The Liberal Blind Spot

[alexw]

And here lies the problem with Liberals. This person right here. Trying to validate being an evil person.

And here is the problem with you. You don't like what I have said because its true so don't actually reply to the comment but attack me instead. Come on. Reply directly to the actual comment if you can.

[Spectral]

This conservative persecution complex is funny. I guess when you're a shrinking minority in the country it sucks to be you?

Indeed - who, whom? I don't think it's a great philosophy to live by, but I understand it.

[PC2]

I guess when you're a shrinking minority in the country it sucks to be you?

Specifically how so? If Democrats and socialist are the majority then those conservatives would still benefit from all the prosperity the other side creates.

[Pangean]

Yes, because no one employed by the pentagon or the armed forces were a civilian.

Lol. You certainly have an innate ability to ignore facts that show you are wrong and make further claims to try and squirm out of your previous ones. What was your actual claim again: "Virtually all of that growth and cut, were military." Let's see what the facts show: 230,000 new federal employees under Reagan. Size of the defense department in 1980 was 960,000, in 1988 was 1,050,000. Hmm basic math shows us an increase of 90,000. Hmm maybe on your planet thats anywhere near close to 230,000, but here on this planet it shows that the increases under Reagan were not "virtually all" military.

[Eliseus]

And here is the problem with you. You don't like what I have said because its true so don't actually reply to the comment but attack me instead. Come on. Reply directly to the actual comment if you can.

I did, I also won't give into your bait .

[Glorious Leader]

How so? If Democrats and socialist are the majority than those conservatives would still benefit from all the great prosperity the other side creates.

Not when you live in constant fear that you're dinosaur way of living will soon be extinct. It also presumes that dems and socialists are the same thing. Even Bernie is at best a new deal Democrat
I wouldn't call him a socialist.

[Eliseus]

You mean the democratic party didn't want a homophobe as a member, so she left and joined the party that is welcoming to those who dislike/hate homosexuals? I don't think you are helping your case much.

Haha, nice try .

[PC2]

Not when you live in constant fear that you're dinosaur way of living will soon be extinct. It also presumes that dems and socialists are the same thing. Even Bernie is at best a new deal Democrat
I wouldn't call him a socialist.

I understand they are different, but it is implied that either of those two groups would bring about a more overall prosperous society in the future. The idea that it would somehow not benefit conservatives is odd, unless you setup some type of special system where you only get free healthcare/college/etc if you're in the correct political party.

[Dezerte]

Extremely high IQs are tightly linked to creative success(shorter graphical version).

What you're engaging in is just outright denial of the best current psychometric evidence; this is science denialism.

No, I'm saying intelligence ≠ IQ. Hold your horses there, I'm not denying anything scientific (though social sciences do require more scrutiny) I just see intelligence as something broader. It's about recognizing that there are several "types" of intelligence.

[alexw]

I did, I also won't give into your bait .

As I said you can't actually respond in a proper fashion so attack me personally. This sort of nonsense is why republicans are losing. Their arguments just don't convince people and personal smear attacks can only carry them so far.

[Glorious Leader]

I understand they are different, but it is implied that either of those two groups would bring about a more overall prosperous society in the future. The idea that it would somehow not benefit conservatives is odd, unless you setup some type of special system where you only get free healthcare/college/etc if you're in the correct political party.

For the reactionary conservative they would lose on social issues (marjiuna, homosexuals, guns, god and abortion) even if they were guaranteed to do better under say Clinton style new democrats (which they wouldn't unless you count relative to some radical conservative dumb assery). Yea things were better under Clinton than Bush but not because of Clinton economic policy.

[PC2]

For the reactionary conservative they would lose on social issues even if they were guaranteed to do better under say Clinton style new democrats (which they wouldn't unless you count relative to some radical conservative dumb assery). Yea things were better under Clinton than Bush but not because of Clinton economic policy.

How would they lose in the future? Gays can already marry, Roe v Wade or similar policy isn't going to change much.

[Glorious Leader]

How would they lose in the future? Gays can already marry, Roe v Wade or similar policy isn't going to change much.

Gays can marry in certain states iirc not across the nation
The conservatives constantly challenege abortion. Legally and also through protests. It is by no means a dead issue. Having said that a Democrat packing the supreme Court would effectively make it a dead issue and we've got two set to retire now.

[Deleted]

This conservative persecution complex is funny. I guess when you're a shrinking minority in the country it sucks to be you?

Its not a complex when people in authority over hiring explicitly says it.

[PC2]

marjiuna

Barely illegal as it is.

homsexuals

They can already marry.

guns

They aren't going anywhere and access will increase with better technology.

god

Can't "lose" a fairytale, the US has never been a theocracy anyways.

abortion.

Wont change for the most part, even most Democrats don't like the idea of allowing a woman to abort a baby 1 week before the expected birthdate. See Roe v Wade.

[Katharine]

Homosexuality is the antithesis of marriage so they still can't be married.

[Deleted]

Lol. You certainly have an innate ability to ignore facts that show you are wrong and make further claims to try and squirm out of your previous ones. What was your actual claim again: "Virtually all of that growth and cut, were military." Let's see what the facts show: 230,000 new federal employees under Reagan. Size of the defense department in 1980 was 960,000, in 1988 was 1,050,000. Hmm basic math shows us an increase of 90,000. Hmm maybe on your planet thats anywhere near close to 230,000, but here on this planet it shows that the increases under Reagan were not "virtually all" military.

You mentioned the VA -? - (hint, they dont sort under the DOD)

With a total 2009 budget of about $87.6 billion, VA employs nearly 345,000 people at hundreds of Veterans Affairs medical facilities, clinics, and benefits offices and is responsible for administering programs of veterans’ benefits for veterans, their families, and survivors.

[Spectral]

Its not a complex when people in authority over hiring explicitly says it.

There's also the internal contradiction in Glorious Leader's post, which is pretty amusing:

"You guys have such a persecution complex. Hahaha, you're a dying minority!"

[PC2]

Hahaha, you're a dying minority!

Which is also ironic because minorities get treated very well in liberal societies, so it's like saying you gain additional perks.

[Pangean]

You mentioned the VA -? - (hint, they dont sort under the DOD)

One I quoted the Mises Institute who complained about. Two the VA is not under the department of defense and is not military. You are so cute when you squirm like this. Thirdly even if you want to claim they are, and you clearly and desperately want to. Their growth under Reagan was: 228000 in 1980 to 245,000 in 1988, for an increase of 17,000. So if we add this 17,000 to the previous 90,000 you just have 123,000 folks to try and explain away. Perhaps you will claim Treasury, Justice and Transportation are all military next.