Why do people talk about "liberal bias" when the phrase is technically an oxymoron?

[Darkwind]

Hello. I thought this would be the best forum to ask this and I've wondered it for a few years now. It doesn't make sense if you think about it (even by con standards). Liberalism is neutral by definition. The farther to the right you move, the more partisan you become. It's an obvious fact if you look at the US today. The Left is where all of the groups fighting for social justice and against bigotry and intolerance lay. The more right wing an individual or group is, the more they represent causes that the Left opposes.

Homosexuality is a good example. Liberals have always fought to represent their needs and educate people not to treat them poorly because of their orientation. The GOP ran on an explicitly anti-gay platform roughly a decade ago. Reproductive rights is another. It's the Left that safeguards women's right to choose when and whether to have children and gives them options to deal with unwanted pregnancies and support if they choose to keep them. The Right is where all of the misogynists find support for their explicitly anti-choice agenda. They're the ones who think it's moral to enslave half of the population just because they have wombs and force them to have as many children as possible.

These are just a few examples of why bias just isn't part of the liberal equation. The entire point of liberalism is defeating bias and giving everyone the exact same rights and quality of life regardless of their personal identity and life choices. Wouldn't it follow then that the only bias possible is conservative bias, ie towards the status quo?

1. Liberalism is NOT neutral, by any defination.
2. LIberalism as practiced by progressives is the most extreme form of ideology there is.
3. The nation has been getting more and more extreme (moving leftward) every decade. What you would call rightwing today, was moderately leftwing 30 years ago.

Last. You're an idiot.

 

[Mac1958]

So would you agree, then, that liberalism is neutral by definition?

If so, please explain.

.

Mr 'neutral' attacking the left...as usual.

You are a fraud Mac.

Never claimed to be neutral, is this too complicated for you?

Would you like to know my opinions on gay rights, abortion, war, foreign policy, health care, personal income taxation?

I have provided them all, multiple times.

I think this really IS too complicated for you.

.

Your opposition to the Iraq War encouraged the enemy, remember? You are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American soldiers, remember?

At least according to the rightwing propaganda machine AND your own reasoning.

This appears to be an attempt to equate the predictable and tragic effects of Political Correctness, Identity Politics, the Soft Bigotry of Reduced Expectations, Grievance Fundamentalism and a Hyphenated America with opposition to war.

Look, I realize you're doing the best you can, but jeez.



.

The Right blamed anti-war activism as helping the enemy and hurting our troops.

You blamed anti-law enforcement brutality activists for getting cops killed.

There is no difference in the two, and,

either both of you were right or both of you were wrong.

I wonder how many times you've lied, on this thread alone.

I have said multiple times that the primary blame for the shootings is with the shooter. And I have said multiple times that I am referring to generations of tactics by the PC Police for creating an environment that can play a part in tragedies like this.

How many times do I have to say this before it finally sinks in? 10? 20? 200?

Either you are lying or you're simply unable to comprehend this.

If the answer is you're lying, please stop lying.

If the answer is you can't comprehend this, you never will.

Thanks.

.

 

[Bfgrn]

SAME regurgitation. Admit it Mac, you are a right winger.

So you DON'T want to know my opinions on those issues, because they'd wreck your little schtick.

What are you afraid of?

Would you like links?

.

And your 'schtick' is that I am a far left ideologue. Please provide what a far left ideologue looks like? If my opinions on those topics are similar to yours, does that make you a far left ideologue??

Why I find you so repulsive is you are always trying to portray yourself as above everyone else.

So I take it this means you don't want to know my opinions on those issues?

Sorry, deflection doesn't work with me.

Yes or no?

.

No, I want to know what makes me a far left ideologue?

So now we're past that transparent "you're a conservative, Mac" game.

Good. Wasn't that easy?

Now, I'll be happy to answer your question. When a person can be counted on to always take the side of either conservatives or liberals, and when they can be counted on to utilize spin, hyperbole, distortion, deflection, straw man arguments and outright lies to defend their partisan flank, I refer to them as a "partisan ideologue" or a "hardcore partisan ideologue", depending on the frequency and intensity of those behaviors.

Thinking back, I don't know if I've ever been proven wrong, but it may have happened.

Now, if I'm wrong, if there are issues on which you agree with conservatives, if you can show me an impassioned disagreement you had with a liberal in which you defended a conservative stance, great! I'd love to see it. But otherwise, this is a forum in which we share our opinions, and this is just my little opinion. The fact that my little opinion is clearly so important is very instructive, I must say. You are not required to agree with it.

There, a comprehensive, honest answer, something I rarely receive in return.

.

You have every right to your opinions. But what would YOU call a person who is always attacking the left?

 

[Mac1958]

Mr 'neutral' attacking the left...as usual.

You are a fraud Mac.

Never claimed to be neutral, is this too complicated for you?

Would you like to know my opinions on gay rights, abortion, war, foreign policy, health care, personal income taxation?

I have provided them all, multiple times.

I think this really IS too complicated for you.

.

Your opposition to the Iraq War encouraged the enemy, remember? You are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American soldiers, remember?

At least according to the rightwing propaganda machine AND your own reasoning.

This appears to be an attempt to equate the predictable and tragic effects of Political Correctness, Identity Politics, the Soft Bigotry of Reduced Expectations, Grievance Fundamentalism and a Hyphenated America with opposition to war.

Look, I realize you're doing the best you can, but jeez.



.

I dunno, it seems pretty equatable to me. You blame people protesting injustice for the murder of two police officers. How is that any different than the rabid right wingers blaming terrorism on those opposed to the war? I too was opposed to the Iraq war from the onset. I was called a terrorist sympathizer and was accused of giving aid and comfort to our enemies because of that opposition. I'm sure you had similar experiences.

And yet here you are a decade later doing the same thing.

But Mac is above it all. He must not be questioned, he is the questioner.

Great, thanks!

.

 

[Mac1958]

So you DON'T want to know my opinions on those issues, because they'd wreck your little schtick.

What are you afraid of?

Would you like links?

.

And your 'schtick' is that I am a far left ideologue. Please provide what a far left ideologue looks like? If my opinions on those topics are similar to yours, does that make you a far left ideologue??

Why I find you so repulsive is you are always trying to portray yourself as above everyone else.

So I take it this means you don't want to know my opinions on those issues?

Sorry, deflection doesn't work with me.

Yes or no?

.

No, I want to know what makes me a far left ideologue?

So now we're past that transparent "you're a conservative, Mac" game.

Good. Wasn't that easy?

Now, I'll be happy to answer your question. When a person can be counted on to always take the side of either conservatives or liberals, and when they can be counted on to utilize spin, hyperbole, distortion, deflection, straw man arguments and outright lies to defend their partisan flank, I refer to them as a "partisan ideologue" or a "hardcore partisan ideologue", depending on the frequency and intensity of those behaviors.

Thinking back, I don't know if I've ever been proven wrong, but it may have happened.

Now, if I'm wrong, if there are issues on which you agree with conservatives, if you can show me an impassioned disagreement you had with a liberal in which you defended a conservative stance, great! I'd love to see it. But otherwise, this is a forum in which we share our opinions, and this is just my little opinion. The fact that my little opinion is clearly so important is very instructive, I must say. You are not required to agree with it.

There, a comprehensive, honest answer, something I rarely receive in return.

.

You have every right to your opinions. But what would YOU call a person who is always attacking the left?

Call me whatever you want. I would just prefer you didn't lie.

.

 

[eagle1462010]

OpinionEditorials.com Liberalism is a Psychology - Beltt

Many conservatives are absolutely perplexed by the question of what motivates liberals to take the patently wrong political positions they do. It’s difficult to explain it without believing such obviously wrong ideas like “liberals are just stupid”, or “they want to destroy our country”, but sometimes we resort to those explanations out of pure frustration.
But what is the explanation? Why do seemingly good, intelligent people take positions that cause so much harm in the face of all the facts? I’ve finally stumbled upon the answer, and it’s so stunningly simple, yet profound in its implications, that it’s absolutely mind-boggling. Liberalism isn’t a political ideology; it’s a psychology - the psychology of self-satisfaction to be precise.
A liberal (or a leftist; I use the terms interchangeably), is a person who only cares about politics to the extent that doing so makes him or her feel good, or avoid feeling bad, due both to external and internal factors. Their motivations can include things like a desire to feel intelligent, moral, noble, or unique, as well as a desire for peer acceptance or reverence, and aversion to being ostracized, among many other things.
Now, before I go any further, I have to draw a distinction between liberals and the people who agree with them. Liberals, the people I’m referring to throughout, are the activists and ideologues; the people who truly believe in their leftist ideas and who fight for them.

Let’s take an easy example, same-sex marriage (I’ll come to many more examples later on). Liberals see themselves as fighting the “bigots” on behalf of the “oppressed” minorities, and they constantly compare the battle to the civil rights movement. It isn’t anywhere near, but they do it because it makes them feel important, which is also the reason why this is an issue at the national forefront today.
Liberals press the issue because it makes them feel important, and they support it because it makes them feel morally superior. Whether same-sex couples actually end up “marrying” or not is irrelevant (except to homosexual-leftists, to whom social acceptance is a great ego need), as are the consequences of that. It’s the battle itself that matters to liberals, and as soon as the issue is resolved, you can bet the farm that they’ll move onto something else.

 

[Seawytch]

I have said multiple times that the primary blame for the shootings is with the shooter. And I have said multiple times that I am referring to generations of tactics by the PC Police for creating an environment that can play a part in tragedies like this.
.

Okay, great. Now we're getting somewhere. What "PC Police" tactics played a part in THIS exact tragedy? What environment did the "PC Police" create in this event?

You apparently agree that the protesters have a right to protest. You seem to have indicated that they might even have reason to protest, yes? How are you then turning around and saying that the protesters protesting were in part responsible for the actions of a mentally disturbed individual?

 

[Darkwind]

So you DON'T want to know my opinions on those issues, because they'd wreck your little schtick.

What are you afraid of?

Would you like links?

.

And your 'schtick' is that I am a far left ideologue. Please provide what a far left ideologue looks like? If my opinions on those topics are similar to yours, does that make you a far left ideologue??

Why I find you so repulsive is you are always trying to portray yourself as above everyone else.

So I take it this means you don't want to know my opinions on those issues?

Sorry, deflection doesn't work with me.

Yes or no?

.

No, I want to know what makes me a far left ideologue?

So now we're past that transparent "you're a conservative, Mac" game.

Good. Wasn't that easy?

Now, I'll be happy to answer your question. When a person can be counted on to always take the side of either conservatives or liberals, and when they can be counted on to utilize spin, hyperbole, distortion, deflection, straw man arguments and outright lies to defend their partisan flank, I refer to them as a "partisan ideologue" or a "hardcore partisan ideologue", depending on the frequency and intensity of those behaviors.

Thinking back, I don't know if I've ever been proven wrong, but it may have happened.

Now, if I'm wrong, if there are issues on which you agree with conservatives, if you can show me an impassioned disagreement you had with a liberal in which you defended a conservative stance, great! I'd love to see it. But otherwise, this is a forum in which we share our opinions, and this is just my little opinion. The fact that my little opinion is clearly so important is very instructive, I must say. You are not required to agree with it.

There, a comprehensive, honest answer, something I rarely receive in return.

.

You have every right to your opinions. But what would YOU call a person who is always attacking the left?

Right.


Sorry, but you walked into that one....lol

 

[Bfgrn]

Mr 'neutral' attacking the left...as usual.

You are a fraud Mac.

Never claimed to be neutral, is this too complicated for you?

Would you like to know my opinions on gay rights, abortion, war, foreign policy, health care, personal income taxation?

I have provided them all, multiple times.

I think this really IS too complicated for you.

.

Your opposition to the Iraq War encouraged the enemy, remember? You are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American soldiers, remember?

At least according to the rightwing propaganda machine AND your own reasoning.

This appears to be an attempt to equate the predictable and tragic effects of Political Correctness, Identity Politics, the Soft Bigotry of Reduced Expectations, Grievance Fundamentalism and a Hyphenated America with opposition to war.

Look, I realize you're doing the best you can, but jeez.



.

The Right blamed anti-war activism as helping the enemy and hurting our troops.

You blamed anti-law enforcement brutality activists for getting cops killed.

There is no difference in the two, and,

either both of you were right or both of you were wrong.

I wonder how many times you've lied, on this thread alone.

I have said multiple times that the primary blame for the shootings is with the shooter. And I have said multiple times that I am referring to generations of tactics by the PC Police for creating an environment that can play a part in tragedies like this.

How many times do I have to say this before it finally sinks in? 10? 20? 200?

Either you are lying or you're simply unable to comprehend this.

If the answer is you're lying, please stop lying.

If the answer is you can't comprehend this, you never will.

Thanks.

.

There is a generation of 'tactics' Mac that is the root cause of this problem. But you are looking in the wrong place. It is solidly rooted in the thin blue line that exists that protects thugs with badges from the same justice you and I must abide by. It manifests in profiling practices, beating and choking by swarms of thugs with badges on arrests of citizens who are not resisting.

And this is what happens when a citizen with a conscience tries to stop it Mac.

A Peace Officer Defies the "Blue Tribe": The Exile of Officer Cariol Horne

David Mack was dying of strangulation in front of his horrified teenage sons while nearly a dozen Buffalo Police Officers looked on with indifference. The man who was killing Mack, Gregory Kwiatowski, was a member of their privileged tribe. The other cops at the scene understood that their duty was to protect the assailant, rather than to aid the victim.

“My father was laying there blue, I ain’t never seen him like that,” Wesley Mack later testified in court. “A lady cop went up to him and said, `Chill, Greg, you’re choking him,’ and she pulled his arm and he jumped up and popped her.”

“Get the hell off me, you black *****!” snarled the uniformed embodiment of all that is good and decent, slugging the female officer in the face.

Mack had been arrested by Officer Anthony Porzio for “contempt of cop” after exchanging words with Officer Paul Sobkowiak, who had responded to a domestic disturbance report. A postal carrier told Sobkowiak that Mack had been withholding Social Security checks from his ex-girlfriend, who still received her mail at the address.

Sobkowiak called for backup and a throng of officers converged on the home. Commanded to turn over the check, Mack went into his house and retrieved what he claimed was all of the mail he had received that day. After the cops accused him of concealing the check, Mack told them to leave him alone. Defiance of that kind from a Mundane is impermissible, of course, so Sobkowiak attacked Mack, as did Kwiatowski and every other officer on the scene.
“Where one acts, all must follow,” is the unwritten but binding code of the Blue Tribe.


Horne was among the cops who responded to an “officer in distress” call. She didn’t see the initial assault, but when she arrived at the address she helped drag Mack out of the house. Like all police officers, she had been programmed to follow the code of the Blue Tribe without hesitation. Kwiatowski’s conduct caused Horne’s resilient human decency to rebel and overcome that programming.

Once Mack had been handcuffed, Kwiatowski decided to inflict summary punishment for the impermissible act of resisting arrest, beating the prone and helpless 59-year-old man. The assault quickly escalated to attempted murder as Kwiatowski turned Mack around and sank a chokehold.

There were, once again, nearly a dozen police officers on the scene. Horne – a tiny black woman who was roughly half Kwiatowski’s size -- was the only one who assumed the role of peace officer by intervening to prevent the murder of an innocent man. The use of lethal force would have been justified, but Horne – once again acting as a peace officer – used proportionate force, even though in doing so she exposed herself to risk.

“I thought whatever happened in the house [Kwiatokski] was still upset about so when he didn’t stop choking him I just grabbed his arm from around Neal’s neck,” Horne recalled in a recent television interview. “He comes up and punches me in the face and I had to have my bridge replaced.”

Mack, who survived the assault, was hit with the predictable assortment of cover charges, which were just as predictably dismissed. Cariol Horne was charged with “obstruction” for supposedly “jumping on Officer Kwiatowski’s back and/or striking him.”


Police officer 'fired after 19 years on the force for trying to stop fellow cop from choking and punching handcuffed black suspect in the face'

• Cariol Horne claims that she was fired from the Buffalo Police Department after 19 years for trying to stop an assault on a black suspect
• Horne says that Officer Gregory Kwiatkowsi 'choked and punched Neal Mack in the face while he was handcuffed'
• What's more, Horne claims that Kwiatkowski then punched her in the face when she attempted to stop the assault
• Horne, a mother of five, now works as a truck driver

Read more: Buffalo officer Cariol Horne fired for trying to stop cop from choking black suspect Daily Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

[NYcarbineer]

I have said multiple times that the primary blame for the shootings is with the shooter. And I have said multiple times that I am referring to generations of tactics by the PC Police for creating an environment that can play a part in tragedies like this.
.

Okay, great. Now we're getting somewhere. What "PC Police" tactics played a part in THIS exact tragedy? What environment did the "PC Police" create in this event?

You apparently agree that the protesters have a right to protest. You seem to have indicated that they might even have reason to protest, yes? How are you then turning around and saying that the protesters protesting were in part responsible for the actions of a mentally disturbed individual?

He doesn't agree that the protestors have a right to protest, because he has blamed the cops' deaths on the protestors. He has assigned them the responsibility for 2 cops being murdered.

Logically one cannot believe that anyone has the RIGHT to take actions that are ultimately responsible for murders.

 

[eagle1462010]

Liberals are like spoiled brats at the store. Mamma mamma I want that. The Conservative parents go "we can't afford that......we can't afford that........." but when the liberal has no parents to control them.......they demand spending more money that we don't have...........which eventually will bring the whole house down.

They ignore the damage done by their ideologies. Demand the coal industry die.............attack it wherever they can. And when the massive amounts of money are needed to build new power plants to their ideological specs........which raises the utility bills they go .............LOOK AT THE EVIL POWER COMAPANIES...............even though it was their policy that caused the higher rates. Then say they are for the people when they actually hurt the people with higher bills.

California was a prime example as they had black outs from not enough power generation. They regulated the industry to the nth degree to a point where no one wanted to build power plants their and then wondered why they all left while blaming the few power companies there who were going bankrupt at the same time. Not ENRON but the actual utility companies

Liberals are the destroyer of cities. Like Detroit. Over half the city is gone due to Liberal leaders chasing away business and destroying the economy there.

THE PATH TO HELL IS PAVED WITH GOOD INTENTIONS, And those paving it don't see the end result of their ideology, They just keep paving away like a bunch of mindless Zombies,

 

[NYcarbineer]

OpinionEditorials.com Liberalism is a Psychology - Beltt

Many conservatives are absolutely perplexed by the question of what motivates liberals to take the patently wrong political positions they do. It’s difficult to explain it without believing such obviously wrong ideas like “liberals are just stupid”, or “they want to destroy our country”, but sometimes we resort to those explanations out of pure frustration.
But what is the explanation? Why do seemingly good, intelligent people take positions that cause so much harm in the face of all the facts? I’ve finally stumbled upon the answer, and it’s so stunningly simple, yet profound in its implications, that it’s absolutely mind-boggling. Liberalism isn’t a political ideology; it’s a psychology - the psychology of self-satisfaction to be precise.
A liberal (or a leftist; I use the terms interchangeably), is a person who only cares about politics to the extent that doing so makes him or her feel good, or avoid feeling bad, due both to external and internal factors. Their motivations can include things like a desire to feel intelligent, moral, noble, or unique, as well as a desire for peer acceptance or reverence, and aversion to being ostracized, among many other things.
Now, before I go any further, I have to draw a distinction between liberals and the people who agree with them. Liberals, the people I’m referring to throughout, are the activists and ideologues; the people who truly believe in their leftist ideas and who fight for them.

Let’s take an easy example, same-sex marriage (I’ll come to many more examples later on). Liberals see themselves as fighting the “bigots” on behalf of the “oppressed” minorities, and they constantly compare the battle to the civil rights movement. It isn’t anywhere near, but they do it because it makes them feel important, which is also the reason why this is an issue at the national forefront today.
Liberals press the issue because it makes them feel important, and they support it because it makes them feel morally superior. Whether same-sex couples actually end up “marrying” or not is irrelevant (except to homosexual-leftists, to whom social acceptance is a great ego need), as are the consequences of that. It’s the battle itself that matters to liberals, and as soon as the issue is resolved, you can bet the farm that they’ll move onto something else.

What nonsense.

 

[Mac1958]

I have said multiple times that the primary blame for the shootings is with the shooter. And I have said multiple times that I am referring to generations of tactics by the PC Police for creating an environment that can play a part in tragedies like this.
.

Okay, great. Now we're getting somewhere. What "PC Police" tactics played a part in THIS exact tragedy? What environment did the "PC Police" create in this event?

You apparently agree that the protesters have a right to protest. You seem to have indicated that they might even have reason to protest, yes? How are you then turning around and saying that the protesters protesting were in part responsible for the actions of a mentally disturbed individual?

Let me try another approach here.

I know you don't agree, but you're being civil, and that's much appreciated, so I'll barf it out again.

I have said a zillion times that the PC Police has, over roughly two generations, created and/or exacerbated an increasingly divisive environment. How? A constant, long-term combination of Political Correctness, Identity Politics, the Soft Bigotry of Reduced Expectations, Hyphenated America, screaming "racist" at every opportunity. All of this on top of the actual, hateful white-on-black bigotry and racism that still exists. I am NOT talking about any recent protests in a vacuum, I'm talking about a culture, an environment of division that has increased over time.

So let's say a kid grows up in a family of NRA members. He's fed all the regular NRA stuff about the government is coming to get his guns. He attends NRA conventions, he attends NRA rallies, he listens to all the conservative talk shows and frequents conservative web sites. In short, his life is full of NRA-speak, just as many children are raised by people who are steeped in the PC-related environment described above - that white people are literally trying to cause them harm.

One day, out of nowhere, this kid shoots and kills three innocents with his guns.

Would you look at this as a purely isolated incident, that the kid had no reason to do what he did and that must be understood, would you hold the NRA harmless? Or would you also consider the environment in which he grew up, and ask if that environment and the people who created that environment would have played a role in his thought process? Would you not postulate that the culture in which he existed played a role in his actions? Would you not bring up the NRA?

That is my point.

Again, I know you won't agree. But that is my opinion on this.

.

 

[Mac1958]

I have said multiple times that the primary blame for the shootings is with the shooter. And I have said multiple times that I am referring to generations of tactics by the PC Police for creating an environment that can play a part in tragedies like this.
.

Okay, great. Now we're getting somewhere. What "PC Police" tactics played a part in THIS exact tragedy? What environment did the "PC Police" create in this event?

You apparently agree that the protesters have a right to protest. You seem to have indicated that they might even have reason to protest, yes? How are you then turning around and saying that the protesters protesting were in part responsible for the actions of a mentally disturbed individual?

He doesn't agree that the protestors have a right to protest, because he has blamed the cops' deaths on the protestors. He has assigned them the responsibility for 2 cops being murdered.

Logically one cannot believe that anyone has the RIGHT to take actions that are ultimately responsible for murders.

More ******* lies.

You're shameless.

.

 

[eagle1462010]

OpinionEditorials.com Liberalism is a Psychology - Beltt

Many conservatives are absolutely perplexed by the question of what motivates liberals to take the patently wrong political positions they do. It’s difficult to explain it without believing such obviously wrong ideas like “liberals are just stupid”, or “they want to destroy our country”, but sometimes we resort to those explanations out of pure frustration.
But what is the explanation? Why do seemingly good, intelligent people take positions that cause so much harm in the face of all the facts? I’ve finally stumbled upon the answer, and it’s so stunningly simple, yet profound in its implications, that it’s absolutely mind-boggling. Liberalism isn’t a political ideology; it’s a psychology - the psychology of self-satisfaction to be precise.
A liberal (or a leftist; I use the terms interchangeably), is a person who only cares about politics to the extent that doing so makes him or her feel good, or avoid feeling bad, due both to external and internal factors. Their motivations can include things like a desire to feel intelligent, moral, noble, or unique, as well as a desire for peer acceptance or reverence, and aversion to being ostracized, among many other things.
Now, before I go any further, I have to draw a distinction between liberals and the people who agree with them. Liberals, the people I’m referring to throughout, are the activists and ideologues; the people who truly believe in their leftist ideas and who fight for them.

Let’s take an easy example, same-sex marriage (I’ll come to many more examples later on). Liberals see themselves as fighting the “bigots” on behalf of the “oppressed” minorities, and they constantly compare the battle to the civil rights movement. It isn’t anywhere near, but they do it because it makes them feel important, which is also the reason why this is an issue at the national forefront today.
Liberals press the issue because it makes them feel important, and they support it because it makes them feel morally superior. Whether same-sex couples actually end up “marrying” or not is irrelevant (except to homosexual-leftists, to whom social acceptance is a great ego need), as are the consequences of that. It’s the battle itself that matters to liberals, and as soon as the issue is resolved, you can bet the farm that they’ll move onto something else.

What nonsense.

Of course you would call it nonsense. Now put the dang candy down and behave. We can't afford it and it's bad for you. Don't make me get the belt.

BTW Stop taking money from the wallets of everyone in the store to pay for your ideology. And your credit cards are cut off.

 

[NYcarbineer]

OpinionEditorials.com Liberalism is a Psychology - Beltt

Many conservatives are absolutely perplexed by the question of what motivates liberals to take the patently wrong political positions they do. It’s difficult to explain it without believing such obviously wrong ideas like “liberals are just stupid”, or “they want to destroy our country”, but sometimes we resort to those explanations out of pure frustration.
But what is the explanation? Why do seemingly good, intelligent people take positions that cause so much harm in the face of all the facts? I’ve finally stumbled upon the answer, and it’s so stunningly simple, yet profound in its implications, that it’s absolutely mind-boggling. Liberalism isn’t a political ideology; it’s a psychology - the psychology of self-satisfaction to be precise.
A liberal (or a leftist; I use the terms interchangeably), is a person who only cares about politics to the extent that doing so makes him or her feel good, or avoid feeling bad, due both to external and internal factors. Their motivations can include things like a desire to feel intelligent, moral, noble, or unique, as well as a desire for peer acceptance or reverence, and aversion to being ostracized, among many other things.
Now, before I go any further, I have to draw a distinction between liberals and the people who agree with them. Liberals, the people I’m referring to throughout, are the activists and ideologues; the people who truly believe in their leftist ideas and who fight for them.

Let’s take an easy example, same-sex marriage (I’ll come to many more examples later on). Liberals see themselves as fighting the “bigots” on behalf of the “oppressed” minorities, and they constantly compare the battle to the civil rights movement. It isn’t anywhere near, but they do it because it makes them feel important, which is also the reason why this is an issue at the national forefront today.
Liberals press the issue because it makes them feel important, and they support it because it makes them feel morally superior. Whether same-sex couples actually end up “marrying” or not is irrelevant (except to homosexual-leftists, to whom social acceptance is a great ego need), as are the consequences of that. It’s the battle itself that matters to liberals, and as soon as the issue is resolved, you can bet the farm that they’ll move onto something else.

What nonsense.

Of course you would call it nonsense. Now put the dang candy down and behave. We can't afford it and it's bad for you. Don't make me get the belt.

BTW Stop taking money from the wallets of everyone in the store to pay for your ideology. And your credit cards are cut off.

We're in debt because of Republicans, not Democrats.

 

[hjmick]

Hello. I thought this would be the best forum to ask this and I've wondered it for a few years now. It doesn't make sense if you think about it (even by con standards). Liberalism is neutral by definition. The farther to the right you move, the more partisan you become. It's an obvious fact if you look at the US today. The Left is where all of the groups fighting for social justice and against bigotry and intolerance lay. The more right wing an individual or group is, the more they represent causes that the Left opposes.

Homosexuality is a good example. Liberals have always fought to represent their needs and educate people not to treat them poorly because of their orientation. The GOP ran on an explicitly anti-gay platform roughly a decade ago. Reproductive rights is another. It's the Left that safeguards women's right to choose when and whether to have children and gives them options to deal with unwanted pregnancies and support if they choose to keep them. The Right is where all of the misogynists find support for their explicitly anti-choice agenda. They're the ones who think it's moral to enslave half of the population just because they have wombs and force them to have as many children as possible.

These are just a few examples of why bias just isn't part of the liberal equation. The entire point of liberalism is defeating bias and giving everyone the exact same rights and quality of life regardless of their personal identity and life choices. Wouldn't it follow then that the only bias possible is conservative bias, ie towards the status quo?

Thanks for the laugh! It was refreshing this early in the morning. But I think you meant to put this thread in the "Political Satire" sub-forum...

OpinionEditorials.com Liberalism is a Psychology - Beltt

Many conservatives are absolutely perplexed by the question of what motivates liberals to take the patently wrong political positions they do. It’s difficult to explain it without believing such obviously wrong ideas like “liberals are just stupid”, or “they want to destroy our country”, but sometimes we resort to those explanations out of pure frustration.
But what is the explanation? Why do seemingly good, intelligent people take positions that cause so much harm in the face of all the facts? I’ve finally stumbled upon the answer, and it’s so stunningly simple, yet profound in its implications, that it’s absolutely mind-boggling. Liberalism isn’t a political ideology; it’s a psychology - the psychology of self-satisfaction to be precise.
A liberal (or a leftist; I use the terms interchangeably), is a person who only cares about politics to the extent that doing so makes him or her feel good, or avoid feeling bad, due both to external and internal factors. Their motivations can include things like a desire to feel intelligent, moral, noble, or unique, as well as a desire for peer acceptance or reverence, and aversion to being ostracized, among many other things.
Now, before I go any further, I have to draw a distinction between liberals and the people who agree with them. Liberals, the people I’m referring to throughout, are the activists and ideologues; the people who truly believe in their leftist ideas and who fight for them.

Let’s take an easy example, same-sex marriage (I’ll come to many more examples later on). Liberals see themselves as fighting the “bigots” on behalf of the “oppressed” minorities, and they constantly compare the battle to the civil rights movement. It isn’t anywhere near, but they do it because it makes them feel important, which is also the reason why this is an issue at the national forefront today.
Liberals press the issue because it makes them feel important, and they support it because it makes them feel morally superior. Whether same-sex couples actually end up “marrying” or not is irrelevant (except to homosexual-leftists, to whom social acceptance is a great ego need), as are the consequences of that. It’s the battle itself that matters to liberals, and as soon as the issue is resolved, you can bet the farm that they’ll move onto something else.

What nonsense.

And yet, somehow, the OP makes perfect sense?

Not too worried about your credibility, are you...

 

[hjmick]

OpinionEditorials.com Liberalism is a Psychology - Beltt

Many conservatives are absolutely perplexed by the question of what motivates liberals to take the patently wrong political positions they do. It’s difficult to explain it without believing such obviously wrong ideas like “liberals are just stupid”, or “they want to destroy our country”, but sometimes we resort to those explanations out of pure frustration.
But what is the explanation? Why do seemingly good, intelligent people take positions that cause so much harm in the face of all the facts? I’ve finally stumbled upon the answer, and it’s so stunningly simple, yet profound in its implications, that it’s absolutely mind-boggling. Liberalism isn’t a political ideology; it’s a psychology - the psychology of self-satisfaction to be precise.
A liberal (or a leftist; I use the terms interchangeably), is a person who only cares about politics to the extent that doing so makes him or her feel good, or avoid feeling bad, due both to external and internal factors. Their motivations can include things like a desire to feel intelligent, moral, noble, or unique, as well as a desire for peer acceptance or reverence, and aversion to being ostracized, among many other things.
Now, before I go any further, I have to draw a distinction between liberals and the people who agree with them. Liberals, the people I’m referring to throughout, are the activists and ideologues; the people who truly believe in their leftist ideas and who fight for them.

Let’s take an easy example, same-sex marriage (I’ll come to many more examples later on). Liberals see themselves as fighting the “bigots” on behalf of the “oppressed” minorities, and they constantly compare the battle to the civil rights movement. It isn’t anywhere near, but they do it because it makes them feel important, which is also the reason why this is an issue at the national forefront today.
Liberals press the issue because it makes them feel important, and they support it because it makes them feel morally superior. Whether same-sex couples actually end up “marrying” or not is irrelevant (except to homosexual-leftists, to whom social acceptance is a great ego need), as are the consequences of that. It’s the battle itself that matters to liberals, and as soon as the issue is resolved, you can bet the farm that they’ll move onto something else.

What nonsense.

Of course you would call it nonsense. Now put the dang candy down and behave. We can't afford it and it's bad for you. Don't make me get the belt.

BTW Stop taking money from the wallets of everyone in the store to pay for your ideology. And your credit cards are cut off.

We're in debt because of Republicans, not Democrats.

Don't be fooled, we are in debt because of both parties.

 

[eagle1462010]

OpinionEditorials.com Liberalism is a Psychology - Beltt

Many conservatives are absolutely perplexed by the question of what motivates liberals to take the patently wrong political positions they do. It’s difficult to explain it without believing such obviously wrong ideas like “liberals are just stupid”, or “they want to destroy our country”, but sometimes we resort to those explanations out of pure frustration.
But what is the explanation? Why do seemingly good, intelligent people take positions that cause so much harm in the face of all the facts? I’ve finally stumbled upon the answer, and it’s so stunningly simple, yet profound in its implications, that it’s absolutely mind-boggling. Liberalism isn’t a political ideology; it’s a psychology - the psychology of self-satisfaction to be precise.
A liberal (or a leftist; I use the terms interchangeably), is a person who only cares about politics to the extent that doing so makes him or her feel good, or avoid feeling bad, due both to external and internal factors. Their motivations can include things like a desire to feel intelligent, moral, noble, or unique, as well as a desire for peer acceptance or reverence, and aversion to being ostracized, among many other things.
Now, before I go any further, I have to draw a distinction between liberals and the people who agree with them. Liberals, the people I’m referring to throughout, are the activists and ideologues; the people who truly believe in their leftist ideas and who fight for them.

Let’s take an easy example, same-sex marriage (I’ll come to many more examples later on). Liberals see themselves as fighting the “bigots” on behalf of the “oppressed” minorities, and they constantly compare the battle to the civil rights movement. It isn’t anywhere near, but they do it because it makes them feel important, which is also the reason why this is an issue at the national forefront today.
Liberals press the issue because it makes them feel important, and they support it because it makes them feel morally superior. Whether same-sex couples actually end up “marrying” or not is irrelevant (except to homosexual-leftists, to whom social acceptance is a great ego need), as are the consequences of that. It’s the battle itself that matters to liberals, and as soon as the issue is resolved, you can bet the farm that they’ll move onto something else.

What nonsense.

Of course you would call it nonsense. Now put the dang candy down and behave. We can't afford it and it's bad for you. Don't make me get the belt.

BTW Stop taking money from the wallets of everyone in the store to pay for your ideology. And your credit cards are cut off.

We're in debt because of Republicans, not Democrats.

Yep, and Obama cut the deficit right? It's kinda like a sell at a store. Double the price tag, and then mark it down 25% and say see...........I cut costs.

Sell your snake oil somewhere else. Republicans have raised the debt by going to the left. But your side doubles down like it's a poker game with someone else's money.

 

[Bfgrn]

And your 'schtick' is that I am a far left ideologue. Please provide what a far left ideologue looks like? If my opinions on those topics are similar to yours, does that make you a far left ideologue??

Why I find you so repulsive is you are always trying to portray yourself as above everyone else.

So I take it this means you don't want to know my opinions on those issues?

Sorry, deflection doesn't work with me.

Yes or no?

.

No, I want to know what makes me a far left ideologue?

So now we're past that transparent "you're a conservative, Mac" game.

Good. Wasn't that easy?

Now, I'll be happy to answer your question. When a person can be counted on to always take the side of either conservatives or liberals, and when they can be counted on to utilize spin, hyperbole, distortion, deflection, straw man arguments and outright lies to defend their partisan flank, I refer to them as a "partisan ideologue" or a "hardcore partisan ideologue", depending on the frequency and intensity of those behaviors.

Thinking back, I don't know if I've ever been proven wrong, but it may have happened.

Now, if I'm wrong, if there are issues on which you agree with conservatives, if you can show me an impassioned disagreement you had with a liberal in which you defended a conservative stance, great! I'd love to see it. But otherwise, this is a forum in which we share our opinions, and this is just my little opinion. The fact that my little opinion is clearly so important is very instructive, I must say. You are not required to agree with it.

There, a comprehensive, honest answer, something I rarely receive in return.

.

You have every right to your opinions. But what would YOU call a person who is always attacking the left?

Call me whatever you want. I would just prefer you didn't lie.

.

I don't lie Mac. You are always attacking the left and ignore all the vile posts by the right.