Harmony Central Forums
Announcement Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.

The difference between Conservatives and Liberals defined.

Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse









X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The difference between Conservatives and Liberals defined.

    The anti-intellectualism of the left is particularly well defined.

    Worth the viewing.


  • #2

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the Internet, we know this is not true.

    Comment


  • #3
    Not him, ****************************. You. You're what defines the difference and makes the other side feel so relieved they're NOT you.
    "I don't see how the fat lady with the dog fits in." Stonedtone

    "I usually know whats going to come out well. Im usually right." Davo17

    "Don't make me spell bitch on your ass with a backwards B." moonlight

    "He believes that when you've worked hard, and done well, and walked through that doorway of opportunity, you do not slam it shut behind you. You reach back, and you give other folks the same chances that helped you succeed."

    Comment


    • #4

      Davo17 wrote:

      The anti-intellectualism of the left is particularly well defined.

      Worth the viewing.


      Anti-intellectualism? You do realize that the more education a person has the more likely to be liberal, right? Are you really saying all those liberal college professors are anti-intellectual? LOL

      Comment


      • Daryl Flynn
        Daryl Flynn commented
        Editing a comment

        splatbass wrote:

        Davo17 wrote:

        The anti-intellectualism of the left is particularly well defined.

        Worth the viewing.


        Anti-intellectualism? You do realize that the more education a person has the more likely to be liberal, right? Are you really saying all those liberal college professors are anti-intellectual? LOL


        Bull****************

         

        williamfbuckley\_460x276.jpg

        lol

         

        Attached Files

      • Davo17
        Davo17 commented
        Editing a comment

        splatbass wrote:

        Davo17 wrote:

        The anti-intellectualism of the left is particularly well defined.

        Worth the viewing.


        Anti-intellectualism? You do realize that the more education a person has the more likely to be liberal, right? Are you really saying all those liberal college professors are anti-intellectual? LOL


        You sir, are an idiot.

        Put forth your evidence.


      • Jack Walker
        Jack Walker commented
        Editing a comment

        splatbass wrote:

        Davo17 wrote:

        The anti-intellectualism of the left is particularly well defined.

        Worth the viewing.


        Anti-intellectualism? You do realize that the more education a person has the more likely to be liberal, right? Are you really saying all those liberal college professors are anti-intellectual? LOL


        We're just saying that liberals are anti-common sense. Look at Nancy Pelosi. She is the epitomy of a dumb brick. Most highly intellectual people, especially college professors don't get reality. Believe me I 've dealt with them for almost half of my life. While they do their job well, I would not want them in politics. They don't relate to the real world for the most part.


    • #5

      I have both in my family.

      I have been through my share of the uglies with my stance of "they're both ****************ed".

      but imo the difference that stands out to me is that while Lib's are for free speech, they get foaming @ the mouth pissed off with religious hatred if you disagree with them.

       

      Can't listen to this until I'm done hearing Exile on Main Street and downed this glass of Crown Royal
      ~Zig al-din
      good peeps:
      jacobhf, ambient & company, 3vcos, jrkirkish, Nich, young_grandma,

      Comment


      • jorhay1
        jorhay1 commented
        Editing a comment

        whats with all the pics of Buckley?

        Has anyone seen a pic of Pelosi?

         

        Like I said,

        they're both fugly


      • Caulk Rocket
        Caulk Rocket commented
        Editing a comment
        Notice how each participant uses others to define intellectualism, rather than the merits of their own posts here.


      • Davo17
        Davo17 commented
        Editing a comment

        jorhay1 wrote:

        I have both in my family.

        I have been through my share of the uglies with my stance of "they're both ****************ed".

        but imo the difference that stands out to me is that while Lib's are for free speech, they get foaming @ the mouth pissed off with religious hatred if you disagree with them.

         


        Faith are fixed beliefs in the absence of evidence.

        Recently, I posted demonstrable and definitive data that shows the educational program has NO benefit to children.  It also costs 7K per child per year, meaning Billions are wasted each year.

        Upon posting the data, there was a stream of silly liberals essentially calling me scrooge, and saying I hate kids.  They also feel the program works.

        I asked for evidence, and they produced none.

        But they still believe it works, despite objective proof.

        Liberalism is EVERY BIT as much a religion as Christianity.


    • #6

      This thread is childish rubbish - or at least it was until I got here .png" alt=":smileywink:" title="Smiley Wink" />

       

      The difference between conservatives and liberals is that they believe different things from each other.  Everything else is bull****************.

      Question: Why did the monkey fall out of the tree?


      Answer: because it was dead.

      Comment


      • normh
        normh commented
        Editing a comment

        Conservative have more headaches than liberals:

         

        After publishing an especially challenging quantum mechanics article, it's not uncommon to hear some of our readers complain that their head hurts. Presumably, they mean that the article gave them a (metaphoric) headache. But it's actually possible that challenging your brain does a bit of physical damage to the nerve cells of the brain. Researchers are reporting that, following situations where the brain is active, you might find signs of DNA damage within the cells there. The damage is normally restored quickly, but they hypothesize that the inability to repair it quickly enough may underlie some neurological diseases.

        <snip>

        Source and full article: http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/03/learning-hurts-your-brain/


    • #7

      Conservatives and Liberals defined

       

      Laurel and Hardy.jpg

      Attached Files

      Comment


    • #8
      " I think it means you are insecure, so you have to try to drag others down to your level"

      A concise summary of kav's entire post history, from what I have seen. Especially sad in someone with 6 decades of life experience.

      Comment


      • Used2BMarkoh
        Used2BMarkoh commented
        Editing a comment

        prolurkerguy wrote:
        " I think it means you are insecure, so you have to try to drag others down to your level"

        A concise summary of kav's entire post history, from what I have seen. Especially sad in someone with 6 decades of life experience.

        Yeah, insecure, coupled with a superiority complex.  That's a lib, in a phrase.

        I don't know how you deal with it.  If you are nice to them, they take it as confirmation of themselves, if you challenge them it means you're a rotten sob.  They are very insular, very well protected.

         


    • #9
      "Yeah, insecure, coupled with a superiority complex. That's a lib, in a phrase"

      Nah, just kav. I doubt he's really very liberal, prob just a staunch democrat.

      Comment


      • Used2BMarkoh
        Used2BMarkoh commented
        Editing a comment

        prolurkerguy wrote:
        "Yeah, insecure, coupled with a superiority complex. That's a lib, in a phrase"

        Nah, just kav. I doubt he's really very liberal, prob just a staunch democrat.

        You're probably right.  But it's more fun to stereotype.

        Truth as a contest, though, that is a lib thing.  Ad hominem is not a logical fallacy, it's a way of life in liberal thought.

         


    • #10

      Davo17 wrote:

      The anti-intellectualism of the left is particularly well defined.

      Worth the viewing.


       

      There are some interesting points being made there - if I thought it was possible to have an actual dialogue about the issues with Mr. 17, I'd probably go for it. 

      Comment


      • Invisible Hand
        Invisible Hand commented
        Editing a comment

        Zig al-din wrote:

        Davo17 wrote:

        The anti-intellectualism of the left is particularly well defined.

        Worth the viewing.


         

        There are some interesting points being made there - if I thought it was possible to have an actual dialogue about the issues with Mr. 17, I'd probably go for it. 


        He does make some good points but he is also an expert at constructing a caricature of "the left" that is little more than a foil for his proselytizing.  He could offer courses on how to build a strawman without being painfully obvious about it.  


      • Davo17
        Davo17 commented
        Editing a comment

        Zig al-din wrote:

        Davo17 wrote:

        The anti-intellectualism of the left is particularly well defined.

        Worth the viewing.


         

        There are some interesting points being made there - if I thought it was possible to have an actual dialogue about the issues with Mr. 17, I'd probably go for it. 


        Im glad you came to that conclusion about the video, Zig.

        They did a great one on the decline of "White America" as they called it, which has almost nothing to do with race, save the fact that white men since the death of Kennedy were researched.  Its got some great points as well.

        Its a shame, but you are correct our dialog wouldnt get too far.  Lets save the keyboard strokes.

         


    • #11
      You're hitting a new low here, fans of Reagan and George W. "I read a book once, I think" Bush need to dummy up about anti-intellectualism.

      You're a perfect example on the new version of the "Know Nothing" Party's membership.

      Comment


      • #12
        "He could offer courses on how to build a strawman without being painfully obvious about it."

        Let's all chip in and pay coyote's tuition for such a course.

        Comment


        • #13
          He's back and he's ANGRY! Lol
          "Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."“Conservatives say if you don't give the rich more money, they will lose their incentive to invest. As for the poor, they tell us they've lost all incentive because we've given them too much money.”― George Carlin"The founding fathers were well aware of rapid firing capabilities by the indians." - NormH

          Comment


          • #14
            Religious people are more likely to give to charity, and when they give, they give more money: four times as much. And Arthur Brooks told me that giving goes beyond their own religious organization:

            "Actually, the truth is that they're giving to more than their churches," he says. "The religious Americans are more likely to give to every kind of cause and charity, including explicitly non-religious charities."

            Comment


            • splatbass
              splatbass commented
              Editing a comment

              prolurkerguy wrote:
              Religious people are more likely to give to charity, and when they give, they give more money: four times as much. And Arthur Brooks told me that giving goes beyond their own religious organization:

              "Actually, the truth is that they're giving to more than their churches," he says. "The religious Americans are more likely to give to every kind of cause and charity, including explicitly non-religious charities."

              You have to use the same standard for each side of the equation. You can;t skew the results by comparing apples to oranges. So if you arecorrect it should be easily proven using the same parameters on both sides. Go to it.


          • #15

            Comment



            Working...
            X