If Liberals Are So Smart Why Are They So Dumb?

[MrsCat 6]

Conservatives are more generous too.

...and they're better in bed.

I think they may use more tools.

They can afford them,that's why.

[amiquechu 0]

the days of old of beer bongs

Ahhh, the gold old days.....BARF!!!!!!

[Saddle Bronc 124]

I don't think I've ever read so much right wing filth in the once place before. If the right wingers had a brain they'd take a long walk off a short cliff and give the rest of us some piece and quite for a change.

Is that an example of so-called "Liberal tolerance and acceptance" at work?

Oui, absolument!!!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

This reads like a third page diatribe put out by a poorly researched and articulated university student newspaper. Ahhhh. . . . thanks for that . . . . brings me back to the days of old of beer bongs, dorm rooms and seemingly critical thinking.

It does have the ring of a 4am drunken rant to it.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Actually, the reason is much simpler--liberals have to shy away from any absolutes which may ####### their conscience (from one who has lived considerable time under Liberal misrule).

Ideas, brother. That Wikipedia page I cited has some pretty telling statistics as to just what ideas certain groups of people aspire to over others. Historically, people tend to abandon one idea or policy over another once it's decided that that idea or policy isn't working. I think it's silly this notion that every idea or policy can fit so nicely into either conservative or liberal ideology and then be attacked by ideologues simply on that notion alone...or going beyond that to the idea(s) presented by the OP that somehow one ideology is inferior to the other.

[Teacher Mark 53]

Conservatives are more generous too.

They sure are:

US deficit zooming to half-trillion as Bush leaves

By ANDREW TAYLOR – 2 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — The government's budget deficit will surge past a half-trillion dollars next year, according to gloomy new estimates, a record flood of red ink that promises to force the winner of the presidential race to dramatically alter his economic agenda.

The deficit will hit $482 billion in the 2009 budget year that will be inherited by Democrat Barack Obama or Republican John McCain, the White House estimated Monday. That figure is sure to rise after adding the tens of billions of dollars in additional Iraq war funding it doesn't include, and the total could be higher yet if the economy fails to recover as the administration predicts.

The result: the biggest deficit ever in terms of dollars, though several were higher in the 1980s and early 1990s as a percentage of the overall economy.

Neither campaign is backing off campaign promises — McCain to cut taxes and Obama to expand health and education programs — in light of the bleaker new figures.

"We can't afford not to invest in some major initiatives such as health and energy and more tax cuts," said Obama economic adviser Jason Furman.

But Democrats controlling Congress suggest that may have to change once President Bush's successor takes office.

"Whoever becomes the next president will have a very, very sobering first week in office," said Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D.

McCain promises to renew the full roster of Bush tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 and add many more for businesses and upper income people who pay the alternative minimum tax. The Bush tax cuts expire at the end of 2010 and renewing them would soon cost well over $200 billion a year. Eliminating the alternative minimum at the same time would cost almost as much.

Obama would repeal tax cuts on wealthier taxpayers and investors but would leave most of the Bush tax cuts in place while seeking additional cuts for senior citizens, the middle class and the working poor. And he also wants lots of new spending for health care, education and many other federal programs.

"There's a total disconnect between today's report and what we're hearing on the campaign trail," said Robert Bixby of the Concord Coalition budget watchdog group.

The deficit situation confronting the next president is reminiscent of that which Bill Clinton faced in 1993. Under Wall Street pressure, Clinton abandoned promises of tax cuts and pushed a tax-heavy deficit reduction plan through a Democratic Congress.

The administration said the deficit was being driven to an all-time high by the sagging economy and the stimulus payments being made to 130 million households in an effort to keep the country from falling into a deep recession. But the numbers could go even higher if the economy performs worse than the White House predicts.

The budget office predicts the economy will grow at a rate of 1.6 percent this year and will rebound to a 2.2 percent growth rate next year. That's a half point higher than predicted by the widely cited "blue chip" consensus of business economists. The administration also sees inflation averaging 3.8 percent this year, but easing to 2.3 percent next year — better than the 3 percent seen by the blue chip panel.

"The nation's economy has continued to expand and remains fundamentally resilient," said the budget office report.

A $482 billion deficit would easily surpass the record deficit of $413 billion set in 2004. The White House in February had forecast that next year's deficit would be $407 billion.

The deficit numbers for 2008 and 2009 represent about 3 percent of the size of the economy, which is the measure seen as most relevant by economists. By that measure, the 2008 and 2009 deficits would be smaller than the deficits of the 1980s and early 1990s that led Congress and earlier administrations to cobble together politically painful deficit-reduction packages.

Still, the new figures are so eye-popping in dollar terms that they may restrain the appetite of the next president to add to the deficit with expensive spending programs or new tax cuts. In fact, pressure may build to allow some tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 to expire as scheduled, with Congress also feeling pressure to curb spending growth.

The administration actually underestimates the deficit since it leaves out about $80 billion in war costs. In a break from tradition — and in violation of new mandates from Congress — the White House did not include its full estimate of war costs.

On a slightly brighter note, the deficit for the 2008 budget year ending Sept. 30 will actually drop from an earlier projection of $410 billion to $389 billion, the report said.

McCain used the new 2009 estimates to slam both the Bush White House for its "profligate spending" and Democratic rival Obama, who has declined to endorse the goal of McCain — and congressional Democrats — to balance the budget.

"I have an unmatched record in fighting wasteful earmarks and unnecessary spending in the U.S. Senate, and I have the determination and experience to do the same as president," McCain said in a statement. McCain again called for a full plate of multi-trillion dollar tax cuts, though campaign adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin said some modifications could be made to McCain's economic plan to try to reach balance.

Obama's campaign used the new numbers to assail McCain for embracing Bush's tax cuts. As for Obama's plans, campaign adviser Furman said the candidate would cut wasteful spending, close corporate loopholes and roll back the Bush tax cuts on upper brackets while still promising to make "health care affordable and putting a middle class tax cut in the pocket of 95 percent of workers and their families."

Monday's figures capped a remarkable deterioration in the United States' budgetary health under Bush's time in office.

He inherited a budget seen as producing endless huge surpluses after four straight years in positive territory. That stretch of surpluses represented a period when the country's finances had been bolstered by a 10-year period of uninterrupted economic growth, the longest expansion in U.S. history.

In his first year in office, helped by projections of continuing surpluses, Bush drove through a 10-year, $1.35 trillion package of tax cuts.

However, faulty estimates, a recession in March 2001 and government spending to fight the war on terrorism contributed to pushing the deficit to a record in dollar terms in 2004.

There had been progress since then, with a $161.5 billion deficit for 2007 representing the lowest amount of red ink since an imbalance of $159 billion in 2002.

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...mp;qpid=2059367

[Ban Hammer 13,977]

Conservatives are more generous too.

...and they're better in bed.

and more endowed

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Actually, the reason is much simpler--liberals have to shy away from any absolutes which may ####### their conscience (from one who has lived considerable time under Liberal misrule).

Ideas, brother. That Wikipedia page I cited has some pretty telling statistics as to just what ideas certain groups of people aspire to over others. Historically, people tend to abandon one idea or policy over another once it's decided that that idea or policy isn't working. I think it's silly this notion that every idea or policy can fit so nicely into either conservative or liberal ideology and then be attacked by ideologues simply on that notion alone...or going beyond that to the idea(s) presented by the OP that somehow one ideology is inferior to the other.

If your political education is provided exclusively by Fox News and Talk Radio this is exactly what you are led to believe. And that Conservatives and Liberals have this strict black and white division and never the twain shall meet.

Talk Radio panders to the paranoid, the perpetually angry and the uneducated.

I listen to Michael Savage for $hits and giggles on the way to and from the gym - and from listening to some of his callers it seems that quite a lot of people take him completely seriously, praising him because "he's the only person who tells it like it is", or they let mad people have their two minutes of hate and who literally scream about how "Liberals" have brought down the country.

Its pretty weird.

[DeadPoolX 9]

Actually, the reason is much simpler--liberals have to shy away from any absolutes which may ####### their conscience (from one who has lived considerable time under Liberal misrule).

Ideas, brother. That Wikipedia page I cited has some pretty telling statistics as to just what ideas certain groups of people aspire to over others. Historically, people tend to abandon one idea or policy over another once it's decided that that idea or policy isn't working. I think it's silly this notion that every idea or policy can fit so nicely into either conservative or liberal ideology and then be attacked by ideologues simply on that notion alone...or going beyond that to the idea(s) presented by the OP that somehow one ideology is inferior to the other.

If your political education is provided exclusively by Fox News and Talk Radio this is exactly what you are led to believe. And that Conservatives and Liberals have this strict black and white division and never the twain shall meet.

Talk Radio panders to the paranoid, the perpetually angry and the uneducated.

I listen to Michael Savage for $hits and giggles on the way to and from the gym - and from listening to some of his callers it seems that quite a lot of people take him completely seriously, praising him because "he's the only person who tells it like it is", or they let mad people have their two minutes of hate and who literally scream about how "Liberals" have brought down the country.

Its pretty weird.

Talk show hosts like Savage don't really claim to be anything but showmen, however. They've made a show on politics that panders to a specific audience. Naturally, they're going to "play it up." There's nothing wrong with that and it can be a lot of fun to listen (every so often, commentators like Savage do say something that makes a lot of sense, too), but overall, it's not to be taken as anything truly serious.

[Teacher Mark 53]

One thought I had when I first saw this post was "When was the last time you heard about a liberal going on a shooting spree"? Is Hinckley a liberal?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Actually, the reason is much simpler--liberals have to shy away from any absolutes which may ####### their conscience (from one who has lived considerable time under Liberal misrule).

Ideas, brother. That Wikipedia page I cited has some pretty telling statistics as to just what ideas certain groups of people aspire to over others. Historically, people tend to abandon one idea or policy over another once it's decided that that idea or policy isn't working. I think it's silly this notion that every idea or policy can fit so nicely into either conservative or liberal ideology and then be attacked by ideologues simply on that notion alone...or going beyond that to the idea(s) presented by the OP that somehow one ideology is inferior to the other.

If your political education is provided exclusively by Fox News and Talk Radio this is exactly what you are led to believe. And that Conservatives and Liberals have this strict black and white division and never the twain shall meet.

Talk Radio panders to the paranoid, the perpetually angry and the uneducated.

I listen to Michael Savage for $hits and giggles on the way to and from the gym - and from listening to some of his callers it seems that quite a lot of people take him completely seriously, praising him because "he's the only person who tells it like it is", or they let mad people have their two minutes of hate and who literally scream about how "Liberals" have brought down the country.

Its pretty weird.

Talk show hosts like Savage don't really claim to be anything but showmen, however. They've made a show on politics that panders to a specific audience. Naturally, they're going to "play it up." There's nothing wrong with that and it can be a lot of fun to listen (every so often, commentators like Savage do say something that makes a lot of sense, too), but overall, it's not to be taken as anything truly serious.

The point though is that people do take these people seriously - enough to quote them (seriously) in forum threads and in conversations about politics, and enough to call up them up on-air and fawn all over them.

As to whether there's anything wrong with it - I think you have to look at the end result and why we have such a highly polarised political climate in this country (or at least how the media would portray it).

I find it hard to attribute this to anything other than a general failure of the 4th Estate.

Edited July 29, 2008 by Number 6

[Wei&Shu(Joe) 2]

I don't think I've ever read so much right wing filth in the once place before. If the right wingers had a brain they'd take a long walk off a short cliff and give the rest of us some piece and quite for a change.

Well aren't you a happy person!

Haha! I think I'd like to nominate this for "Best Comedy Thread"!

Conservatives are smart because they accept the "truth", no matter how far from reality the propaganda veers. As one poster says in their defense, they can impose absolutes on a world that contains none and consider it a talent. The legend of St. Ronny always outdoes the man. He cut taxes and put more money in the military, thereby destroying the USSR, aligning the planets, and causing starving children everywhere to spontaneously sing his praises. Can I get an amen?! Did Gorbachov have something to do with change in the USSR? No! It was all St. Ronny, blessed be his name!

And Liberals are dumb because they think reality should be be considered in running the country. How stupid can one get?! Reality?

You know you laugh and you cry all at once.

I think neither Conservatives or Liberals are stupid because of this label. There are some stupid people on both sides. Most liberals can make a statement of truth, that some conservatives are stupid. Many conservatives see this a "shying away from absolutes". Having met maybe 0.001% of liberals in the world they can with confidence announce that all Liberals are stupid.

The publisher quoted above is talking about a very well documented cognitive style of people who label themselves "conservative". It is called "seize and freeze". Those with this cognitive style tend to seize on the first explanation offered and freeze there, defending that position strongly against the intrusion of truth. The conservative politicians are aware of this research and they have used it very well, knowing that planting the right message in their base is essential and once planted it will freeze there. Therefore, no matter how bad the economy gets any good conservative will still tell you that cutting taxes to the rich while they suffer is still a good idea and they're just waiting for the big trickle down like one waits for the second coming. While rich conservatives, knowing exactly what they are doing, head out to buy that second yacht they can now afford! As the conservative leadership knows, the publisher has to accept this fact, Liberals will read books that chjallenge their concepts of the world. Conservatives won't. Once the message is frozen they seek only reinforcing stimuli. They pay homage no matter how great the suffering. Like any other religion where the people suffer while the clergy are showered with luxury...but don't worry your reward is coming!

I think the only stupid people are those who don't realize that this piece is a religious diatribe. It isn't a factual expression of reality, obviously. It is what every religion does. Here are our myths, which we assert to be true against evidence to the contrary, these are our saints and these are the noble stories we tell of them. Anyone who doesn't abandon reality for the absolutes of our myths is an apostate, stupid, lost. Only by following the one true way can one be saved.

Oh and the evil perpetrated in the name of our religion, you liberals don't understand that for our religion to prosper we must break the law, must kill, must support evil people. It is just a fact of life that liberals don't understand. In fact, it is another of this religion's myths.

Strong evidence that it is a religion? They call Liberalism a religion despite Liberals being quite pliable in changing their approach when reality proves them wrong. It's called projection. It happens when they call terrorists Islamunofascists as well. Their is no way that this group fits any of the definitions of fascism. Nationalism? Corporatism, which Mussolini claimed as the central tenet of Fascism? Yet these people who refer to terrorists as fascist without any factual basis, will complain about being called fascist when they practice it's central concepts. Nationalism? Corpaoratism? Consolidation of power using real and contrived threats? Yes, all fascism and all a part of this movement but don't call them fascist just because they practice fascism! Call the terrorists fascist! And that would be which corporations that they've created a state with?

Liberals shy away from absolutes because, in general, they don't see Liberalism as religion. They look for govt that addresses reality and not one that creates mythical economic theories and demands you buy in to their "bible". Liberals and conservatives definitely have different cognitive approaches to the world. There is no doubt about that.

What, it seems, most conservatives who write things like this don't understand is that their are other people on this planet who agree wholeheartedly with their approach. Extremist Muslims believe all the same things. When asked what about that World Trade Center thing they will use the exact same reasoning used above to defend Iran-Contra. You just don't understand what is necessary to promote our beliefs to the rest of the world. You are just a pansy who doesn't understand what is necessary to win this war. Most conservatives will tell you that they are strong on terror, then as this post demonstrates they will feed you all the same religious, violence justifying irrational arguments as radical Islam and call you stupid if you don't think like the terrorists as well.

Comedy to the nth degree. Thank you for demonstrating so clearly, for those without frozen minds, just what this movement is all about.

*In using the term Muslim and Islam, it should be noted that I precede it with radical or extremist. I am speaking of a very small part of this faith and in no way suggest that Islam is any worse than any of the other major religions.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

One thought I had when I first saw this post was "When was the last time you heard about a liberal going on a shooting spree"? Is Hinckley a liberal?

The attack Sunday morning lasted only minutes. But the anger behind it may have been building for months, if not years.

"It appears that what brought him to this horrible event was his lack of being able to obtain a job, his frustration over that, and his stated hatred for the liberal movement," Knoxville Police Chief Sterling Owen said of Adkisson.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CHU...mp;SECTION=HOME

Conservatives, say what you will, are very passionate about their food stamps!

[mendeleev 68]

One reason we're so dumb is that we let Bush subvert the Department of Justice ... and no one seems to care!

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=141552

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think someone needs to say to the OP and others of like mind:

"Take your labels and shove them up your #######. Sideways"