The Logic of ConservaRepub on Economy, UnEmployment & A Helping Hand from Govt.

[daveman]

Oh yah right! lol Who needs clean water, clean air, health, food, etc!?! As well, who needs protection from being fleeced, ripped off, etc. by those biz's who charge an inflated price for crap or worse like it was prior to reg's, OR what worker benefits from reg's for handling or breathing dangerous chem's, worker's safety, etc. Lets not forget those beloved banks and all their bs, skirting the reg's that have no teeth in them because they're above those law's they themselves weakened or just plain ignore.

We should have the highest tax rates for any biz that is privileged enough access to our markets which are #1 in the world. Got to pay to play!!

Charge them too much, and they won't play at all.

Moron.

Not if it's a monopoly like most are now-a-days.

Idiot!

Utterly clueless. You seem to be incapable of feeling the embarrassment you should be feeling.

 

[Fordsflylow]

Any reasoning being understands that you do not use totally entrenched sources to prove a point. Hence, my reference to moveon.
And, if you actually read the document, you would see that he actually did what you said he had not.

Obviously, he didn't. You do know that Obama's words do not alter reality, right?

I forgot you are a con, only capable of stating dogma. Maybe this will help.
Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice | Racism, Bias ...
www.livescience.com/18132-intelligence-social-conservatism-racism...

Yeah, relying on pseudoscience to provide confirmation bias to your bigotry proves only that you're a bigot unable to think for yourself.

But you just keep pretending you're an intelligent person. It's amusing when you prove otherwise.

Actually, I have talked to MANY cons. Gone to tea party events. Jesus, there is no intelligent life there. So, you do not believe the study. There are many more. I know you call it pseudoscience, but you see, you would. Because you WANT to believe it is. Because the stuff fox says, and the tea party leaders say, over and over and over, just as they did in hitler germany and the USSR in the 50's. Because they make you mad, just as you enjoy being. And you can pretend that you know everything, because they will give you all the answers. Yes, I do understand your type. Sad. And, of course, you will not change because being part of the con culture is what you are all about.
And, of course, relying on scientific methodology is BAD to cons, as you show. You would not even read the document. Just condemn it out of hand.
You see, to the rational in the world, believing in scientific methodology is GOOD. To cons, better to listen to fox, and NEVER question. So, I do not worry about looking prejudiced. I follow reason, where you follow fox. And hate.
And, if you actually read what I wrote, I did not claim to be intelligent. But certainly nothing that a dumb person says is going to bother me in the least.

You sir hit the nail on thee head regarding con's and their mindset entirely. I have come to the obvious conclusion that it is impossible to carry on a meaningful convo/debate with a hard-right-wingnut. Simply not possible! They do not want to listen to anything that sways from the brainwashed bs they have been fed and swallowed. They do not want compromise. No different than a bully at the playground when it is all boiled down. I, unlike them, see some points or aspects of conservatism that I agree with in whole or in part. They, on the other hand view the "word" LIBERAL itself as bad as death itself, and that's before even opening thy mouth. Therefore, we moderates or lib's don't even get halfway to first base. They refuse to even see that they are in fact the ones who have been marinated/brainwashed by fixed news, lush limbaugh, etc.

Best one can do is TRY and talk or write sense to them, never to back down or turn away. Hoping that the other perspective we provide somehow gets through that thick head. One particular con wingnut I talk with has continually voted strictly con his entire life. Even when doing so went against he and his families interest, financial or socially, and somehow still insists he did the right thing. Anyhow, all is fine as long he is the one doing the talking. The minute I start talking about something he disagrees with, he will literally turn away in the middle of my talking walking away and practically start humming so he doesn't even hear it.

I really do not think neocon's have grown up or even matured and live to hate those who are in many ways like themselves (i.e. poor, middle class, etc.) just a different class of citizen. They also will ABSOLUTELY NEVER ADMIT TO BEING WRONG ABOUT ANYTHING - EVER and DO think they have learned all there is to know ever never to learn anymore ever no matter how menial let alone important. Me, I have admitted to and still admit to being wrong when I am wrong. It is after all human to err! That's my $.02 worth!

 

[Fordsflylow]

Obviously, he didn't. You do know that Obama's words do not alter reality, right?

Yeah, relying on pseudoscience to provide confirmation bias to your bigotry proves only that you're a bigot unable to think for yourself.

But you just keep pretending you're an intelligent person. It's amusing when you prove otherwise.

Actually, I have talked to MANY cons. Gone to tea party events. Jesus, there is no intelligent life there. So, you do not believe the study. There are many more. I know you call it pseudoscience, but you see, you would. Because you WANT to believe it is. Because the stuff fox says, and the tea party leaders say, over and over and over, just as they did in hitler germany and the USSR in the 50's. Because they make you mad, just as you enjoy being. And you can pretend that you know everything, because they will give you all the answers. Yes, I do understand your type. Sad. And, of course, you will not change because being part of the con culture is what you are all about.
And, of course, relying on scientific methodology is BAD to cons, as you show. You would not even read the document. Just condemn it out of hand.
You see, to the rational in the world, believing in scientific methodology is GOOD. To cons, better to listen to fox, and NEVER question. So, I do not worry about looking prejudiced. I follow reason, where you follow fox. And hate.
And, if you actually read what I wrote, I did not claim to be intelligent. But certainly nothing that a dumb person says is going to bother me in the least.

Sheer projection.

...and walla, another case in point.

 

[Fordsflylow]

Actually, it is stupid to say a study has no scientific validity is stupid IF you can not say why it has no scientific validity. Of course, you would have to actually read the study first. By the way, this is just one of several studies that come to the same conclusion.

The "studies" have been fully debunked the 152 other times some idiot with a bad case of confirmation bias posted it, there is no need for us to go through it all again just because you are new here.

Odd. How about a link to just one IMPARTIAL debunking. You seem to be long on claims but short on evidence.

As you will soon find that is a per as usual with this con-lover.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Actually, it is stupid to say a study has no scientific validity is stupid IF you can not say why it has no scientific validity. Of course, you would have to actually read the study first. By the way, this is just one of several studies that come to the same conclusion.

The "studies" have been fully debunked the 152 other times some idiot with a bad case of confirmation bias posted it, there is no need for us to go through it all again just because you are new here.

Odd. How about a link to just one IMPARTIAL debunking. You seem to be long on claims but short on evidence.

Try this.

US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum - Search Forums

 

[daveman]

One particular con wingnut I talk with has continually voted strictly con his entire life. Even when doing so went against he and his families interest, financial or socially, and somehow still insists he did the right thing.

He did do the right thing. Because you don't get to dictate what other people's best interests are.

I know you're going to have trouble comprehending that idea. People are perfectly capable of living their lives without leftists deciding what's best for them.

 

[daveman]

Actually, I have talked to MANY cons. Gone to tea party events. Jesus, there is no intelligent life there. So, you do not believe the study. There are many more. I know you call it pseudoscience, but you see, you would. Because you WANT to believe it is. Because the stuff fox says, and the tea party leaders say, over and over and over, just as they did in hitler germany and the USSR in the 50's. Because they make you mad, just as you enjoy being. And you can pretend that you know everything, because they will give you all the answers. Yes, I do understand your type. Sad. And, of course, you will not change because being part of the con culture is what you are all about.
And, of course, relying on scientific methodology is BAD to cons, as you show. You would not even read the document. Just condemn it out of hand.
You see, to the rational in the world, believing in scientific methodology is GOOD. To cons, better to listen to fox, and NEVER question. So, I do not worry about looking prejudiced. I follow reason, where you follow fox. And hate.
And, if you actually read what I wrote, I did not claim to be intelligent. But certainly nothing that a dumb person says is going to bother me in the least.

Sheer projection.

...and walla, another case in point.

Are you ever going to do anything to merit that level of arrogance? Because so far, all it looks like you've got is "being a liberal" -- and that's nothing to brag about, Slappy.

 

[daveman]

Actually, it is stupid to say a study has no scientific validity is stupid IF you can not say why it has no scientific validity. Of course, you would have to actually read the study first. By the way, this is just one of several studies that come to the same conclusion.

The "studies" have been fully debunked the 152 other times some idiot with a bad case of confirmation bias posted it, there is no need for us to go through it all again just because you are new here.

Odd. How about a link to just one IMPARTIAL debunking. You seem to be long on claims but short on evidence.

Right here.

Of course, you will disagree with it, because it disproves your ridiculous claim.

But, really, if you require bad science to feel better about yourself, you might want to get some counseling.

Here's an example of the author's utter destruction of this particular study:

You may be wondering how Kanazawa deduced that liberals are more generous than conservatives. In his own words,

“In the modern political and economic context, this willingness [to care for unrelated others] usually translates into paying higher proportions of individual incomes in taxes toward the government and social welfare programs.”​

This is a shining bit of irrationality. Anyone who voluntarily donates her hard-earned resources to others can truly be called altruistic. On the other hand, someone who supports a tax increase may or may not be the target of that increase. They may, in fact, be the beneficiaries. It hardly qualifies as altruism to support a tax increase on someone else, especially if that increase transfers resources into one’s own pocket. I am not pointing fingers; I am saying it has been known to happen.

This absurd definition has no direct effect on Kanazawa’s data collection, but it certainly undermines his hypothesis, and that is unfortunate.​

 

[Fordsflylow]

One particular con wingnut I talk with has continually voted strictly con his entire life. Even when doing so went against he and his families interest, financial or socially, and somehow still insists he did the right thing.

He did do the right thing. Because you don't get to dictate what other people's best interests are.

I know you're going to have trouble comprehending that idea. People are perfectly capable of living their lives without leftists deciding what's best for them.

...but you and con's in general do have the right? As for this election he (I'll call him con job for the sake of this post) has spelled out why he will not vote for obama. It's because of skin color, and he has provided no other legitimate proof for his choice. He has stated it several times to be clear. Quite simply a hateful man he is and thinks all things liberal or even moderately so are eeeevviiiilllll! Read/sound familiar? Should as many if not most of you here are thee same. Only difference is he will come right out and state why he hates obama. While many of you here may hint at his color/kind from time to time you never really come right out and state the true reason(s).

 

[Fordsflylow]

The "studies" have been fully debunked the 152 other times some idiot with a bad case of confirmation bias posted it, there is no need for us to go through it all again just because you are new here.

Odd. How about a link to just one IMPARTIAL debunking. You seem to be long on claims but short on evidence.

Right here.

Of course, you will disagree with it, because it disproves your ridiculous claim.

But, really, if you require bad science to feel better about yourself, you might want to get some counseling.

Here's an example of the author's utter destruction of this particular study:

You may be wondering how Kanazawa deduced that liberals are more generous than conservatives. In his own words,

“In the modern political and economic context, this willingness [to care for unrelated others] usually translates into paying higher proportions of individual incomes in taxes toward the government and social welfare programs.”​

This is a shining bit of irrationality. Anyone who voluntarily donates her hard-earned resources to others can truly be called altruistic. On the other hand, someone who supports a tax increase may or may not be the target of that increase. They may, in fact, be the beneficiaries. It hardly qualifies as altruism to support a tax increase on someone else, especially if that increase transfers resources into one’s own pocket. I am not pointing fingers; I am saying it has been known to happen.

This absurd definition has no direct effect on Kanazawa’s data collection, but it certainly undermines his hypothesis, and that is unfortunate.​

...and yet another example It is hilarious how you con boyz seemingly love throwing personal stabs, jabs, etc. when all it is doing is showing your true colors. I laugh at your bs!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Obviously, he didn't. You do know that Obama's words do not alter reality, right?

Yeah, relying on pseudoscience to provide confirmation bias to your bigotry proves only that you're a bigot unable to think for yourself.

But you just keep pretending you're an intelligent person. It's amusing when you prove otherwise.

Actually, I have talked to MANY cons. Gone to tea party events. Jesus, there is no intelligent life there. So, you do not believe the study. There are many more. I know you call it pseudoscience, but you see, you would. Because you WANT to believe it is. Because the stuff fox says, and the tea party leaders say, over and over and over, just as they did in hitler germany and the USSR in the 50's. Because they make you mad, just as you enjoy being. And you can pretend that you know everything, because they will give you all the answers. Yes, I do understand your type. Sad. And, of course, you will not change because being part of the con culture is what you are all about.
And, of course, relying on scientific methodology is BAD to cons, as you show. You would not even read the document. Just condemn it out of hand.
You see, to the rational in the world, believing in scientific methodology is GOOD. To cons, better to listen to fox, and NEVER question. So, I do not worry about looking prejudiced. I follow reason, where you follow fox. And hate.
And, if you actually read what I wrote, I did not claim to be intelligent. But certainly nothing that a dumb person says is going to bother me in the least.

You sir hit the nail on thee head regarding con's and their mindset entirely. I have come to the obvious conclusion that it is impossible to carry on a meaningful convo/debate with a hard-right-wingnut. Simply not possible! They do not want to listen to anything that sways from the brainwashed bs they have been fed and swallowed. They do not want compromise. No different than a bully at the playground when it is all boiled down. I, unlike them, see some points or aspects of conservatism that I agree with in whole or in part. They, on the other hand view the "word" LIBERAL itself as bad as death itself, and that's before even opening thy mouth. Therefore, we moderates or lib's don't even get halfway to first base. They refuse to even see that they are in fact the ones who have been marinated/brainwashed by fixed news, lush limbaugh, etc.

Best one can do is TRY and talk or write sense to them, never to back down or turn away. Hoping that the other perspective we provide somehow gets through that thick head. One particular con wingnut I talk with has continually voted strictly con his entire life. Even when doing so went against he and his families interest, financial or socially, and somehow still insists he did the right thing. Anyhow, all is fine as long he is the one doing the talking. The minute I start talking about something he disagrees with, he will literally turn away in the middle of my talking walking away and practically start humming so he doesn't even hear it.

I really do not think neocon's have grown up or even matured and live to hate those who are in many ways like themselves (i.e. poor, middle class, etc.) just a different class of citizen. They also will ABSOLUTELY NEVER ADMIT TO BEING WRONG ABOUT ANYTHING - EVER and DO think they have learned all there is to know ever never to learn anymore ever no matter how menial let alone important. Me, I have admitted to and still admit to being wrong when I am wrong. It is after all human to err! That's my $.02 worth!

Best one can do is TRY and talk or write sense to them

Keep trying, because there's no sense in your posts.

 

[Fordsflylow]

Sheer projection.

...and walla, another case in point.

Are you ever going to do anything to merit that level of arrogance? Because so far, all it looks like you've got is "being a liberal" -- and that's nothing to brag about, Slappy.

I see, as always happens, you con boyz either TRY and change the subject or TRY and take to a personal/low-road level, then claim you don't. In line with your supposed heroes, many of the con's in public service, who think the words they write, say in a forum like this or in an email, or even videotaped will ever be used as proof against them all the while denying what was said, written, recorded, etc. Times have changed so you really ought to watch what you write or say cause it will likely come back and bite you where it counts someday - maybe sooner than you think. lol

 

[Fordsflylow]

Actually, I have talked to MANY cons. Gone to tea party events. Jesus, there is no intelligent life there. So, you do not believe the study. There are many more. I know you call it pseudoscience, but you see, you would. Because you WANT to believe it is. Because the stuff fox says, and the tea party leaders say, over and over and over, just as they did in hitler germany and the USSR in the 50's. Because they make you mad, just as you enjoy being. And you can pretend that you know everything, because they will give you all the answers. Yes, I do understand your type. Sad. And, of course, you will not change because being part of the con culture is what you are all about.
And, of course, relying on scientific methodology is BAD to cons, as you show. You would not even read the document. Just condemn it out of hand.
You see, to the rational in the world, believing in scientific methodology is GOOD. To cons, better to listen to fox, and NEVER question. So, I do not worry about looking prejudiced. I follow reason, where you follow fox. And hate.
And, if you actually read what I wrote, I did not claim to be intelligent. But certainly nothing that a dumb person says is going to bother me in the least.

You sir hit the nail on thee head regarding con's and their mindset entirely. I have come to the obvious conclusion that it is impossible to carry on a meaningful convo/debate with a hard-right-wingnut. Simply not possible! They do not want to listen to anything that sways from the brainwashed bs they have been fed and swallowed. They do not want compromise. No different than a bully at the playground when it is all boiled down. I, unlike them, see some points or aspects of conservatism that I agree with in whole or in part. They, on the other hand view the "word" LIBERAL itself as bad as death itself, and that's before even opening thy mouth. Therefore, we moderates or lib's don't even get halfway to first base. They refuse to even see that they are in fact the ones who have been marinated/brainwashed by fixed news, lush limbaugh, etc.

Best one can do is TRY and talk or write sense to them, never to back down or turn away. Hoping that the other perspective we provide somehow gets through that thick head. One particular con wingnut I talk with has continually voted strictly con his entire life. Even when doing so went against he and his families interest, financial or socially, and somehow still insists he did the right thing. Anyhow, all is fine as long he is the one doing the talking. The minute I start talking about something he disagrees with, he will literally turn away in the middle of my talking walking away and practically start humming so he doesn't even hear it.

I really do not think neocon's have grown up or even matured and live to hate those who are in many ways like themselves (i.e. poor, middle class, etc.) just a different class of citizen. They also will ABSOLUTELY NEVER ADMIT TO BEING WRONG ABOUT ANYTHING - EVER and DO think they have learned all there is to know ever never to learn anymore ever no matter how menial let alone important. Me, I have admitted to and still admit to being wrong when I am wrong. It is after all human to err! That's my $.02 worth!

Best one can do is TRY and talk or write sense to them

Keep trying, because there's no sense in your posts.

Source considered!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You sir hit the nail on thee head regarding con's and their mindset entirely. I have come to the obvious conclusion that it is impossible to carry on a meaningful convo/debate with a hard-right-wingnut. Simply not possible! They do not want to listen to anything that sways from the brainwashed bs they have been fed and swallowed. They do not want compromise. No different than a bully at the playground when it is all boiled down. I, unlike them, see some points or aspects of conservatism that I agree with in whole or in part. They, on the other hand view the "word" LIBERAL itself as bad as death itself, and that's before even opening thy mouth. Therefore, we moderates or lib's don't even get halfway to first base. They refuse to even see that they are in fact the ones who have been marinated/brainwashed by fixed news, lush limbaugh, etc.

Best one can do is TRY and talk or write sense to them, never to back down or turn away. Hoping that the other perspective we provide somehow gets through that thick head. One particular con wingnut I talk with has continually voted strictly con his entire life. Even when doing so went against he and his families interest, financial or socially, and somehow still insists he did the right thing. Anyhow, all is fine as long he is the one doing the talking. The minute I start talking about something he disagrees with, he will literally turn away in the middle of my talking walking away and practically start humming so he doesn't even hear it.

I really do not think neocon's have grown up or even matured and live to hate those who are in many ways like themselves (i.e. poor, middle class, etc.) just a different class of citizen. They also will ABSOLUTELY NEVER ADMIT TO BEING WRONG ABOUT ANYTHING - EVER and DO think they have learned all there is to know ever never to learn anymore ever no matter how menial let alone important. Me, I have admitted to and still admit to being wrong when I am wrong. It is after all human to err! That's my $.02 worth!

Best one can do is TRY and talk or write sense to them

Keep trying, because there's no sense in your posts.

Source considered!

It's true, as a source you're very weak.

 

[Fordsflylow]

One particular con wingnut I talk with has continually voted strictly con his entire life. Even when doing so went against he and his families interest, financial or socially, and somehow still insists he did the right thing.

He did do the right thing. Because you don't get to dictate what other people's best interests are.

I know you're going to have trouble comprehending that idea. People are perfectly capable of living their lives without leftists deciding what's best for them.

Not everyone knows what's truly best for them and need to become informed looking from both sides not one medium (i.e. fixed news, etc.). Do you make decisions based on looking at something from one perspective? Do you understand what critical thinking is?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Obviously, he didn't. You do know that Obama's words do not alter reality, right?

Yeah, relying on pseudoscience to provide confirmation bias to your bigotry proves only that you're a bigot unable to think for yourself.

But you just keep pretending you're an intelligent person. It's amusing when you prove otherwise.

Actually, I have talked to MANY cons. Gone to tea party events. Jesus, there is no intelligent life there. So, you do not believe the study. There are many more. I know you call it pseudoscience, but you see, you would. Because you WANT to believe it is. Because the stuff fox says, and the tea party leaders say, over and over and over, just as they did in hitler germany and the USSR in the 50's. Because they make you mad, just as you enjoy being. And you can pretend that you know everything, because they will give you all the answers. Yes, I do understand your type. Sad. And, of course, you will not change because being part of the con culture is what you are all about.
And, of course, relying on scientific methodology is BAD to cons, as you show. You would not even read the document. Just condemn it out of hand.
You see, to the rational in the world, believing in scientific methodology is GOOD. To cons, better to listen to fox, and NEVER question. So, I do not worry about looking prejudiced. I follow reason, where you follow fox. And hate.
And, if you actually read what I wrote, I did not claim to be intelligent. But certainly nothing that a dumb person says is going to bother me in the least.

You sir hit the nail on thee head regarding con's and their mindset entirely. I have come to the obvious conclusion that it is impossible to carry on a meaningful convo/debate with a hard-right-wingnut. Simply not possible! They do not want to listen to anything that sways from the brainwashed bs they have been fed and swallowed. They do not want compromise. No different than a bully at the playground when it is all boiled down. I, unlike them, see some points or aspects of conservatism that I agree with in whole or in part. They, on the other hand view the "word" LIBERAL itself as bad as death itself, and that's before even opening thy mouth. Therefore, we moderates or lib's don't even get halfway to first base. They refuse to even see that they are in fact the ones who have been marinated/brainwashed by fixed news, lush limbaugh, etc.

Best one can do is TRY and talk or write sense to them, never to back down or turn away. Hoping that the other perspective we provide somehow gets through that thick head. One particular con wingnut I talk with has continually voted strictly con his entire life. Even when doing so went against he and his families interest, financial or socially, and somehow still insists he did the right thing. Anyhow, all is fine as long he is the one doing the talking. The minute I start talking about something he disagrees with, he will literally turn away in the middle of my talking walking away and practically start humming so he doesn't even hear it.

I really do not think neocon's have grown up or even matured and live to hate those who are in many ways like themselves (i.e. poor, middle class, etc.) just a different class of citizen. They also will ABSOLUTELY NEVER ADMIT TO BEING WRONG ABOUT ANYTHING - EVER and DO think they have learned all there is to know ever never to learn anymore ever no matter how menial let alone important. Me, I have admitted to and still admit to being wrong when I am wrong. It is after all human to err! That's my $.02 worth!

One particular con wingnut I talk with has continually voted strictly con his entire life. Even when doing so went against he and his families interest, financial or socially, and somehow still insists he did the right thing.

Which liberal would have been better for "his families interest, financial or socially"?
Show why the liberal would have been better. Show all your work.

 

[IndependntLogic]

So thirty posts and nothing about the actual topic. Let's try bringing back around and see if anyone wants to post about something other than...

People receiving unemployment shouldn't get it.
They should just go get a danm job!
The Obama influenced govt. has lied about unemployment!
It's actually much worse!
Thus proving we can blame Obama for the bad economy and high unemployment!
But it's not so high that anyone wanting a job, couldn't just go out and get one!
So people should not get unemployment.
The circle continues...

 

[daveman]

...and walla, another case in point.

Are you ever going to do anything to merit that level of arrogance? Because so far, all it looks like you've got is "being a liberal" -- and that's nothing to brag about, Slappy.

I see, as always happens, you con boyz either TRY and change the subject or TRY and take to a personal/low-road level, then claim you don't. In line with your supposed heroes, many of the con's in public service, who think the words they write, say in a forum like this or in an email, or even videotaped will ever be used as proof against them all the while denying what was said, written, recorded, etc. Times have changed so you really ought to watch what you write or say cause it will likely come back and bite you where it counts someday - maybe sooner than you think. lol

You've already reported me to ATTACK WATCH!!, haven't you, you little goose-stepping bastard?

Yeah, not really intimidated much at all, despite your astoundingly lame attempt to sound tough.

 

[daveman]

One particular con wingnut I talk with has continually voted strictly con his entire life. Even when doing so went against he and his families interest, financial or socially, and somehow still insists he did the right thing.

He did do the right thing. Because you don't get to dictate what other people's best interests are.

I know you're going to have trouble comprehending that idea. People are perfectly capable of living their lives without leftists deciding what's best for them.

Not everyone knows what's truly best for them and need to become informed looking from both sides not one medium (i.e. fixed news, etc.). Do you make decisions based on looking at something from one perspective? Do you understand what critical thinking is?

Yes. Here's an example.

Liberals say people vote against their best interests. When questioned about what those interests are, it turns out that voting to keep liberals in power is in everyone's best interests. Are these liberals:

1. Altruistic, or

2. Self-serving?

Let's see if you can think this through critically.

 

[Rshermr]

Actually, I have talked to MANY cons. Gone to tea party events. Jesus, there is no intelligent life there. So, you do not believe the study. There are many more. I know you call it pseudoscience, but you see, you would. Because you WANT to believe it is. Because the stuff fox says, and the tea party leaders say, over and over and over, just as they did in hitler germany and the USSR in the 50's. Because they make you mad, just as you enjoy being. And you can pretend that you know everything, because they will give you all the answers. Yes, I do understand your type. Sad. And, of course, you will not change because being part of the con culture is what you are all about.
And, of course, relying on scientific methodology is BAD to cons, as you show. You would not even read the document. Just condemn it out of hand.
You see, to the rational in the world, believing in scientific methodology is GOOD. To cons, better to listen to fox, and NEVER question. So, I do not worry about looking prejudiced. I follow reason, where you follow fox. And hate.
And, if you actually read what I wrote, I did not claim to be intelligent. But certainly nothing that a dumb person says is going to bother me in the least.

You sir hit the nail on thee head regarding con's and their mindset entirely. I have come to the obvious conclusion that it is impossible to carry on a meaningful convo/debate with a hard-right-wingnut. Simply not possible! They do not want to listen to anything that sways from the brainwashed bs they have been fed and swallowed. They do not want compromise. No different than a bully at the playground when it is all boiled down. I, unlike them, see some points or aspects of conservatism that I agree with in whole or in part. They, on the other hand view the "word" LIBERAL itself as bad as death itself, and that's before even opening thy mouth. Therefore, we moderates or lib's don't even get halfway to first base. They refuse to even see that they are in fact the ones who have been marinated/brainwashed by fixed news, lush limbaugh, etc.

Best one can do is TRY and talk or write sense to them, never to back down or turn away. Hoping that the other perspective we provide somehow gets through that thick head. One particular con wingnut I talk with has continually voted strictly con his entire life. Even when doing so went against he and his families interest, financial or socially, and somehow still insists he did the right thing. Anyhow, all is fine as long he is the one doing the talking. The minute I start talking about something he disagrees with, he will literally turn away in the middle of my talking walking away and practically start humming so he doesn't even hear it.

I really do not think neocon's have grown up or even matured and live to hate those who are in many ways like themselves (i.e. poor, middle class, etc.) just a different class of citizen. They also will ABSOLUTELY NEVER ADMIT TO BEING WRONG ABOUT ANYTHING - EVER and DO think they have learned all there is to know ever never to learn anymore ever no matter how menial let alone important. Me, I have admitted to and still admit to being wrong when I am wrong. It is after all human to err! That's my $.02 worth!

One particular con wingnut I talk with has continually voted strictly con his entire life. Even when doing so went against he and his families interest, financial or socially, and somehow still insists he did the right thing.

Which liberal would have been better for "his families interest, financial or socially"?
Show why the liberal would have been better. Show all your work.

Why???
You are a con. Which means you want to believe what you want to believe. I have been trelying to understand cons for many years, seen many studies, and have friend who have the affliction. So, I understand that you are most likely one of the 15 to 20% who NEED to believe what you are being told by your tea party and other conservative talkers. You will never question anything they say, because you NEED to be told what to believe, who to hate, and what to say. Sad. So no, Toddster, you will only believe what you want to believe, which has nothing at all to do with rational thought. Fordflylow has it completely correct. And here is another study to prove why it is not possible to have a rational discussion with a true con.

Another study says watching Fox News makes you dumber
Daily Kos: Another study says watching Fox News makes you dumber