It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Liberal Bigotry

page: 7
45
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 12:12 PM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

OK. You're welcome to that opinion.

It really doesn't show much for you to not even look at the data provided and automatically dismiss because you believe the scientist(s) was liberal.

But that's fine. Continue on playing the drama queen victim.




posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 12:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: MystikMushroom

If liberals were so awesome, if liberal ideologies were so great, if liberals weren't so bigoted, then why aren't liberal-run cities and towns shining beacons of utopian delights?

Why aren't liberal states awesome?

We've been at "war with poverty" for decades.

Have the great liberal solutions worked?

Or are the beautious liberals being thwarted at every step by their evil enemy, the dastardly conservative?


You cant question those things rabbit, didnt you see the study? They are superior to us intellectually, and indeed with more gray matter in their brain cases.......

We just wouldnt understand



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 12:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

OK. You're welcome to that opinion.

It really doesn't show much for you to not even look at the data provided and automatically dismiss because you believe the scientist(s) was liberal.

But that's fine. Continue on playing the drama queen victim.


I dismiss it because its bunk, not because im a science denier.......

And you can keep calling me names , it really doesnt matter AgentShillington



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 12:14 PM
link   
What I'm saying is that liberal or conservative you cannot deny history.

History PROVES that over time, evolutionary novel (new) ways of thinking triumph. People always cling to old ideas and morals, but time and time again it's been proven that they become discarded.

Conservatives are ALWAYS on the loosing end of these arguments. We may take a step back here and there, but we always make up for it with a few steps forward here and there.

Having that said, conservatism DOES play an important role in society. We need conservatives. Conservatives keep society from rushing ahead with new social ideas to quickly. They force us to slow down and debate. They allows us time to hash out details. We need some people to be cautious, fearful conservative-thinking.

In the end though it's pointless. As we continue to understand more about the natural world around us, we begin to fear it less. The less we fear our environment, the less we use the ancient structures of our mid-brain. We naturally use more grey matter.

The "more evolved" notion is in regards to socially evolved. As I pointed out, anyone can shrink the swollen amygdala and increase pre-frontal cortex activity. It's not like there is a "liberal gene".



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 12:14 PM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

The republican party when formed was the party of progress and democrat was the traditional values, including white superiority... and states rights party. Things flip flopped a few times over the years.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 12:16 PM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask



Wait so because I reject something thats obviously full of bias, and directed towards marginalizing a whole group of people because they dont think like them........


How did you come to that conclusion? You rejected it and posted such 8 minutes after MM created his/her post. Did you have enough time to read the piece, research the scientists behind the study and conclude that is was a biased piece created by liberal scientists?

If we are to take you seriously, and are not just talking out of ignorant denial, please post the 8 minute research you conducted to come to your conclusion?



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 12:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: MystikMushroom

If liberals were so awesome, if liberal ideologies were so great, if liberals weren't so bigoted, then why aren't liberal-run cities and towns shining beacons of utopian delights?

Why aren't liberal states awesome?

We've been at "war with poverty" for decades.

Have the great liberal solutions worked?

Or are the beautious liberals being thwarted at every step by their evil enemy, the dastardly conservative?


Perhaps we should ask Kansas ... or maybe Mississippi?

Oh wait ...



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 12:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

The republican party when formed was the party of progress and democrat was the traditional values, including white superiority... and states rights party. Things flip flopped a few times over the years.


So all the sudden since the 70s the REP party has gone all racist?

Nope sorry dont buy that one bit........

What I DO buy is that in the past 20 years they have gone from having constitutional values to being just another progressive group lite......

With the exception of certain candidates like Rand Paul, Bobby Jindal, and Scott Walker , who im convinced would all go 3rd party if they thought they could pull it off.......
edit on 6/29/2015 by ManBehindTheMask because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 12:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

You want to start a thread on conservative bigotry, go right ahead.

I'm still waiting on someone pointing out where liberalism has succeeded.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 12:19 PM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask



I dismiss it because its bunk, not because im a science denier.......

And you can keep calling me names , it really doesnt matter AgentShillington


OK, put your money where your mouth is. Prove it is bunk. Prove that the study was conducted by liberal scientists. You obviously found that in less than 8 minutes earlier, so it shouldn't be too hard to post some info.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 12:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: MoreBeer

I don't like either party either. They are both overly polarized, but there is CERTAINLY a clear winner between which party is more racist than the other.


I think Bill Maher said it best when he said something like;

Not all Republicans are racist, but if you are a racist and you're looking for political affiliation with a lot of other people who share your views, the GOP is the place for you.


Thats funny, because its the Republican party that pushed for the Civil Rights movement.......it was the Republican party that Pushed for womens right to vote, and Blacks.......

And its the GOP that seems to have more diversity in the presidential candidates......

DNC has an old white woman and an old white guy.........

Your quote seems to hold no water


Except for you forgot to add the part right after LBJ, (a southern Democrat) signed the Civil Rights Act into law. When he did that it served as "the straw that broke the camel's back" for southern Democrats and triggered a realignment of the two political parties.

The two political parties underwent a complete reversal of roles and positions at that point in time.

Today' GOPers are the southern Democrats of old. Not all of them, but especially their radical right-wing faction.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 12:20 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Really, liberal scientists...LOL.

Science is science. Numbers are numbers, they don't have opinions. Brain scans show which areas of the brain are active and which areas are not.

The entire reason these studies were done was not to prove one camp of people was better than the other. The purpose was to see if there was a biological reason for some people and not others to think so differently. They did indeed find it.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 12:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Gryphon66

You want to start a thread on conservative bigotry, go right ahead.

I'm still waiting on someone pointing out where liberalism has succeeded.


Gay marriage with support from the supreme court.

Isn't that a success?



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 12:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask



Wait so because I reject something thats obviously full of bias, and directed towards marginalizing a whole group of people because they dont think like them........


How did you come to that conclusion? You rejected it and posted such 8 minutes after MM created his/her post. Did you have enough time to read the piece, research the scientists behind the study and conclude that is was a biased piece created by liberal scientists?

If we are to take you seriously, and are not just talking out of ignorant denial, please post the 8 minute research you conducted to come to your conclusion?


Its pretty evident by the reading it, if you cant parse that , thats not my issue..........youre here to defend it, of course you arent going to agree with me......

ive read the study before, its not new, believe it or not I read other sites besides just ATS so its not the first time myself or many others have seen it, in fact I believe its come up before on ATS

And again you can call me ignorant all you want, it really doesnt matter, its cute youve resulted to personal attacks though...

Keep up the good work there buddy!



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 12:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask



I dismiss it because its bunk, not because im a science denier.......

And you can keep calling me names , it really doesnt matter AgentShillington


OK, put your money where your mouth is. Prove it is bunk. Prove that the study was conducted by liberal scientists. You obviously found that in less than 8 minutes earlier, so it shouldn't be too hard to post some info.


The burden of proof that its true isnt on ME, Im not the that posted it.....

Please provide the peer review that this study is factual........



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 12:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: introvert

Really, liberal scientists...LOL.

Science is science. Numbers are numbers, they don't have opinions. Brain scans show which areas of the brain are active and which areas are not.

The entire reason these studies were done was not to prove one camp of people was better than the other. The purpose was to see if there was a biological reason for some people and not others to think so differently. They did indeed find it.


Believe me, I know. I thought it was just as absurd when it was first mentioned, but I'm still waiting on Mr. Mask to post his research that found that liberal scientists were behind this study, and this was just one big hit piece.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 12:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask



I dismiss it because its bunk, not because im a science denier.......

And you can keep calling me names , it really doesnt matter AgentShillington


OK, put your money where your mouth is. Prove it is bunk. Prove that the study was conducted by liberal scientists. You obviously found that in less than 8 minutes earlier, so it shouldn't be too hard to post some info.


The burden of proof that its true isnt on ME, Im not the that posted it.....

Please provide the peer review that this study is factual........


Did you not make this statement?



LoL yes I deny it completely.........I guess that makes me a "science" denier.....lol

Liberal "scientist" doing a study on how much more "evolved" liberals are, magically come to the conclusion they are "superior"



You made a specific claim. "Liberal scientist". You also claimed this was a hit piece.

Why would you say something like that unless you had actually looked in to it?

The burden on you is to substantiate your claims. If you don't, we can easily assume you're in denial and we can safely conclude that you are not to be taken seriously, as you make ridiculous claims with no evidence.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 12:28 PM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Well jeeze maskman, you don't have to my word for it.


The Republican Party had a progressive element, typified in the early 20th century by Theodore Roosevelt in the 1907–1912 period (Roosevelt was more conservative at other points), Senator Robert M. La Follette, Sr. and his sons in Wisconsin (from about 1900 to 1946), and western leaders such as Senator Hiram Johnson in California, Senator George W. Norris in Nebraska, Senator Bronson M. Cutting in New Mexico, Congresswoman Jeannette Rankin in Montana, and Senator William Borah in Idaho. They were generally progressive in domestic policy, supported unions,[16] and supported much of the New Deal, but were isolationist in foreign policy.[17] This element died out by the 1940s. Outside Congress, of the leaders who supported Theodore Roosevelt in 1912, most opposed the New Deal.[18]

Starting in the 1930s a number of Northeastern Republicans took liberal positions regarding labor unions, spending and New Deal policies. They included Mayor Fiorello La Guardia in New York City, Governor Thomas E. Dewey of New York,[19] Governor Earl Warren of California, Senator Clifford P. Case of New Jersey, Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr. of Massachusetts, Senator Prescott Bush of Connecticut (father and grandfather of the two Bush presidents), Senator Jacob K. Javits of New York, Governor William Scranton of Pennsylvania, and Governor George W. Romney of Michigan.[20] The most notable of them all was Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller of New York.[21] They generally advocated a free-market, but with some level of regulation. Rockefeller required employable welfare recipients to take available jobs or job training.[22]

While the media sometimes called them "Rockefeller Republicans", the liberal Republicans never formed an organized movement or caucus, and lacked a recognized leader. They promoted economic growth and high state and federal spending, while accepting high taxes and much liberal legislation, with the proviso they could administer it more efficiently. They opposed the Democratic big city machines while welcoming support from labor unions and big business alike. Religion and social issues were not high on their agenda. In foreign policy they were internationalists, throwing their support to Dwight D. Eisenhower over the conservative leader Robert A. Taft in 1952. They were often called the "Eastern Establishment" by conservatives such as Barry Goldwater.[23]

The Goldwater conservatives fought this establishment from 1960,[24] defeated it in 1964, and eventually retired most of its members, although some became Democrats like Senator Charles Goodell and Mayor John Lindsay in New York.[25] President Richard Nixon adopted many of their positions, especially regarding health care, welfare spending, environmentalism and support for the arts and humanities.[26] After Congressman John B. Anderson of Illinois bolted the party in 1980 and ran as an independent against Reagan, the liberal GOP element faded away. Their old strongholds in the Northeast are now mostly held by Democrats.[23][27]


Wikipedia



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 12:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Do you deny the scientific importance behind what they posted and sourced?


Yep. Correlation does not equal causation.

Flawed methodology--what is exactly a "conservative?"" "Liberal?" Both labels used in the UK do not translate well to the US. Sample size? Age? Other confounding factors controlled? What was the selection bias? The interpretation bias?

All you gave us were two obviously politically motivated hit piece.


Rather ironic that one protest a thread of liberal bigotry with a lot of bigotry, isn't it?



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Flatfish




Except for you forgot to add the part right after LBJ, (a southern Democrat) signed the Civil Rights Act into law


Except that for over 20 years he opposed against any and all Civil Rights changes!



--In 1947, after President Harry S Truman sent Congress proposals against lynching and segregation in interstate transportation, Johnson called the proposed civil rights program a "farce and a sham--an effort to set up a police state in the guise of liberty."

--In his 1948 speech in Austin kicking off his Senate campaign, Johnson declared he was against Truman’s attempt to end the poll tax because, Johnson said, "it is the province of the state to run its own elections." Johnson also was against proposals against lynching "because the federal government," Johnson said, "has no more business enacting a law against one form of murder than against another."


The only reason he did it was because it politically expedient




top topics



 
45
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join