Why are liberals so condescending? - Page 2

You mean the pretty pictures of conservative condescension? You mean the entire thread based around conservative condescension? I also don't see that it's condescending to say that people who base their lives and careers around the scientific method tend to avoid a particular political affiliation...an affiliation that likes to make outrageous claims on a daily basis.

Since when did the Republicans become the party of victims?

By avoiding a particular political affiliation, I was referring to Republicans. I wasn't saying they avoided affiliations. They avoid one in particular. I wonder why.

*gasp* Obama can't do it all himself. And if his own party turns his back on him by paying more attention to their corporate overlords than their allegedly true ideals, of course he's not going to get everything he said done.

We need corporate money completely out of Washington...but of course, you don't even agree with that either. You want corporations to have more voices than anyone else gets. The individuals who work for and run the corporations get their votes just like everyone else. They already have voices. To let corporations donate as much money as they want, too, gives them more voices than the average American.

Conservatives have a pretty anti-science agenda in the first place. They force people who they attempt to alieante to oppose them, lest we have a New Dark Ages.

Your premise is false. The behaviors are not imagined. You addressed this with falsehoods. Yay!

"imagined behaviors of the right..."

Those behaviors are not imagined. You presume that they are. That presumption is wrong.

Trumpy thinks we're condescending. How cute.

Trumptman has me on 'ignore' (can't fathom why) but this thread is fucking stupid and is very easily finished.

Will someone just ask trumptman to prove that all 'liberals' everywhere are without exception 'condescending' and when he can't, direct him to the thread where he argued that 'conservatives' did not celebrate when Barack Obama's pitch to the IOC was rejected because [enter fucked up syllogisms, infuriating word games, hypocrisy and My Team blindness here.]

Wheeee!

Yeah..let's wrap this up:

Wingers are known for not necessarily being the brightest bulbs in the box (the one area where their bulbs definitely are energy-compliant) and rather than ignore this, liberals, being sympathetic, explain things slowly and with compassion taking into account the limitations and intellectual shortcomings of their winger audience.

That's all there is too it...

Basically Wingers like it rough and any attempt to help them and make it easy for them is seen as condescension....and of course helping the under-privileged (in this case themselves) which wingers never like.

They'd much prefer the Nazi approach but then they are wingers....

That's simple...

There is far more to life than money (culture, art and philosophy for example - all fields notoriously absent from any historical winger input; there is no winger "Guernica" or winger Picasso is there? No 'Ballad of Abu Ghraib' up there with Shakespeare or anything) and any fool knows that money is incidental to happiness and psychological well-being.

Wingers on the other hand, do not seem to know this.... they have the most money because they are the most obsessed by it.

You might as well cite rabbits as being the most good looking because they have the most sex.

Fair enough, if that's the benchmark but there is such a thing as unsophistication...sometimes it even shades off into barbarism....

Wingers? That has a Left and Right correct? So this statement applies to both sides then... \

Oh, and trying to pretend that you have to talk down to someone when you really don't need to, is condescension. Whether you believe they need to be talked down to or not.

I don't care one way or the other about this thread myself. However it has really brought out the snide side of all involved. And for those arguing against trumptman, take a look in the mirror. If you don't want the thread to live, don't post. Stop pissing and moaning in the thread about the thread thereby prolonging the life of the thread. Geeze...

Can someone translate this please?

It seems to have been run through Bablefish from Klingon - I'd really like to respond so any help appreciated....

The latest in right wing insanity:
Newt Gingrich: " The shoe bomber is an American citizen."
WTF.
Responding to this with "Newt you are an ffff... lying evil freak" is not condescending, it's just fact.

Isn't that just abuse though? Condescension is more like how all contrarian posters have been responding to Trumpt all thread though I don't think he's noticed yet...

It was such an open goal but maybe it was a tad too ironic....

I thinks the basic message is, you're remembered if your successful, and you're deemed successful if you have lots of money, ergo money is the only meaningful objective measure of an individuals worth, and this is true because Ayn Rand told me so.

He seems to be saying that most of what people enjoy doing in life requires money to do it. So those who have money can get on to doing what they enjoy and not have to spend more time wondering where the money is going to come from instead.

He then goes on to note that "rich" is a subjective measure. At the very end he goes into whether it is better to be the best or the most successful. Not sure the point he was making for that except to say if you want to be remembered in history you have to play the success game. (I think.)

Not sure if you actually wanted the translation or not, but there it is as i see it.

Mere survival doesn't cost much and security is priceless.

What's interesting is that being the best at anything seems to have great monetary rewards. I've told my kids that if you do what you love it won't feel like work and the money will follow; If you settle for being less, if you don't push, you won't move up; If you go through all the trouble of locking, loading, and looking down the barrel and you don't aim at the dead center of the target, you're wasting your time...

Winners don't have to waste time making excuses.

The original point is that liberals are condescending in general. Conservatives are often dismissed as being less intelligent, out for the rich, corrupted by money/business interests, warmongers, etc. Moreover, their political victories are dismissed as being the result of sleazy right-wring attack machines or even the voters being stupid or misinformed.

You yourself engage in this kind of thing. Almost every left-leaning poster here does it. We've seen countless examples...liberals tend to not just disagree, but savage their opponent personally. If someone posts he/she listens to Sean Hannity or Glenn Beck or--God forbid---agrees with something Sarah Palin said, that person is savaged. These viewpoints are almost always dismissed no matter how well-supported or reasonable they might be (not that they all are). Worse still, the person originally espousing the viewpoint is savaged, particularly if its a national figure like the aforementioned.

Do you honestly not see this?

.


I think it's fine to point out a promise has not been kept...even if one doesn't want the resulting policy implemented. You could look at it as intellectual dishonesty, I suppose. However, one could also see it as adding credibility, since the person doing the criticizing has no motivation to lobby for said policy.



I don't think anyone blames "this" on Obama (if by "this" you mean the financial crisis). However, many rightly blame him for the policies he's implemented that have very likely delayed recovery and that will have a devastating effect in the future. One can take issue with Obama still blaming "the previous administration" 13 months into his first term. One can correctly observe that Obama and his Administration clearly have an anti-business, anti-free market viewpoint that calls for government to "create jobs and stimulate the economy." One can point out that these policies didn't work in the past and won't work now. Right?


Wouldn't have seen this if you hadn't quoted him. Nice. Incidentally, I had someone tell me he was an "officianado" [sic] of fine cigars the other day. Douche bag!

Except he's right. What's condescending is that you expect us to believe the Republicans aren't doing what he's saying and that the poll numbers don't reflect poorly on the American public.

But as I've said we already know why you would comment on liberals at all!
We know that nothing would alter your perception of them.
However I have sympathy for those who suffer from :

Partisan
Polarity
Disorder

I know that for the most part they don't even see it.
However the American voter hasn't got any more time for this. PPD is a terrible affliction.

Republicans feel they deserve it 'cause they earned it. Democrats feel they deserve it 'cause it's their right.

And the truth neither deserve anything as they're just political parties ( that are supposed to work for the voter ) that have to learn to work together if they want to survive.

The thread of condescension? More like the thread of condensation. It's raining Wingers.

Ayn Rand is very stale joke meant for a time when socialism and communism were in vogue.

In other words very passe.

The word that I'm looking for is Asceticism. Something that the baby Jebus could relate to, or so I've been told.

If they're like this now, I can only imagine how they'll be when they start losing seats this year, and when prez Obama is voted out in 2012.

The real question is how are you going to be when they don't and he isn't?

I'm betting just the way you are now. Desperate.

Sandbox!

Really trumptman all I hear from your side toward everyone is condescension. From the spelling Bee to " The Boomers did it " all designed to push someone's buttons. Not to really discuss. And of course extremely partisan to point where you realize you aren't really talking with someone. They're talking at you.

And yes you'd better brace yourself when all of what you want doesn't come to fruition. To bad it's not what the rest of the country wants but we've already discussed the partisan issue.

No, the lefties here are a diminishing lot because it's an exercise in futility to talk to the conservatives here. The ones who keep coming back are stupid enough to think that maybe this time the conservatives might listen to reason. Maybe this time they won't be intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt. It's out of hope that there's real, compassionate people somewhere deep down inside them. It's too sad to have that hope demolished.

And Scott Brown didn't prove shit. He only showed that if you run a terrible campaign and act like a giant twat, the base won't come out in droves to vote for you. He showed that if you say nothing of substance but have a truck and then say blatant falsehoods in the first 10 minutes after being elected, the conservatives in this country don't give a shit because they are rabid and crazy and completely out of their minds at this point.

Seems to me liberals don't have a leg to stand on, given Obama's failures and broken promises. They have been reduced to blaming Bush- again, and poking fun at, and obsessing over S. Palin.