservatives and socialists recognize no such limits.

In the last resort, the conservative position rests on the belief that in any society there are recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others. The liberal, of course, does not deny that there are some superior people - he is not an egalitarian - but he denies that anyone has authority to decide who these superior people are. While the conservative inclines to defend a particular established hierarchy and wishes authority to protect the status of those whom he values, the liberal feels that no respect for established values can justify the resort to privilege or monopoly or any other coercive power of the state in order to shelter such people against the forces of economic change. Though he is fully aware of the important role that cultural and intellectual elites have played in the evolution of civilization, he also believes that these elites have to prove themselves by their capacity to maintain their position under the same rules that apply to all others.

Closely connected with this is the usual attitude of the conservative to democracy. I have made it clear earlier that I do not regard majority rule as an end but merely as a means, or perhaps even as the least evil of those forms of government from which we have to choose. But I believe that the conservatives deceive themselves when they blame the evils of our time on democracy. The chief evil is unlimited government, and nobody is qualified to wield unlimited power. The powers which modern democracy possesses would be even more intolerable in the hands of some small elite.

 

[rdean]

How do we judge the nature of strangers, or those we know only in passing?

Simply by assuming them to be most like the individual we know the best. That is the measuring stick we use to estimate.
Hence, the old saying 'we can only judge others by ourselves.'

What would we do in similar circumstances, how would we act, what would we say?
That's human nature.




1. I find this most explicative when one on the other side of the political divide calls the other a liar.
I don't lie. But I have found that those who do so regularly are the quickest to jump to this accusation.

Nor is it a surprise to find that those on the Left, the Liberal folks, are the fastest on the draw in this respect.





2. Another character difference between the two political persuasions is individualism. It is one of the cornerstones of conservatism, and the 'sotto voce' of America's founding documents. We want to make our own decisions.

The other side seems to feel that we lack the capability, and they should do this for us. That's why Liberal folks leap to ban things that they don't like, and use judicial decree to overturn voter's opinions.

And that goes right back to judging others by ourselves.
Liberals must feel that they need experts to 'advise' them what the right things to do are.
When Liberals hear the words ‘studies show,’ or ‘experts say,’ they cease to ‘question authority.’





3. And speaking of judging others by oneself, it seems to me a constant calumny by Liberals that Rush Limbaugh and Fox News tell right-wingers, and conservatives what to think....but I never hear conservatives claiming that those on the Left are 'programmed' by the ubiquitous variations on MSNBC or the NYTimes that echo throughout our secular society.
Why is that?

Kinda sounds like the Left is trying to prevent the reality from becoming broadcast....i.e., they are the ones who march lock-step, following orders.





4. Another difference is preparation, knowledge,...or perhaps that related to item #3.
Conservatives know more about what's going on....in fact, if Liberals knew as many of the ingredients in a story as conservatives do, they'd probably be conservatives. Instead, when they're told things they didn't know, they shout "liar!"

Examples? Sure....

a. "Stephanopoulos appeared on The Sean Hannity Show and New York radio station WOR's The Steve Malzberg Show, where both Hannity and Malzberg suggested to Stephanopoulos that he ask Obama about Ayers."
Right-wing radio hosts suggested "damn good" Ayers question to Stephanopoulos day before Dem debate | Research | Media Matters for America
He didn't know about Ayers!!

b. CBS's Bob Schieffer on Sunday said the reason he didn't ask Attorney General Eric Holder about the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case on last week's "Face the Nation" was because he didn't know about it.
Chatting with Howard Kurtz on CNN's "Reliable Sources," Schieffer said, "This all really became a story when the whistleblower came out and testified that he'd had to leave the Justice Department and so on. And, frankly, had I known about that, I would have asked the question."
His excuse?
"I was on vacation that week. This happened -- apparently, it got very little publicity. And, you know, I just didn't know about it" (video follows with transcript and commentary):
Bob Schieffer: What Black Panther Story? 'I Was on Vacation' - Fox Nation

c. Several Chicago readers and Twitterers report that ABC News anchor Charlie Gibson told WLS-AM Chicago talk show hosts Don Wade and Roma this morning that the reason he hasn’t covered the ACORN scandal is that he didn’t know about it.

“…Charlie Gibson on as their usual Tuesday morning guest. Don asked Charlie, why, after the senate last night voted to halt funding to ACORN and after three of those video tapes of ACORN employees helping the pimp and prostitute set up shop, there was no mention of it anywhere on the network news. Charlie gave out a most uncomfortable laugh and said that that was the first he heard of it!”
ABC’s Jake Tapper reported on the Census Bureau’s decision to drop ACORN from its data collection partnerships on Friday as a result of BigGovernment.com’s video stings.
Gibson also admitted to Don and Roma that he didn’t know about the Senate vote to de-fund ACORN.
Michelle Malkin | ACORN Watch: Charlie Gibson and the ostrich media; Update: Audio added «

Maybe the difference is just plain ol' laziness.





5. One more difference: insight- found more in the conservative camp than in the Liberal.
There was actually a study by Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist at the University of Virginia who, until 2009, considered himself a partisan liberal.

"In “The Righteous Mind,” Haidt seeks to enrich liberalism, and political discourse generally, with a deeper awareness of human nature.
The hardest part, Haidt finds, is getting liberals to open their minds. Anecdotally, he reports that when he talks about authority, loyalty and sanctity, many people in the audience spurn these ideas as the seeds of racism, sexism and homophobia. And in a survey of 2,000 Americans, Haidt found that self-described liberals, especially those who called themselves “very liberal,” were worse at predicting the moral judgments of moderates and conservatives than moderates and conservatives were at predicting the moral judgments of liberals.

Liberals don’t understand conservative values. And they can’t recognize this failing, because they’re so convinced of their rationality, open-mindedness and enlightenment."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/bo...anted=all&_r=0








Sadly, it is much easier in our milieu to be a Liberal than a conservative, and perhaps because there are so many more of 'em, it even takes an extra dollop of courage to be a conservative...

And....in judging others by ourselves....
.... we end up being governed by ineptitude personified.

Hey DAB, how many times do you use the word "liberal" when writing a thread titled, "Explaining Conservatives"?

Says the far left Obama drone that has no clue of anything beyond it's programming.

I know the damage Republicans have inflicted on this country. Normal people call it "recent history".

 

[PoliticalChic]

Why I am Not a Conservative by F. A. Hayek

In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles, his main hope must be that the wise and the good will rule - not merely by example, as we all must wish, but by authority given to them and enforced by them.

When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike.

To live and work successfully with others requires more than faithfulness to one's concrete aims. It requires an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends.

It is for this reason that to the liberal neither moral nor religious ideals are proper objects of coercion, while both conservatives and socialists recognize no such limits.

In the last resort, the conservative position rests on the belief that in any society there are recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others. The liberal, of course, does not deny that there are some superior people - he is not an egalitarian - but he denies that anyone has authority to decide who these superior people are. While the conservative inclines to defend a particular established hierarchy and wishes authority to protect the status of those whom he values, the liberal feels that no respect for established values can justify the resort to privilege or monopoly or any other coercive power of the state in order to shelter such people against the forces of economic change. Though he is fully aware of the important role that cultural and intellectual elites have played in the evolution of civilization, he also believes that these elites have to prove themselves by their capacity to maintain their position under the same rules that apply to all others.

Closely connected with this is the usual attitude of the conservative to democracy. I have made it clear earlier that I do not regard majority rule as an end but merely as a means, or perhaps even as the least evil of those forms of government from which we have to choose. But I believe that the conservatives deceive themselves when they blame the evils of our time on democracy. The chief evil is unlimited government, and nobody is qualified to wield unlimited power. The powers which modern democracy possesses would be even more intolerable in the hands of some small elite.

1. "What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own..."

"President Obama to Republicans: I won. Deal with it."
President Obama to Republicans: I won. Deal with it.




2. "Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles,..."

"Rep. Goodlatte: Obama Rewriting Laws, Ignoring Constitution"
Rep. Goodlatte: Obama Rewriting Laws, Ignoring Constitution



3. "...to the liberal neither moral nor religious ideals are proper objects of coercion, while both conservatives and socialists recognize no such limits."

"Obama: 'If Congress Won't Act, I Will'"
Obama: 'If Congress Won't Act, I Will' | Video - ABC News



4. " the conservative position rests on the belief that in any society there are recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others."

"I think that I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters,” Mr. Obama told Patrick Gaspard, his political director, at the start of the 2008 campaign, according to The New Yorker. “I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I’ll tell you right now that I’m going to think I’m a better political director than my political director.”
So it should come as no surprise that apparently Barack Obama thinks he’s a better intelligence briefer than his intelligence briefers."
Obama: I?m a better intelligence briefer than my intelligence briefers | AEIdeas



Gee, BoringFriendlessGuy.....

...that sure was a stupid quote for you to choose.....

You made it seem like you believe Obama is a conservative, huh?

 

[P@triot]

332-206....Romney didnt even make a concession speech...so much for knowing anything.

And, this responds exactly how to the OP, Ms Truthmatters....?

Ooop! So sorry....I do get you two confused due to the similarity in presentations.

You have to realize PC - myself and others have so thoroughly defeated CC with facts, she simply has nothing left to stand on other than obnoxiously posting the same electoral college results over and over. If you really want to piss her off, point out that the president is not a dictator but rather a lowly servant with limited powers and then add the results of the elections in Congress (man does that cause her to lose her simple little fuck'n mind).

 

[PoliticalChic]

Hey DAB, how many times do you use the word "liberal" when writing a thread titled, "Explaining Conservatives"?

Says the far left Obama drone that has no clue of anything beyond it's programming.

I know the damage Republicans have inflicted on this country. Normal people call it "recent history".

Here's some recent damage inflicted on this country......

“...the real (inflation-adjusted) median annual household income in America has fallen by 4.4 percent during the "recovery," after having fallen by 1.8 during the recession."
Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the 'Recovery' as During the Recession | The Weekly Standard


Did you know Obama isn't a Republican?

True story.

 

[Pogo]

"Individualism" .... sitting in a cesspool of blanket statements.

Cue irony meter.

 

[Boss]

shes Asian and uses a blonde avi

What an utterly racist bigoted comment and it goes all but unnoticed.

 

[Pogo]

shes Asian and uses a blonde avi

What an utterly racist bigoted comment and it goes all but unnoticed.

It went unnoticed because it isn't racist or bigoted.

Duh?