We get it. GWB did 9/11.

Liberals have a really bad habit of treating batshiat insanity and willful dishonesty as differing but meritorious disagreement.

beta_plus: We get it. GWB did 9/11.

WTF are you talking about?

here's some tidbits from my freshman GOP teabagger representative's constituent questionnaire. (god I despise this twunt)

http://bucshon.house.gov/survey (must enter zip code.. use 47715)


Jobs and the Economy:
Our government and federal agencies are enacting burdensome regulations that are prohibiting job growth:
agree   disagree

Collective bargaining is essential in protecting the average American worker:
agree  disagree

The medium that best stimulates economic growth and prosperity:
the federal government  
the free market 
other

It's hard to combat herp and derp with anything that doesn't closely resemble herp and derp.

Serious Black: It's hard to combat herp and derp with anything that doesn't closely resemble herp and derp.

Basicly, yeah. When someone is being completely irrational and illogical there is just no way that you can have an intelligent conversation with them. The only sane option is to shake your head and walk away.

Most liberals aren't willing to argue with their mouthbreather counterparts screaming that Taxbongo is a Kenyan usurper who wants death panels for granny and will steal your paycheck. They don't want to argue because the whole thing is stupid; it doesn't seem worth arguing about because it's so ridiculous.

The problem is, if no one does argue against this insanity, it takes root and emboldens the morons. Eventually those stupid arguments that shouldn't even be worth fighting become the headlines on every news network. And then the liberals are left in shock...and they have to respond to these idiotic arguments which don't function on and sort of real facts, so there's no good way to fight back against them.

Seriously, how do you argue with someone who literally will not accept facts even when they are right in front of their face? There are people that you could show any amount of evidence about anything and they will STILL not believe you. These are the folks who will swear the sky is green when you tell them, and then show them, that it's blue. Because they have been programmed to believe that facts are relative, and that they aren't really solid in any way.

Quite honestly, it's to the point that it's going to take some sort of radical change to put a stop to all this. When you can't reason with people because they won't accept facts in front of their very noses, you have little choice in how to proceed - you can either let them win, or force them to accept that they are wrong.

The right's stupidity spreads, enabled by a too-polite left

Conservativism may be the refuge of the dim. But the room for rightwing ideas is made by those too timid to properly object

Your arguments might have more weight if you didn't make grammar mistakes right in the farking title.

Its hard to fight emotion and gut feeling and years of patriotic fervor with facts and studies.

More charts needed.

This guy writes a long boring article about how liberals should be more direct and forceful with their opinions on "conservative" idiocy... Nice fail dude.

Who are these liberals author is referring to? If you think for an instant it's a talking head for one of the big 3 networks, one of the CNN milquetoasts assigned to the counterpoint position of some home-schooled doofus who quit the Klan to be the CNN Tea Party correspondent, or the guy currently residing in the White House, you have no understanding of the word "liberal."

SevenizGud: The right's stupidity spreads, enabled by a too-polite left

Conservativism may be the refuge of the dim. But the room for rightwing ideas is made by those too timid to properly object

Your arguments might have more weight if you didn't make grammar mistakes right in the farking title.

Dr. Whoof: When you can't reason with people because they won't accept facts in front of their very noses, you have little choice in how to proceed - you can either let them win, or force them to accept that they are wrong.

qft

Old George Monbiot here fails to note that - at least in America - the liberals of lofty intelligence and higher cognitive abilities continue to vote for the Republicans-in-drag known as the Democratic Party, which regularly mouths nice-sounding platitudes while consistently doing the bidding of its wealthy masters. How's that for "higher intelligence? Poor old Monbiot can't seem to grasp that - at least in America - liberals like money, too.

He also fails to notice that the pursuit of "justice, redistribution and regulation" in Europe has driven at least several EU member states into insolvency, and they don't even have big armies to pay for. Yes, George: Too polite.

Headso: This guy writes a long boring article about how liberals should be more direct and forceful with their opinions on "conservative" idiocy... Nice fail dude.

Liberals need more bumpersticker positions.

"TAX CUTS MEAN JOB CUTS" for example.

Or "A MAN WHO CAN'T REMEMBER HOW MANY HOUSES HE OWNS DOESN'T NEED ANOTHER ONE IN WASHINGTON DC" as an anti-Romney ad.

Or how about, "WE'VE SPENT THE PAST THREE YEARS TRYING TO FIX THINGS WHILE THE OTHER SIDE STAMPED THEIR FEET AND SCREAMED NO"

canyoneer: Old George Monbiot here fails to note that - at least in America - the liberals of lofty intelligence and higher cognitive abilities continue to vote for the Republicans-in-drag known as the Democratic Party, which regularly mouths nice-sounding platitudes while consistently doing the bidding of its wealthy masters. How's that for "higher intelligence? Poor old Monbiot can't seem to grasp that - at least in America - liberals like money, too.

He also fails to notice that the pursuit of "justice, redistribution and regulation" in Europe has driven at least several EU member states into insolvency, and they don't even have big armies to pay for. Yes, George: Too polite.

Duverger's Law is why they keep voting for Democrats.

Sucks to be those failing states like Germany, Norway, Sweden, with their high taxes and social programs.

canyoneer: He also fails to notice that the pursuit of "justice, redistribution and regulation" in Europe has driven at least several EU member states into insolvency

I don't think money flows as easily from productive states to welfare states as easily as it does here. Germany who is practicing what republicans would call "justice, redistribution and regulation" is doing ok but they are not as willing to prop up Greece as people from California or New York or Texas are willing to prop up states like Alabama or New Mexico.

Headso: canyoneer: He also fails to notice that the pursuit of "justice, redistribution and regulation" in Europe has driven at least several EU member states into insolvency

I don't think money flows as easily from productive states to welfare states as easily as it does here. Germany who is practicing what republicans would call "justice, redistribution and regulation" is doing ok but they are not as willing to prop up Greece as people from California or New York or Texas are willing to prop up states like Alabama or New Mexico.

Willing? I didn't think there was a choice in the matter. I always assumed this was an all-or-nothing deal.

\If there's a choice, I'd love to see the "blue" states pull money for a short time from the "red" states. Then we'll see who's socialist.

qorkfiend: Duverger's Law is why they keep voting for Democrats. Sucks to be those failing states like Germany, Norway, Sweden, with their high taxes and social programs.

Yes, Duverger's Law, the self-fulfilling prophecy that fails to account for corruption and electoral fraud - problems which could be fixed without altering the constitution.

Sweden makes money selling weapons and clear-cutting its forests, Norway is an oil exporter, an Germany has done rather well for itself by loaning money to Southern Europe with which Southern Europe buys German products. The latter is not a situation that can persist indefinitely, and Germany's finances are shakier than they would like to admit.

Der Spiegel says:



Flawed Role Model

Germany's Finances Not as Sound as Believed

The German government likes to pride itself on its solid finances and claim the country is a safe haven for investors. But Germany's budget management is not nearly as exemplary as it would have people believe, and the national debt is way over the EU's limit. In some respects, Italy's finances are in much better shape. (new window)

canyoneer: He also fails to notice that the pursuit of "justice, redistribution and regulation" in Europe has driven at least several EU member states into insolvency, and they don't even have big armies to pay for. Yes, George: Too polite.

Ha ha! That was funny. Now tell me your next joke.

A good read, even if it's just spelling out stuff that most people who pay attention to the news already know.

It's depressing, but tolerance, politeness and a willingness to compromise are weaknesses in American politics. I'm not entirely sure how to go about fixing that.

Headso: I don't think money flows as easily from productive states to welfare states as easily as it does here. Germany who is practicing what republicans would call "justice, redistribution and regulation" is doing ok but they are not as willing to prop up Greece as people from California or New York or Texas are willing to prop up states like Alabama or New Mexico.

That's exactly right: Monetary union absent political and fiscal union doesn't work, at least not for very long. History is pretty clear on this, and broadly-speaking, such unions work best when the peoples included share a common history, language, and culture.

As to "propping up" less competetive states, go ahead and pull the subsidies, but you'll have to place your bombing ranges in Massachussetts and New York. Also, the Nebraskans might have to start charging hefty tolls on all those goods-laden trucks transiting their state to make up for lost transporation funding. And then there's food. Without all those ag subsidies, your grocery bills might increase alarmingly. Massachussetts is not self-sufficient in food, you know. Oh, and natural gas. Might get a bit expensive to import all that NG from Texas and the Mountain West. That sort of thing.

You see, it's all a big, well-oiled machine, and the "subsidies" would be cheap at twice the price. The Europeans lack this cohesive structure, and they seem unwilling to subsume their national identities and prerogatives in order to obtain it.

the_vegetarian_cannibal: SevenizGud: The right's stupidity spreads, enabled by a too-polite left

Conservativism may be the refuge of the dim. But the room for rightwing ideas is made by those too timid to properly object

Your arguments might have more weight if you didn't make grammar mistakes right in the farking title.

[6inchmove.files.wordpress.com image 600x450]

It's only funny because he mentions "The right's stupidity", yet he can't form a sentence without obvious error that any person who passed 6th-grade English would not make. It's called instant karma.

Keep tolerating ignorance and evil in the name of democracy and see how far you get with that.

canyoneer: such unions work best when the peoples included share a common history, language, and culture.

For those of you who aren't paying attention, this is dog-whistle for "no blacks or Mexicans."

canyoneer: As to "propping up" less competetive states, go ahead and pull the subsidies, but you'll have to place your bombing ranges in Massachussetts and New York. Also, the Nebraskans might have to start charging hefty tolls on all those goods-laden trucks transiting their state to make up for lost transporation funding. And then there's food. Without all those ag subsidies, your grocery bills might increase alarmingly. Massachussetts is not self-sufficient in food, you know. Oh, and natural gas. Might get a bit expensive to import all that NG from Texas and the Mountain West. That sort of thing.

I agree, but if you were going to go about funding states in a more pragmatic way you would defund some states. Not every state in the union serves a unique and indispensable purpose. It's like when people complain about public funding for rail while they live on a culdesac with 4 other people that nobody else ever drives on.

Self-deprecating, too liberal for their own good, today's progressives stand back and watch, hands over their mouths, as the social vivisectionists of the right slice up a living society to see if its component parts can survive in isolation.

i couldn't read any more than that. did he go on to describe how lofty and enlightened the progressives are and anyone who is different is some sort of mouth breather?

James F. Campbell: For those of you who aren't paying attention, this is dog-whistle for "no blacks or Mexicans."

The Germans complain bitterly about all the lazy tax-cheats in Greece and Portugal. Is this what you're getting at?

Headso: I agree, but if you were going to go about funding states in a more pragmatic way you would defund some states. Not every state in the union serves a unique and indispensable purpose. It's like when people complain about public funding for rail while they live on a culdesac with 4 other people that nobody else ever drives on.

But we don't have a pragmatic way, we have the United States Congress. It's a patronage system, and due to its structure, every state is going to get some payola, no matter how important or trivial that state is in the big scheme of things. And remember, things change over time - what was once perceived as worthless can become very valuable indeed. The Colorado Plateau, for example, was preceived as perhaps pretty but essentially worthless until the AEC needed a bunch of Uraninite.

But, drawing on a sample size of several thousand, correcting for both education and socioeconomic status, the new study looks embarrassingly robust. Importantly, it shows that prejudice tends not to arise directly from low intelligence but from the conservative ideologies to which people of low intelligence are drawn. Conservative ideology is the "critical pathway" from low intelligence to racism. Those with low cognitive abilities are attracted to "rightwing ideologies that promote coherence and order" and "emphasise the maintenance of the status quo". Even for someone not yet renowned for liberal reticence, this feels hard to write.

I don't know if being a passive-aggressive douche technically counts as self-deprecating.

"We're too nice to stand up to you evil racist retards."

Other than that it is unclear what his point is. Liberals are vitriolic enough? I think he may need to crack open a book, or check out the internet if he sincerely believes that (also there was this whole 2001-2008 period, may want to look in to that).

Or is it that democrats aren't getting their way in government? Because that is patently false.

colon_pow: Self-deprecating, too liberal for their own good, today's progressives stand back and watch, hands over their mouths, as the social vivisectionists of the right slice up a living society to see if its component parts can survive in isolation.

i couldn't read any more than that. did he go on to describe how lofty and enlightened the progressives are and anyone who is different is some sort of mouth breather?

No, but he did point out that empirical studies show progressives tend to be more intelligent than conservatives. This is not opinion, it is fact.

James F. Campbell: canyoneer: such unions work best when the peoples included share a common history, language, and culture.

For those of you who aren't paying attention, this is dog-whistle for "no blacks or Mexicans."

Through the right lens every statement is code for "no blacks or Mexicans". Doesn't make it true.

But we have an election coming up, everyone needs to be extra alert for potential racism just in case!

/a black guy growing up in the same town as me has more in common linguistically, culturally, and historically than a distant relative growing up in the old country. I would think that is obvious.

DarnoKonrad: Liberals have a really bad habit of treating batshiat insanity and willful dishonesty as differing but meritorious disagreement.

Those farking hippies need to pick up a club and go to town. There will be no peace until they've beaten their opponents into a pulp.

canyoneer: But we don't have a pragmatic way, we have the United States Congress. It's a patronage system, and due to its structure, every state is going to get some payola, no matter how important or trivial that state is in the big scheme of things.

Of course that is the case but what I was responding to your pragmatic reasons for needing "welfare" states.

And remember, things change over time - what was once perceived as worthless can become very valuable indeed. The Colorado Plateau, for example, was preceived as perhaps pretty but essentially worthless until the AEC needed a bunch of Uraninite.

Indeed but funding states doesn't keep the heavy metal there. Heavy metal does what it wants, doesn't need your respect.

Headso: Indeed but funding states doesn't keep the heavy metal there. Heavy metal does what it wants, doesn't need your respect.

Well, all those U.S. highways and water projects that had been built in the region were money well-spent when it came time to mine and mill and transport all of that Uraninite so Uncle Sam could build atomic bombs with which to menace the Russkies. You never know what might come in handy.

Headso: Indeed but funding states doesn't keep the heavy metal there. Heavy metal does what it wants, doesn't need your respect.

Bang your head!
Uranium mining will drive you mad!

middleoftheday: JesusJuice: No, but he did point out that empirical studies show progressives tend to be more intelligent than conservatives. This is not opinion, it is fact.

I remember that... if I remember correctly, their methodology was a bit flawed.

How so?

Of course, we could do something about the widespread willful ignorance of our electorate, but that would require some introspection as a society and an honest look at OH GOTTA GO MY STORIES IS ON

historycat: I would love to run for office, but I'm not in the 1%

Neither were most Democrats (at birth, at least). Clinton didn't come from a privledged background. Obama is farking black.

People like Romney, on the other hand...

DarnoKonrad: Liberals have a really bad habit of treating batshiat insanity and willful dishonesty as differing but meritorious disagreement.

This.

I was chided on facebook this past weekend by a fellow liberal for calling a group of Christians "you American Taliban types" and telling them they were a "disease" and "despicable, prideful little theocrats" and saying that the country would be better off the sooner we were shut of them and their ilk.

In fact, this is what she said:

"I mostly agree with your premise, but I don't believe your choice of wording helps make the point. Inflamatory statements only lead to anger and furthers the divisiveness we are facing as a Nation."

And let's not forget the Jon Stewart-inspired wave of self-policing liberal "you're not helping" douchebags who started scolding fellow liberals every time anyone said anything harshly critical of the right.

Too many liberals are so hung up on appearing to take the high road, that they become like rape victims who think it's poor form to do anything but say "please, if you wouldn't mind terribly, could you stop penetrating me against my will... if it's not too much of a bother."

You're not going to build a bridge to those right-wing pricks. They spend every day listening to a fat junkie hate liberals out loud for entertainment. Half of their positions are held for the simple sake of being on the opposite side of an issue from liberals.

What you can do is shut them down and expose them for what they are.

I've had the thought of filing to be on ballots in Ohio next election cycle after this one. (too late to file if I read things right) figure can't hurt and if I get elected, hey at least someone normal won for once?

I mean hey can't hurt and can only help by scaring the current politicians.

EyeballKid: Who are these liberals author is referring to? If you think for an instant it's a talking head for one of the big 3 networks, one of the CNN milquetoasts assigned to the counterpoint position of some home-schooled doofus who quit the Klan to be the CNN Tea Party correspondent, or the guy currently residing in the White House, you have no understanding of the word "liberal."

I guess the correct term for the Democrats and their media supports is "less illiberal"

After rereading the article the guy still comes across as a self described nice guy who spends all his time complaining that "those stupid sluts" just won't go out with him.

Dammit, after that headline I thought out was going to be an Onion article or something.