Hilarious AND true!

Are you people not affected by cognitive dissonance or what?

Explain your ridiculous contradictory views.

Especially the ones about being for small government and freedom, but then try and stop people from making their own choices about who they can marry, what they can do with their own bodies, and what they can smoke.

Also, why are so many establishment republicans and news media so against Ron Paul? The only small government conservative in the race!

What happened to Personal Liberty and Personal Responsibility?

Wait a second, isn't "Personal Responsibility" a GOP term? WOW! The contradictions are endless!

Ahhhh... Terker, Twerker, Twerker... will you never learn?

I am going to leave the merging of Ayn Rand and Jesus to a later post - though even a child could reconcile these 2 apparently contradictory sources.

First I want to address this blatant case of the pot calling the kettle black. It is so outrageous I scarcely know where to start.

I suppose I should begin with your favorite go-to term when you want to sound smarter than you are - cognitive dissonance (which, I submit, you do not understand).

According to cognitive dissonance theory, there is a tendency for individuals to seek consistency among their cognitions (i.e., beliefs, opinions). When there is an inconsistency between attitudes or behaviors (dissonance), something must change to eliminate the dissonance. In the case of a discrepancy between attitudes and behavior, it is most likely that the attitude will change to accomodate the behavior.

Cognitive dissonance is a psychological phenomenon which refers to that discomfort felt at a discrepancy between what you already know or believe and new information or interpretation.

In YOUR case Twerker, you BELIEVE that conservatives are the source of all that is wrong, bad or evil in the world - and that liberals (actually leftists) are the source of all that is right (correct), good and pure in the world.

Now, you may recall a debate we had some time ago regarding hate speech on the left, which arose from the shooting Rep Giffords. Your contention was that hate speech on the right was far worse than that on the left. As your "proof" of this you presented a number of clips taken from a faux-news comedy show whose host showed EDITED excerpts of a SINGLE conservative political commentator - Glen Beck. That was the ONLY evidence you presented.

I, on the other hand, presented UNEDITED examples of hate speech on the left that made Glen Beck sound like a Girl Scout! Not only that, I presented the actual video and audio with transcripts from MULTIPLE lefists who were REAL news persons and political commentators - not comedians!

But when confronted with the truly hateful and vile speech of these leftists - something that was at a complete variance with your "beliefs, opinions" - what you believed about leftists was suddenly in a head-on crash with the actual reality - the new information - and you reacted PRECISELY in the manner of one experiencing cognitive dissonance.

Rather than confront and accept the truth - which was at odds with your own beliefs - you went through all manner of completely senseless and baseless contortions to dismiss that truth, that new reality - speculating about what some of those leftists meant or might be thinking rather than listening to what they were ACTUALLY saying. You manufactured, out of whole cloth, this whole new "reality" to protect your delicate sensibilities regarding leftists. And you went to ridiculous extremes to justify leftist behavior in order to maintain your worldview - right=bad, left=good.

This was the same cognitive dissonance on display when, despite overwhelming evidence, hard irrefutable proof offered to you from multiple sources, you continued to insist that you most certainly did not get a tax cut under the Bush tax cuts. Your deep hatred of Bush, your firm conviction that he only gave tax cuts to the "rich" because that's what "evil conservatives" do - look out for the "wealthy" and "privileged" - those "beliefs and opinions" came into violent contact with cold hard reality and you just could not see that new reality, and the "discomfort" you felt at that discrepancy was on full display for all to see.

So... you might want to bear this in mind when you are tempted to attach this label to others... pot!

A political party that is neither monolithic nor ideologically consistent?!

That's why I've written a multitude of quite lengthy papers on the subject and gotten A's on all of them.

As usual, you are full of shit.



LOL! Don't think that. Never said that. You're full of shit yet again! What a surprise.



Jesus Christ. You're bad at being concise aren't you? And you change the subject? You make talking pointless.

I shouldn't be even dignifying this with a response since you CHANGED THE SUBJECT, but no, as usual you're wrong. Both sides say bad things.

"right=bad, left=good"

If that's what you think that I think, your head is irrecoverably up your ass.

"Irrefutable proof?"

I have provided you irrefutable proof before and you rationalize it away. You do the exact thing you claim I do. Which I don't.



More rambling, holy crap. You sure like beating dead horses don't you?

You have proven your lack of credibility by not being able to answer even a single question of mine in an attempt to have actual debate instead of your usual bullshit non-arguments that never seem to ever actually be about the subject being discussed.

As usual I question your mental status.

Twerker, you can question dbl's "mental status" all day long but he did just provide a couple of solid examples of past instances in which you exhibited the exact behavior of someone experiencing cognitive dissonance, that term you love to use so much. If you want to throw around the accusation every other post, feel free, but be prepared to take it when it flies back in your face.

All I'm sayin MDanel... all I'm sayin.

I'll get to the rest of Twerker's post above in due time.

No. They're really not, but good job at avoiding answering questions and changing the subject.

You.....are projecting.

In any case, what Twerker seems to be saying is that it's, at the very least, amusing to have the Republican party have under it's, ah, wing, both those representing the classical examples of right-wing ideologies and at the same time libertarians and such. Real libertarians, I mean. The conflict comes from what libertarians are, which I don't think needs defining, and in that the right wing historically supports the powerful. And, if you believe Thomas Jefferson, power necessarily corrupts, and becomes an instrument of Tyranny, which is destructive to liberty.

Or the ultra-religious quoting Jesus and the right-wing.

That's what I take from this thread, anyways.

Uhm, well, historically.....

That is, there are (obviously) strong links between conservatism and the right wing, and historically the right-wing supports the powerful over the lower classes, however this be defined.

Depending on the setting, right wing movements can support the existence of an aristocracy of some type -- a general hereditary nobility, a monarchy, both, etc. -- ....many times in response to a counter movement. There are moderate associations between the support of the status quo and the right-wing, in addition.

More precisely, the phrases right-wing and rightist indicate support for a hierarchical society justified by an appeal to natural law or tradition.

So, while the link between the support of the powerful and conservatism is not as strong as between that and the right-wing, it is strong enough.

About as strong as the support of the weak and modern liberalism.

As far as classical liberalism, I don't believe such was ever an explicit goal, but obviously, given what classical liberalism is, liberty for all is useful in resisting the actions of the powerful against the meek.