Why Liberals Are Brain Dead
I have noticed that when liberals try to argue, they usually don't--instead, they use ad hominem attacks. The reason is obvious, when their facts are nonexistent, they still have the power of name calling or using a personal attack to give them the feeling that they've won the argument. Trouble is, a liberal has only won in his or her own mind, because when you examine what liberals stand for, their arguments are indefensible. They often come here to my blog and, rather than arguing about what I may have written, they call me names. The last liberal called me Whorey (my last name is Hoey), and thus, the scallywag made fun of my name--how very mature and intelligent, with such a powerful refutation. Maybe it's the anonymity of the internet that allows people like him to act like a dunce, but conservatives often have to put up with this and I feel it's analagous to somebody flipping you off while driving. For these libtards, profanity is usually their stock in trade.
I have no proof other than personal experience, but I believe liberals are much less intelligent than conservatives. Ann Coulter said "When a Republican becomes a Democratic, there is an average increase in IQ on both sides of the aisle." I totally agree with that assessment. Liberals want mommy and daddy government to take care of them and they believe it's the role of Big Brother to do that and to tell them how good they are. Liberals are nothing without positive reinforcement from other liberals. Interestingly, Coulter cites a study done at two American colleges by Robert Lichter and Stanley Rothman (The Radical Personality: Social Psychology Components of New Left Ideology, Political Behavior, 1982) resulted in a mental assessment of liberals showing they tend to exhibit "narcissistic pathology," with much of its concomitant mental attributes such as, "grandiosity, envy, a lack of empathy [I could have told you that], illusion of personal perfection, and sense of entitlement." Now doesn't that sound familiar? So when one becomes a liberal, one does it for something less than altruistic motivations, it seems.
Liberals like to see themselves as victims so they get behind those people who they see as victimized. Single parent mothers, the Palestinians (for some reason it's never the Jews), Islam. It isn't that these groups are really the victims, it's just that they make better victims than the groups they tend to actually victimize. Single parent mothers victimize their child(ren), as numerous studies show. Palestinians have been kept from their rightful land, in spite of the fact the Jews had it for millennia, and there never was a Muslim Palestinian state. Islam is the up-and-coming religion (oh yes, and it's coming to your neighborhood soon) and those poor Muslims are victimized by us unfair Christians and Jews, in spite of the fact that they say a special prayer 17 times a day in the five times they pray, that castigates Jews and Christians, and they burn churches, kill Christians, and shoot rockets at Jewish schoolbuses, and still liberals see them as victims. One can only wonder how many terrorist attacks, how many Americans have to die, before liberals catch on (particularly that strange organization, Gays for Palestine. How suicidal it would be for a gay to come out in Palestine proudly announcing, "I am gay, hear me roar!" as the rope is put around his soft neck and he is hung from a crane like a sausage at Tony's Butcher Shop.
I have no proof other than personal experience, but I believe liberals are much less intelligent than conservatives. Ann Coulter said "When a Republican becomes a Democratic, there is an average increase in IQ on both sides of the aisle." I totally agree with that assessment. Liberals want mommy and daddy government to take care of them and they believe it's the role of Big Brother to do that and to tell them how good they are. Liberals are nothing without positive reinforcement from other liberals. Interestingly, Coulter cites a study done at two American colleges by Robert Lichter and Stanley Rothman (The Radical Personality: Social Psychology Components of New Left Ideology, Political Behavior, 1982) resulted in a mental assessment of liberals showing they tend to exhibit "narcissistic pathology," with much of its concomitant mental attributes such as, "grandiosity, envy, a lack of empathy [I could have told you that], illusion of personal perfection, and sense of entitlement." Now doesn't that sound familiar? So when one becomes a liberal, one does it for something less than altruistic motivations, it seems.
Liberals like to see themselves as victims so they get behind those people who they see as victimized. Single parent mothers, the Palestinians (for some reason it's never the Jews), Islam. It isn't that these groups are really the victims, it's just that they make better victims than the groups they tend to actually victimize. Single parent mothers victimize their child(ren), as numerous studies show. Palestinians have been kept from their rightful land, in spite of the fact the Jews had it for millennia, and there never was a Muslim Palestinian state. Islam is the up-and-coming religion (oh yes, and it's coming to your neighborhood soon) and those poor Muslims are victimized by us unfair Christians and Jews, in spite of the fact that they say a special prayer 17 times a day in the five times they pray, that castigates Jews and Christians, and they burn churches, kill Christians, and shoot rockets at Jewish schoolbuses, and still liberals see them as victims. One can only wonder how many terrorist attacks, how many Americans have to die, before liberals catch on (particularly that strange organization, Gays for Palestine. How suicidal it would be for a gay to come out in Palestine proudly announcing, "I am gay, hear me roar!" as the rope is put around his soft neck and he is hung from a crane like a sausage at Tony's Butcher Shop.
You're probably a liberal if you think the mainstream media is fair and unbiased.
