The style of a liberal often includes these characteristics:

voted for "preference for obscenity and profanity," immediately regretted my decision.

"over-reliance on mockery "

lol

Funny- where's this from?

Lots of big words up there that Hannity does'nt know.

*doesn't

"resistance to quantifying things, such as liberal bias or openmindedness "

quantifying?

"how much liberal bias does the media have, on a scale of 1 to 10?"

# using hyperbole instead of fact-based logic in an attempt to tug at people's emotions rather than appealing to their sense of reason.[26]
# often long-winded and verbose, and in debates liberals often consume more than their fair share of the alloted time, leaving less time for the other side.
# attempting to control the rules of evidence used in a debate. For example, claiming that Young Earth Creationism is false, and then refusing to allow supporting evidence by claiming that the scientists are religiously motivated.
# attempting to control the definitions of words through political correctness. For example, referring to Israel as "occupied territories" or suggesting that Al-Qaeda terrorists in Iraq are not part of Al-Qaeda.
# Dismissing legitimate criticism as "a joke" [27]
# Denying something widely known to be true but difficult to prove, such as observing that men are far more likely to work in gas stations than women.[Citation Needed]
# Will often deny being a liberal, or will claim to be a "true conservative", while spouting liberal and democratic talking points and criticizing basic conservative beliefs and principles.
# using non sequiturs in argument, such as responding to the point above that liberals over-rely on accusations of hypocrisy by citing an example of conservatives' observing liberal hypocrisy. But their example does not help their argument. Quite the contrary, use of that example tends to prove that liberals do over-rely on accusations of hypocrisy (relativism). Think about that.
# selectively citing the Bible when convenient, even though they hold much of it in disdain.
# believing that bureaucratic honors or appointments are meaningful achievements.
# silly demands for apologies.[28]
# can't understand the difference between identity (e.g., color of one's skin), perspective (e.g., Judeo-Christian) and bias (e.g., Bias in Wikipedia).
# inability or unwillingness to differentiate between genuine conservative arguments and parodies of conservative arguments.
# "Contrariness is creativity to the untalented" - Dennis Miller's general observation about liberal behavior.[Citation Needed]
# Assuming criminals are on the other side of the political fence, without evidence.

willing to give away everything held dear by the majority to avoid serious conflict (such as liberal Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, or those liberals who wish to pull our troops out of Iraq, and embolden the terrorists).

followed immediately by:

using hyperbole instead of fact-based logic in an attempt to tug at people's emotions rather than appealing to their sense of reason.

... amazing.

I love emboldening me some terrorists

such as liberal Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain

You what?

THINK ABOUT THAT

this is the dumbest fucking shit I've ever seen

e did u see this?

http://crookedtimber.org/2007/11/21/by-their-fruits-shall-ye-know-them/

# inability or unwillingness to differentiate between genuine conservative arguments and parodies of conservative arguments.

hehe

fake poll

actually, true liberal 'style' is often condescending and pedantic.

that said, these don't have much to do with 'style' as much as they do with rhetorical content and tone.

* insistence on splitting their infinitives and dangling their modifiers

actually, true liberal 'style' is often condescending and pedantic.

Why do I find that less offensive than demagoguery and obscurantism?

conservative "style" is just as condescending and pedantic. I mean wtf do you think Bible-thumping sounds like?

In response, I would merely note this:

http://www.wdbj7.com/Global/story.asp?S=7411021&nav=S6aK

lol

Also liberal Neville Chamberlain, like many Anglo-American conservatives of his age didn't see the necessity of militarily confronting Nazi Germany until it was almost too late.

insistence on censoring certain speech, such as a description of The Flood or even teaching children about a massive flood, despite its acceptance by a majority of Americans

Yer talkin bout Katrina, rite?

liberals, stylin:

http://www.nndb.com/people/285/000051132/eric-alterman.jpg
http://www.nndb.com/people/267/000023198/garofalo.jpg
http://www.princeton.edu/~paw/web_exclusives/more/more_pics/more6_krugman.jpg

And how is it that so-called conservatives now feel like they deserve dibs on being the whingiest cretins on the planet?

ha!

most liberals can't even see the issues because they are so fixated on hating george bush!

conservative style -- neglects the democratic necessity of forestalling a tyranny of the majority

The Hillary Clinton nutcracker will crack smiles and nuts with stainless steel teeth secured in the upper legs

woah

liberal style often includes stinking like patchouli

forestalling a tyranny of the majority

Before 'liberal' became a mostly amorphous word for 'on-the-left-of-British-and-American-politics', back when their opponents were in favor of established churches and aristocratic privileges, liberals believed in liberty and, in the American context at least, as the Democratic-Republicans, the predecessors (for good or for ill) of the present day Democratic Party, insisted on amending the proposed US Constitution with a Bill of Rights before ratification.

kill the homo atheists in the northeast and their fag btheretehn in california

my kingdom for an editable username

The Parable of the Good Homo Atheist
Submitted by bill on Thu, 09/01/2005 - 22:09. faith Giving

You probably recognize the Parable of the Good Samaritan. Jesus told this parable to answer the question of a lawyer, or theologian, “And who is my neighbor?” What's great about parables is that they force the hearer to answer their own question. Sometimes, this is the best way to get people to rethink long held and entrenched rationalizations that help them avoid the real answer that's likely different from what they would rather hear.

The Parable of the Good Homo Atheist
There was a big disaster. Tens of thousands, probably hundreds of thousands of people lost all they had. Some of these had very little to begin with. But now they had nothing at all and no way to help themselves. They had no way out, and nowhere to go if they did. Now many Christians and Christian groups tithed to raise money to help. Some others merely prayed for God to send a miracle. They believe, that for their generosity God would bless them “Good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, [into their proverbial laps].”.

But a gay atheist had compassion on the victims too. He knew well what it was like to have nothing and nowhere to turn. So he gathered up into bags his blankets and towels; stopped by the Super Target and picked up some children's toys; pulled out his cell phone and called his boss to take a leave of absence from his job; drove through the bank drive-through and got a few hundred dollars out of savings; and then drove on to the Astrodome to deliver his packages and lend whatever help he could. Although he knew he'd never see a single penny of his money again and that he'd be late on his bills for the loss of pay for taking a leave of absence, he just wanted to do what he could for fellow human beings. No supreme being was going to bless him bounteously because he believed in none. No religious broadcaster would sing his praises. If anything, they would only condemn him for his homosexuality and for his rejection of their religion. And because he didn't go through proper channels--theirs.

Which of these proved the better neighbor? Which of these loved more?

If you think that this is stupid, just reread the passage in Luke 10:25-37 again and imagine how stupid this sounded to those taught to despise Samaritans and to disdain everyone outside their group, calling many of them “sinners.” It may help your understanding to substitute the word “Palestinian” for “Samaritan,” as you reread the parable. But the real point that I want to make, questions nobody's compassion or generosity.

The point that I want to bring up is that we Christians do good things often to please God and assume that we will be richly blessed for our generosity. Atheists expect nothing in return. Expecting "blessings" or more stars in your proverbial crown, makes realizing the real blessing of giving while expecting nothing in return, difficult to reach. So when we ask people to give, we should stop encouraging them with promises of supernal repayment. Just give because you want to.

damn I didn't read that, I thought it was going to be a psycho sermon. oh well.

There's too many choices to choose from, like Ponderosa on a good night.

bullying conservatives who disagree with liberal views

tuff liberlz

lol @ burt, pwned by sane Christians

Chamberlain was a conservative politician. In case it wasn't obvious, like.

Then again he did declare war on the nazis, so maybe that makes him a "liberal"

two button sport coat / untucked shirt / washed jeans / converse

beard

cut-off jean shorts, pink "down with america" t-shirt, stink lines

I should have figured this out by now, and I hope this doesn't come off as condescending ("don't take this the wrong way"?), but what does "liberal" mean in the US? Is it just anything along a continuum from John Kerry (or Neville Chamberlain!) to Noam Chomsky? Is Stephen Harper or, say, Brian Mulroney a liberal? Do you need to stand for anything or do you just need to oppose Christian fundamentalism and extremely (as opposed to fairly) aggressive militarism in foreign policy?

it really depends on who you ask, but yes, what you describe is certainly one definition

Depends on who you're talking to.

If they're a 'leftist' (ex. Chomsky) - then they'll not take kindly to being lumped in with the liberals. And probably vice versa.

If you're talking to a 'winger or libertarian, everyone to the left of Barry Goldwater/Dubya/Ron Paul/Reagan (pick one) is a Godless Leninist.

This can apply to a politician as a whole, as well as to their individual positions. So you could be liberal on abortion, but conservative on gun control, for example. There is a whole universe of issues that have been divided up in this way, and it would take some familiarity with the American political landscape to always know which side of which issue is which. I would imagine it's somewhat bewildering to outsiders, in much the way that someone learning a language with gendered nouns for the first time would need a while to learn whether a table is masculine or feminine, for instance.

Thanks for the "Lol conservatives r dum" thread, Ethan!

http://img113.imageshack.us/img113/302/deadhorseyk7.jpg

Barry G is too liberal for the cons, nowadays.

http://www.boundbygravity.com/images/liberal_indifference.jpg

http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal_Bias

Although some prominent liberal journalists and teachers deny being biased - or indeed that liberal bias exists at all in the media - many have freely admitted it (e.g., Andy Rooney).

that's funny. Wiki may be a bit slapdash, but someone would eventually edit out the part where they explain how liberal bias "infects" everything.

suit jacket and jeans
i'm feelin dirty, little loose at the seams

Jacques Barzun on "the great switch":

It is to the nineteenth century Liberals that we owe our political and civil rights. Sometimes the Conservatives helpe dhwen they wanted to outbid their opponents, but Conservatism normally stood for state intervention. It enacted the first factory laws, and "Tory Democracy" meant paternalism and protectrion over a broad range of social and economic activities. But toward the end of the century it became clear that neither Liberal freedoms nor Conservative restraints sufficed to give political equality and economic opporuntify for all.

...By the 1890's Liberal opinions everywhere abandoned the principle that the best government is that which governs least, and for practical politicans the ideal of liberty turned into that of liberality. A gneration later, by the end of the First World War, all parties favored some form of the welfare state. The Conservative (Republicans in America), slowly turning "Liberal" in the old sense, wer enow heard demanding a return to the "rugged individualism" of free enterprise adn claiming Adam Smith as their patron saint. The switch had taken place.

Automatic thread bump. This poll is closing tomorrow.

Worst. Poll. Ever.

Che Guevara '08

conservatives in america overwhelmingly opposed entering the war against hitler; their line (still spouted by pat buchanan) was "let the nazis and soviets kill each other off."

Ann Coulter for Janitor '08

when did ted kennedy become "lol at liberals" target number one?

july 18 1969

when were the Kennedys liberals?

i guess ted more or less fits the label now, but john was a moderate cold warrior at best and bobby was a belligerent ex-mccarthyite!

straight up libertarians are like DID U JUIST SAY THAT MAN? libertarian: YEAH I TOTALLY DID.

The funny thing about the whole *science* thing is that in a sense liberals really do have a monopoly on science. I don't mean that there aren't plenty of science-minded conservatives or plenty of science-ignorant liberals, but the scientific mindset is inherently liberal.

And liberalism comes largely out of a scientific mindset.

But scientists DRESS more like conservatives than liberals.

37. can't understand the difference between identity (e.g., color of one's skin), perspective (e.g., Judeo-Christian) and bias (e.g., Bias in Wikipedia).

I mean just

wow

Photo bias is a common liberal tactic of using an unflattering or menacing photo of a supporter of a conservative position to create a hostile impression in the reader.

Examples include:

* Time magazine's cover photo of Ann Coulter, designed to make her look like a childish fool

I can't tell when conservapedia has been vandalized, does that make me a liberal?

IRE got to it

liberals: now to blame for conservatives' faces.

Automatic thread bump. This poll's results are now in.

great work guys

Ctrl f strident- wtf