Why Are Liberals So Condescending?

[Trample the Elderly]

Want some snow Saden? You can have all of mine.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

Want some snow Saden? You can have all of mine.

TTL, I didn't know you did drugs. Thanks but I'm going to have to decline your offer. Hard drugs are haraam.

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by saden1

TTL, I didn't know you did drugs. Thanks but I'm going to have to decline your offer. Hard drugs are haraam.

Oh, that must be Left Coast thing. Here in VA we call Cocaine, cocaine. I'm talking about all of this snow. We have more than our fair share. You might say we're, "snow rich"! I would like to redistribute my snow wealth to all of you lovely people in Seattle.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

Oh, that must be Left Coast thing. Here in VA we call Cocaine, cocaine. I'm talking about all of this snow. We have more than our fair share. You might say we're, "snow rich"! I would like to redistribute my snow wealth to all of you lovely people in Seattle.

It depends on what snowfall bracket you're in on what percentage you get to redistribute. We've also got to consider your snowfall exemptions/deductions; How fast did your snow get plowed? Did it get plowed at all? Did you use any for snowmen (oops snow-persons), snowballs? Did you make any snow angels? Do you have any dependent snow angels? Do you intend on long-term storage/freezing of any snow in case global warming melts the ice caps?

[budw38]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

It depends on what snowfall bracket you're in on what percentage you get to redistribute. We've also got to consider your snowfall exemptions/deductions; How fast did your snow get plowed? Did it get plowed at all? Did you use any for snowmen (oops snow-persons), snowballs? Did you make any snow angels? Do you have any dependent snow angels? Do you intend on long-term storage/freezing of any snow in case global warming melts the ice caps?

Funny . You know .... if we make snow angels we also have to make snow devils . If my snowman melts 20% over the weekend , I hope to be able to deduct it on my W-2 I would love to see Al Gore shoveling all of this snow preaching global warming " the sky is falling " ; "the sky is falling"

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

Oh, that must be Left Coast thing. Here in VA we call Cocaine, cocaine. I'm talking about all of this snow. We have more than our fair share. You might say we're, "snow rich"! I would like to redistribute my snow wealth to all of you lovely people in Seattle.

I probably shouldn't assume you're on drugs. My bad. We're rain and electricity rich in Seattle so we have no use for snow....thanks for the offer though. I may call on you if this global warming thing takes off and we have droughts.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by saden1

TTL, I didn't know you did drugs. Thanks but I'm going to have to decline your offer. Hard drugs are haraam.

lol good stuff

[tryfuhl]

I actually ended up reading this in the newspaper. There were some good points, but all it did was point out how the liberals had said the Republicans (not conservatives) were wrong at times. It did little to argue anything positive for the Republicans, not sure that was the point of the piece, but those who live in glass houses, etc.

The points made in the paragraphs around the one mentioning that Republican voters are usually seen as clinging to "guns, God, etc" is very true at times, not all-encompassing but I've seen people use those as their main points for who they're voting for. If you have guns as a main reason to vote one way or another I think that you're a nut personally; I understand protecting your rights (which many of these people didn't mind giving up with the Patriot Act and others) and wanting the right to defend yourself and your family, but those aren't really the guns being targeted, and there should be much more pressing issues in your mind as far as your country goes. The religion thing, I don't want my leaders putting in borderline moral laws past the obvious ones such as murder, theft, etc. For example, I'm personally against abortion however I don't think that my belief should govern everyone else. I'm neutral to pro on homosexual marriage, it does not bother me one bit and I don't think that we need government defining "love" for us. To not give the option in states is one thing, to actually pass laws to ban it without even having it currently present is preposterous.

It seems nearly impossible to listen to a Republican answer a question without changing the subject drastically or saying "Well the Democrats blah blah" and a great example of this would be Palin pre-election. The neo-con movement putting such a strong emphasis on these things (guns, abortion, anti-gay marriage, etc) it honestly does make them look like second rate citizens in my opinion. I don't want to hear "OMG THE DEMS PLAN WON'T WORK" I want to hear "If this is going to work, this is what we believe needs to happen" and that's not what I'm hearing. I'd love for a great conservative candidate come out, but honestly, there isn't one on the big screen right now, maybe come next pres election time, but the Republican party needs to wash themselves of some of these wackjobs and put their focus on more important issues. America is clearly concerned with healthcare, the economy, etc. I'm not saying that the Democrats are doing it correctly (that could be a whole different rant for me) but they're the ones talking about it more. I don't see the Democrats making their main campaign points getting rid of guns, abolishing religion.. really the only mainstream thing has been the gay marriage/rights issue. The Republicans make it seem like they're there to protect things that really aren't at great jeopardy. Your handguns aren't going anywhere, gay marriage isn't going to make heterosexual marriage less important or valid (unless you have a horrible marriage to begin with.. and a ton of insecurities to boot), and whatnot, those are backburner issues to most people with their priorities in order.

The biggest issue is just the voting to shut down the other party's proposals out of principle, regardless of what it is. Such as recently when the Republicans who supported a bill had several members end up "changing their minds" and voting against it, all because it would appear to be a success under the current administration.

I'm just going off in all directions now so I'll pass it off to the big boys.

[budw38]

Originally Posted by tryfuhl

I actually ended up reading this in the newspaper. There were some good points, but all it did was point out how the liberals had said the Republicans (not conservatives) were wrong at times. It did little to argue anything positive for the Republicans, not sure that was the point of the piece, but those who live in glass houses, etc.

The points made in the paragraphs around the one mentioning that Republican voters are usually seen as clinging to "guns, God, etc" is very true at times, not all-encompassing but I've seen people use those as their main points for who they're voting for. If you have guns as a main reason to vote one way or another I think that you're a nut personally; I understand protecting your rights (which many of these people didn't mind giving up with the Patriot Act and others) and wanting the right to defend yourself and your family, but those aren't really the guns being targeted, and there should be much more pressing issues in your mind as far as your country goes. The religion thing, I don't want my leaders putting in borderline moral laws past the obvious ones such as murder, theft, etc. For example, I'm personally against abortion however I don't think that my belief should govern everyone else. I'm neutral to pro on homosexual marriage, it does not bother me one bit and I don't think that we need government defining "love" for us. To not give the option in states is one thing, to actually pass laws to ban it without even having it currently present is preposterous.

It seems nearly impossible to listen to a Republican answer a question without changing the subject drastically or saying "Well the Democrats blah blah" and a great example of this would be Palin pre-election. The neo-con movement putting such a strong emphasis on these things (guns, abortion, anti-gay marriage, etc) it honestly does make them look like second rate citizens in my opinion. I don't want to hear "OMG THE DEMS PLAN WON'T WORK" I want to hear "If this is going to work, this is what we believe needs to happen" and that's not what I'm hearing. I'd love for a great conservative candidate come out, but honestly, there isn't one on the big screen right now, maybe come next pres election time, but the Republican party needs to wash themselves of some of these wackjobs and put their focus on more important issues. America is clearly concerned with healthcare, the economy, etc. I'm not saying that the Democrats are doing it correctly (that could be a whole different rant for me) but they're the ones talking about it more. I don't see the Democrats making their main campaign points getting rid of guns, abolishing religion.. really the only mainstream thing has been the gay marriage/rights issue. The Republicans make it seem like they're there to protect things that really aren't at great jeopardy. Your handguns aren't going anywhere, gay marriage isn't going to make heterosexual marriage less important or valid (unless you have a horrible marriage to begin with.. and a ton of insecurities to boot), and whatnot, those are backburner issues to most people with their priorities in order.

The biggest issue is just the voting to shut down the other party's proposals out of principle, regardless of what it is. Such as recently when the Republicans who supported a bill had several members end up "changing their minds" and voting against it, all because it would appear to be a success under the current administration.

I'm just going off in all directions now so I'll pass it off to the big boys.

Or maybe you happen to believe the Olberman's and C. Mathews of the world at times ? Both parties are full of BS artists , and frauds . As far as issues , the moderate and conservatives who vote for Rebublicans over Democrats , do not do so over guns or abortions . Those of us who work hard and are thankful for having the freedoms we enjoy tend to vote ( R ) , because we know the Fed/Gov't ... cannot support all of us , as they are inefficient with money/revenues . The Dems want higher ... income taxes , capitol gains tax , dividend and estate < death > taxes . The Dems have a history of appionting judges who do not think a 40 yr old man raping a women or CHILD should serve time . As far as guns , we have a constitutional right to own one.. I do not own a gun , but they are going to make buying one almost impossible , kind of like cigarettes , buy taxing Brass and Brass manufactures . Almost every issue the Dems stand for , put money into the trial lawyers union , why do you think most of our alt. energy bills are delayed or killed ... lawyers for the EPA , ACLU ect. Why are close to 70% of the $ going to green projects < stim-bill> going to foreign Co's . Trial lawyers file suits against our Gov't when they protect the USA ? If you or anyone can name 1 thing that the Dems have done that would give EVERY American a better opportunity to prosper I would like to hear it , I have asked this question to our last three ( D ) to run for President , Gore-Kerry-and Obama , I always get the same run around ... blah blah blah " we want economic justice " . Problem , the Dems idea of EJ is taxing all of us so that we NEED to rely on the 535 Reps/Dems ... who for the most part .... stink !! So I happen to the the GOP as the lesser of two evils . I also know with the GOP having more of the " power " I will keep more of what I work for and EARN , more investment opportunities and I want rape/molesters/violent criminals to spend hard time in prison . I want Alt energy , most from US Co's , I want to drill for oil and Nat Gas , I will worry about Bambi later . I do think we need both parties , as I beleive if either has too much control , too many seem to be left out in the cold . You made some points I agree with , like our Gov't not getting involved in morals/abortion/marriage , ect. Anyhow , have a great night everyone .

[mlmdub130]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

It depends on what snowfall bracket you're in on what percentage you get to redistribute. We've also got to consider your snowfall exemptions/deductions; How fast did your snow get plowed? Did it get plowed at all? Did you use any for snowmen (oops snow-persons), snowballs? Did you make any snow angels? Do you have any dependent snow angels? Do you intend on long-term storage/freezing of any snow in case global warming melts the ice caps?

i think we have the first nominee post of the year

[The Goat]

[QUOTE

BTW, Krugman is an opinion guy as are WSJ editorial people. They are paid to give their poinions and it's up to the reader to decern opinion from fact.[/QUOTE]

Not to nitpick but calling Krugman an opinion guy, especially in the context of the WSJ jackasses, doesn't hold water. Krugman won the John Bates Clark when he was about 40 and now has a Nobel. His "opinions" are more informed than those of the actual news staff at the Journal, not to mention the goofballs working down the hall.

Krugman reminds me a lot of Stiglitz in that his practical intelligence, combined w/ the academic brilliance, makes for an extremely rare combination.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by saden1

I am afraid this is a nonsensical statement. With respect making an assertion you either don't have your facts straight (ignorance/limited intelligence) or you're purposefully misleading (lying). The Law of Excluded Middle applies to such assertions and so there is nothing in-between the two. Please enlighten us as to what this in-between could possibly be.

Ignorance of the facts and limited intelligence have never been, and never will be, synonymous. Neither are ignorance and lying. By not even considering ignorance of the facts (or more likely, considering it, but ignoring it because it doesn't jive with the narrative he is trying to neatly write), it really does kill the rest of that part of his argument.

It's pretty clearly a logical fallacy, whether you want to see it that way or not.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by saden1

WSJ emphatically stated that the election was stole while in the paragraph above stating that there were provisional ballots that weren't counted. The notion that the election was stolen is simply not true and Krugman said as much though not explicitly. Rossi twice lost in court and if he was in the same position he would have done the same exact thing Gregoire did. Ditto for Coleman.

There are people who, to this day, declare that the 2000 election was stolen in Florida based on the simple fact that consistent procedure wasn't uniformly followed during the recount. This, of course, is true, but the assertion that the outcome of the election was ever truly in doubt, or that the recount was anything more than a formality that the democratic nominee was entitled to by law is no less ridiculous than anything published with regards to the Minnesota senate race. According to Krugman, anyone who believes that the 2000 election was stolen is either stupid or a liar. There is no middle ground.

Krugman is more than welcome to blow holes in any poorly supported argument that concludes with an assertion that the election was "stolen". If he's going to concern himself with the underlying motive (as opposed to the argument itself, which he is clearly unconcerned with) of those who are writing for the WSJ opinion page, he should definitely be less concerned with trying to prove them lying, lest he wish the same standard be applied to him by some random dude on the internet.

If you want to know what I personally think, it's that with a state that has now elected both Jesse Ventura and Al Franken to high public office within the last twelve years...voting fraud would be of the last things I'd write an editorial about regarding Minnesota.

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by saden1

TTL, I didn't know you did drugs. Thanks but I'm going to have to decline your offer. Hard drugs are haraam.

Getting Semite religion now?

[saden1]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Ignorance of the facts and limited intelligence have never been, and never will be, synonymous. Neither are ignorance and lying. .

And who is saying they are synonymous? There are two plausible reason why someone doesn't have their facts straight...they're ignorant (my word) of the facts or they are of limited intelligence (your words). As i have stated before Krugman doesn't think the people at WSJ are of limited intelligence.

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

By not even considering ignorance of the facts (or more likely, considering it, but ignoring it because it doesn't jive with the narrative he is trying to neatly write), it really does kill the rest of that part of his argument.

Why would we assume WSJ people are ignorant? They have an army of fact-checkers at their disposal. If they are ignorant of facts WSJ has serious problem. Reading Krugman writing one should get the impression that he thinks they are a bunch of liars not idiots. Feel free to read the links in Kurgman's post, one of which refutes WSJ's claims with facts.

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

It's pretty clearly a logical fallacy, whether you want to see it that way or not.

At this point I'm inclined to believe you have no idea what you're talking about. You certainly haven't enlightened me and even worse, you've just gone in crazy loopy paths that leads to intellectual death. Anyone want to take a shot at explaining what GTripp0012 is trying to say?