"Liberals Are Stupid" Thread

[Crock Hunter]

which is a primary reason to start a "liberals are stupid" thread.

The true reason for there to be a "liberals are stupid" thread is for speedier identification of right-wing nitwits ... however in that your far-right douchery is the stuff of legend. . . your entry here was completely unnecessary...

[rstrong]

"Liberal?"

The story doesn't mention "liberals." Zero-tolerance policies are traditionally a right-wing / conservative / Republican thing. It's the opponents of zero tolerance who are usually labelled "liberals."

It's a stupid policy in this case, but it ain't the "liberals" enforcing it.

Of course you're using the neocon definition of liberal: "Anyone you disagree with, even when they take a traditional Republican or conservative position."

[bannination]

Of course you're using the neocon definition of liberal: "Anyone you disagree with, even when they take a traditional Republican or conservative position."

WINNER. Just like Romney's health care plan was a good idea before Obama, now it's a "liberal agenda". Nutters.

[Ombudsman]

This thread is a good example of the kind of lunatics the Right attracts.

[Bungalow Bill]

I always get a kick out of how the nutters assume that all the liberals on this
board agree 100% with everything that happens in some faraway location
that we have nothing to do with and perhaps don't care all that much about
in the first place just because it supposedly has something to do with "liberals."

[O Really]

Yo, Parti - why don't you give some real "libs" (not the ones you create in your fertile imagination) a chance to agree with you from time to time? Here's a thought - the cupcake and pop-tart incidents arise as a natural flow of "zero tolerance" policies. You will not now, nor ever, find me agreeing with zero-tolerance, and I have criticized it often. I'm sure you'd agree - or apparently you do, given your view on the cupcake caper.

But guess what - it wasn't "libs" who started that. (from Wikipedia, but the same information is widely available elsewhere if you don't like that source)

"In 1982, conservatives James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling formulated their theory in the article Broken Windows,[9] published in The Atlantic Monthly, a U.S. cultural magazine.
The title of the article comes from the following example:
Consider a building with a few broken windows. If the windows are not repaired, the tendency is for vandals to break a few more windows. Eventually, they may even break into the building, and if it's unoccupied, perhaps become squatters or light fires inside. Or consider a sidewalk. Some litter accumulates. Soon, more litter accumulates. Eventually, people even start leaving bags of trash from take-out restaurants.
According to scholars, zero tolerance is the concept of giving carte blanche to the police for the inflexible repression of minor offenses, homeless people and the disorders associated with them.[10][11][12] A well known criticism to this approach is that it redefines social problems in terms of security,[13] it considers the poor as criminals, and it reduces crimes to only "street crimes", those committed by lower social classes, excluding white-collar crimes.[14]"

[Ombudsman]

The problem with a lot of these head cases is they need an enemy so the can launch their unbridled rage at this non-existent boogeyman to make them feel better about themselves. So they blame the government, or taxes, or the media, or liberals, or socialists or whatever the hate du jour happens to be.

[billy.pilgrim]

Yo, Parti - why don't you give some real "libs" (not the ones you create in your fertile imagination) a chance to agree with you from time to time? Here's a thought - the cupcake and pop-tart incidents arise as a natural flow of "zero tolerance" policies. You will not now, nor ever, find me agreeing with zero-tolerance, and I have criticized it often. I'm sure you'd agree - or apparently you do, given your view on the cupcake caper.

But guess what - it wasn't "libs" who started that. (from Wikipedia, but the same information is widely available elsewhere if you don't like that source)

"In 1982, conservatives James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling formulated their theory in the article Broken Windows,[9] published in The Atlantic Monthly, a U.S. cultural magazine.
The title of the article comes from the following example:
Consider a building with a few broken windows. If the windows are not repaired, the tendency is for vandals to break a few more windows. Eventually, they may even break into the building, and if it's unoccupied, perhaps become squatters or light fires inside. Or consider a sidewalk. Some litter accumulates. Soon, more litter accumulates. Eventually, people even start leaving bags of trash from take-out restaurants.
According to scholars, zero tolerance is the concept of giving carte blanche to the police for the inflexible repression of minor offenses, homeless people and the disorders associated with them.[10][11][12] A well known criticism to this approach is that it redefines social problems in terms of security,[13] it considers the poor as criminals, and it reduces crimes to only "street crimes", those committed by lower social classes, excluding white-collar crimes.[14]"

partly hates liberals for allowing the cons to pass bad law

remember 1/3 of the liberals in congress voted for nafta but all are blamed

[Ombudsman]

These idiots have an excuse for everything. If republicans support something that turns into a cluster fuck, they call them RINO's. If facts are presented that demonstrate they are in error about something, they claim the media is lying. If they don't like something in the Bible after beating others over the head with it, they claim it's in the Old Testament or taken out of context or mistranslated. These poor saps are so scared of reality they have a built in bullshit generator so the lies are never doubted.

[rstrong]

...remember 1/3 of the liberals in congress voted for nafta but all are blamed

"...the House of Representatives approved NAFTA on November 17, 1993, 234-200. The agreement's supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats. NAFTA passed the Senate 61-38. Senate supporters were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats..."

And, the treaty was signed by George H. W. Bush while Clinton later signed it into law.

And it was an expansion of the original Canada-U.S. free trade agreement, negotiated and signed by Ronald Reagan.

Bush I negotiated and signed the NAFTA agreement in 1992. Since it had been signed by Bush I under his fast-track prerogative, Clinton did not alter the original agreement. The U.S. House passed it with considerably more Republican than Democrat support.

[billy.pilgrim]

Plus, not all the Dem supporters can accurately be called liberals. Environmental and labor liberals were the strongest opponents.

again, I think you support my point


nafta was all con and was supported by some dems but if you ask the cons why all the jobs went to china, they will blame nafta and the dims

similar to partly's ignorance in blaming libs for zero tolerance

they accept no blame, no how, no way, but screw up everything they touch


please let texas secede

[O Really]

I think, in a grand gesture of reparation for all grievance arising out of the "waw of nawthan aggression" that we graciously encourage South Carolina to secede. I'll miss going to Peace and Bi-Lo, but SC is not the only place with a beach. And they can take Alabama and Mississippi with them.

[O Really]

Of course, being back in Florida for an extended stay, I've noticed that the legislature and governor are even more looney than when I lived here. Somewhere there's a tipping point at which the convenience of having a strip center every quarter mile, a gun shop on every corner, and six lanes of crazy drivers just isn't worth the hassle.

[Stinger]

The problem with a lot of these head cases is they need an enemy so the can launch their unbridled rage at this non-existent boogeyman to make them feel better about themselves. So they blame the government, or taxes, or the media, or liberals, or socialists or whatever the hate du jour happens to be.

Don't forget righteous indignation. They're real good with righteous indignation.

Also, it seems there are some inadequacy issues when it comes to intelligence. They really, really, really need for other people to be stupid so they can feel smart.

Best they can do.

[rstrong]

Are you so stupid as to believe that these school nutjobs enforcing this madness are conservatives?

This may come as a surprise to you, but there are plenty of conservatives out there who support education, let alone marry outside of their immediate family.

You just don't meet them, because they don't attend your Klan rallies. Try to expand your horizons.

[rstrong]

Supporting education doesn't translate to the leftist intolerance for pop-tart guns.

Remember, you are the one making the "educators, therefore liberals" connection. I am the one saying that there's no such connection. (Among real conservatives, not your tea party friends.)

Besides the white/republican demographics that vrede mentioned, zero-tolerance policies are traditionally a right-wing / conservative / Republican thing. It's the opponents of zero tolerance who are usually labelled "liberals."

If you'd do some reading outside of Stormfront and WingNutDaily, you'd know that. But heck, we should probably be impressed that you read at all.

[Ombudsman]

They use insults and the sheer volume of posts(Vrede especially) to intolerantly drive away anyone that doesn't agree with them, then they have to leave this
echo chamber to find someone to bitch about.

Why don't you check out your past few posts and let us know if you're self aware enough to realize why that comment is so goddamn funny?

[Boatrocker]

They use insults and the sheer volume of posts(Vrede especially) to intolerantly drive away anyone that doesn't agree with them, then they have to leave this
echo chamber to find someone to bitch about.

Why don't you check out your past few posts and let us know if you're self aware enough to realize why that comment is so goddamn funny?

They don't grasp the connection between irony and humor. Shit, they don't grasp irony. Which is ironic.

[O Really]

So let's summarize what we actually know - we know from the articles that at least two school districts, in different places, have, at some time in the past, adopted a "zero tolerance" policy with regard to gun stuff, and possibly other things, but we don't know what else. We know, from the articles, that both of those school districts applied their "zero tolerance" policy in a way that makes them look like idiots in the eyes of practically everyone. We don't know the politics of those who applied the policy in a way that looks stupid, and we don't know the politics of those who established the policy. We don't even know whether those who applied the policy (as a requirement of their job) actually supported it personally.

Instead of simply joining the rest of us in criticizing the policy itself and the stupid looking application, Parti tries to simply take on and denigrate "the libs" - most if not all of whom actually agree with him on this issue. Leads us to something else we may not know, but can certainly guess at - Partisan doesn't care about this actual issue; he hasn't a clue as to what real "libs" think, and he tries very hard just to live up to his handle without regard to accuracy or truth.

[Stinger]

So let's summarize what we actually know - we know from the articles that at least two school districts, in different places, have, at some time in the past, adopted a "zero tolerance" policy with regard to gun stuff, and possibly other things, but we don't know what else. We know, from the articles, that both of those school districts applied their "zero tolerance" policy in a way that makes them look like idiots in the eyes of practically everyone. We don't know the politics of those who applied the policy in a way that looks stupid, and we don't know the politics of those who established the policy. We don't even know whether those who applied the policy (as a requirement of their job) actually supported it personally.

Instead of simply joining the rest of us in criticizing the policy itself and the stupid looking application, Parti tries to simply take on and denigrate "the libs" - most if not all of whom actually agree with him on this issue. Leads us to something else we may not know, but can certainly guess at - Partisan doesn't care about this actual issue; he hasn't a clue as to what real "libs" think, and he tries very hard just to live up to his handle without regard to accuracy or truth.

He hasn't a clue what "think" is, much less what anyone else thinks.

Best the little twit can do.