Why are Left & Right so hard to reconcile?

[LoneLaugher]

Wow!

The lack of enquiring minds here is amazing!

Did NOBODY watch the presentation? Did no one see anything useful in it?

You guys are so polarised you should all freeze to popcicles.

I watched it all and got the impression that he was being smug that liberals are always right and conservatives were always wrong. It turn me off from buying into what else he was saying. I'd like my 18:40 back.

Really. You watched it and that is all you came away with?

 

[DriftingSand]

I saw this:

You can't shame conservatives by exposing their hypocrisy; they are in a cult and cults require lockstep obedience at ALL costs, including the cost of being hypocritical.

Is one side evil? Or do both have good points, which the other fails to see?


How about this as a theory of mind.

Thought you might like this as a theory to explain it:



PS:
Thank you NYcarbineer.

Yes ... Libtards are evil. Some liberals (there's a difference between that rare, level-headed liberal and a libtard) aren't so bad but they're certainly wrong.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Liberals are a plague on this nation so there is no reason to meet them half way. Exterminate their ideology, period.

^^and because of this

What do you expect? You people rule like we don't matter.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Liberals are a plague on this nation so there is no reason to meet them half way. Exterminate their ideology, period.

^^and because of this

What do you expect? You people rule like we don't matter.

Awwwwwww. You poor baby!

 

[Redfish]

When has anyone on the right done anything similar to what the left did to Condi Rice last week?

Off the top of my head?
I don't know. Do you claim that right wing organisations never try to prevent left wing ones from having a voice or invite to a forum?

Fox, the so-called mouthpiece of the right, gives equal time to both sides, can you say the same about any of the MSM networks?

The tea party encourages all factions to have their say. Can you say that about OWS, NAACP, NOW, PP, or any of the left wing groups.

The problem is that the leftists know that when both sides are given equal time, they always lose. the left only wins when the right is suppressed and the left is allowed to brainwash the people.

 

[LoneLaugher]

When has anyone on the right done anything similar to what the left did to Condi Rice last week?

Off the top of my head?
I don't know. Do you claim that right wing organisations never try to prevent left wing ones from having a voice or invite to a forum?

Fox, the so-called mouthpiece of the right, gives equal time to both sides, can you say the same about any of the MSM networks?

The tea party encourages all factions to have their say. Can you say that about OWS, NAACP, NOW, PP, or any of the left wing groups.

The problem is that the leftists know that when both sides are given equal time, they always lose. the left only wins when the right is suppressed and the left is allowed to brainwash the people.

Only a rube would believe that FOX gives equal time.

Only a rube would believe that every idiot that FOX puts on air claiming to be a liberal.....is a liberal.

Only a rube would believe that the "tea party" is anything but a wing of the GOP designed to serve as a reliable customer base for dopey books, coffee mugs, t-shirts and bumper stickers.

What does that make you?

 

[AvgGuyIA]

^^and because of this

What do you expect? You people rule like we don't matter.

Awwwwwww. You poor baby!

Lol. Poor nothing. That's why we have contempt for anything that liberals say or do.

 

[LoneLaugher]

What do you expect? You people rule like we don't matter.

Awwwwwww. You poor baby!

Lol. Poor nothing. That's why we have contempt for anything that liberals say or do.

You barely understand anything that liberals say or do. Your brain is closed to the stimuli.

 

[candycorn]

I saw this:

You can't shame conservatives by exposing their hypocrisy; they are in a cult and cults require lockstep obedience at ALL costs, including the cost of being hypocritical.

Is one side evil? Or do both have good points, which the other fails to see?


How about this as a theory of mind.

Thought you might like this as a theory to explain it:



PS:
Thank you NYcarbineer.

Most of the electorate is toward the middle. Our elections are winner take all so there has to be one "side" in power at all times

 

[srlip]

WHAT stimuli? the dems are the same lying, tyrannical, cheating ticks as they've been for at least 100 years now, going back at least to Wilson.

 

[Mac1958]

If you have two opposing problems which you hold for principles, how do you compromise without hypocrisy?

Avatar, compromise is not hypocrisy, that's a non sequitur. Cooperation is not capitulation. Both sides of an issue certainly want to state their case clearly and strongly, but they must also be humble enough to realize that "all or nothing" just isn't the way adults behave in a complicated modern society.

In such a society, there must be a trust, an accord, on all sides that they will ultimately give and take. Once that trust breaks down, we essentially descend into anarchy, everyone screaming, no one listening, no possibility of facilitation.

The best model for this is the Constitution. Myriad disparate opinions and approaches hammered out, give and take, no absence of passion, and they created perhaps the greatest single document ever. The whole became greater than the sum of its parts. Certainly no one in that room got everything they wanted. But such a success can only happen with reasonable cooperation.

.

 

[thanatos144]

I saw this:

You can't shame conservatives by exposing their hypocrisy; they are in a cult and cults require lockstep obedience at ALL costs, including the cost of being hypocritical.

Is one side evil? Or do both have good points, which the other fails to see?


How about this as a theory of mind.

Thought you might like this as a theory to explain it:



PS:
Thank you NYcarbineer.

Because at its ideological core they are different. Do you think just getting along will help this country?

 

[Redfish]

If you have two opposing problems which you hold for principles, how do you compromise without hypocrisy?

Avatar, compromise is not hypocrisy, that's a non sequitur. Cooperation is not capitulation. Both sides of an issue certainly want to state their case clearly and strongly, but they must also be humble enough to realize that "all or nothing" just isn't the way adults behave in a complicated modern society.

In such a society, there must be a trust, an accord, on all sides that they will ultimately give and take. Once that trust breaks down, we essentially descend into anarchy, everyone screaming, no one listening, no possibility of facilitation.

The best model for this is the Constitution. Myriad disparate opinions and approaches hammered out, give and take, no absence of passion, and they created perhaps the greatest single document ever. The whole became greater than the sum of its parts. Certainly no one in that room got everything they wanted. But such a success can only happen with reasonable cooperation.

.

there are also the concepts of 'one vote per citizen' and 'majority vote rules'.

those basic concepts of a free nation have been lost when judges with an agenda can overturn the will of the voters as they did when california voted against gay marriage twice.

liberals want a dictatorial government as long as it dictates their philosophy. Why? because they know that liberalism always loses when the facts are presented.

 

[Redfish]

I saw this:

You can't shame conservatives by exposing their hypocrisy; they are in a cult and cults require lockstep obedience at ALL costs, including the cost of being hypocritical.

Is one side evil? Or do both have good points, which the other fails to see?


How about this as a theory of mind.

Thought you might like this as a theory to explain it:



PS:
Thank you NYcarbineer.

Because at its ideological core they are different. Do you think just getting along will help this country?

getting along is what got us in this fiscal mess. the sides are so far apart today that it may be time to split the country on ideology and see which concept works best.

Continuous fighting gets us no where.

 

[thanatos144]

I saw this:




Is one side evil? Or do both have good points, which the other fails to see?


How about this as a theory of mind.

Thought you might like this as a theory to explain it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SOQduoLgRw


PS:
Thank you NYcarbineer.

Because at its ideological core they are different. Do you think just getting along will help this country?

getting along is what got us in this fiscal mess. the sides are so far apart today that it may be time to split the country on ideology and see which concept works best.

Continuous fighting gets us no where.

Defending the constitution is and always will be the correct way in this country. That is a fight that must always be fought.

 

[Redfish]

Because at its ideological core they are different. Do you think just getting along will help this country?

getting along is what got us in this fiscal mess. the sides are so far apart today that it may be time to split the country on ideology and see which concept works best.

Continuous fighting gets us no where.

Defending the constitution is and always will be the correct way in this country. That is a fight that must always be fought.

true, but only half of the country thinks that way.

 

[thanatos144]

getting along is what got us in this fiscal mess. the sides are so far apart today that it may be time to split the country on ideology and see which concept works best.

Continuous fighting gets us no where.

Defending the constitution is and always will be the correct way in this country. That is a fight that must always be fought.

true, but only half of the country thinks that way.

Thats where you are wrong. More then half think this way and even more would if they were actually taught true history and our constitution. Why do you think progressives wanted the schools so bad?

 

[ClosedCaption]

I saw this:

You can't shame conservatives by exposing their hypocrisy; they are in a cult and cults require lockstep obedience at ALL costs, including the cost of being hypocritical.

Is one side evil? Or do both have good points, which the other fails to see?

Because neither side do what they say they advocate. Conservatives don't fight for smaller government and liberals don't fight for genuine charity, just greater government power.

The true merger between liberal and conservative is libertarian. One can believe in small, responsible government and personal charity, which is the only effective kind, at the same time.

Heres the thing with the right. They will change reality to fit a narrative. So, Kaz says that republicans dont fight for smaller govt without equivocation but then says liberals dont fight for "GENUINE" charity.

See the trick? He doesnt say liberals dont fight for charity like he does with republicans. He has determined that liberals do fight for charity he just deems it as "not genuine". That narrative is used over and over. Liberals fight for social saftey nets and republicans dismiss it as not "REAL"?!!? So no matter whats done, they just dismiss it and claim its the same as republicans really not doing something else.

 

[thanatos144]

I saw this:




Is one side evil? Or do both have good points, which the other fails to see?

Because neither side do what they say they advocate. Conservatives don't fight for smaller government and liberals don't fight for genuine charity, just greater government power.

The true merger between liberal and conservative is libertarian. One can believe in small, responsible government and personal charity, which is the only effective kind, at the same time.

Heres the thing with the right. They will change reality to fit a narrative. So, Kaz says that republicans dont fight for smaller govt without equivocation but then says liberals dont fight for "GENUINE" charity.

See the trick? He doesnt say liberals dont fight for charity like he does with republicans. He has determined that liberals do fight for charity he just deems it as "not genuine". That narrative is used over and over. Liberals fight for social saftey nets and republicans dismiss it as not "REAL"?!!? So no matter whats done, they just dismiss it and claim its the same as republicans really not doing something else.

Says the man who is in the party of Slavery, the KKK, Segregation, and Robert Byrd.

Next thing that you will try and say is that some magical party switch happened .... Yet other then Thurman all the Racists STAYED DEMOCRAT.

 

[ClosedCaption]

If dems vote for welfare repubs will just say dems dont "really" care.

If dems want to protect the earth concerning global warming repubs just say dems dont "really" care.

Women get less pay and dems want to change that. Repubs just say dems dont "really" care.

Then they have a formula that consists of taking any thing dems want and saying they want it for either money, power or both. How do they know? They dont, but they want to stop any and all advances based on their conspiracy theories that they will admit is rooted in nothing but assumptions.

Meanwhile the way they show support is by saying there is no problem or being indifferent to it as if that is the better option for those effected