Survey: Liberals More Likely To Block You Online For Posting Differing Opinions

[George Plimpton]

http://www.mediaite.com/online/survey-liberals-more-likely-to-block-you-online-for-posting-differing-opinions/


No surprise. All the left-wing blabber about "diversity" has nothing to
do with diversity of opinion. In fact, leftists are *far* more
intolerant of opinions they dislike or with which they disagree than are
conservatives. William McGowan spoke of this in his excellent book from
a few years back, "Coloring the News". He wrote of news organizations
that went to extraordinary lengths to get a rainbow of news readers and
reporters hired, but they all say exactly the same left-wing dogma - no
diversity of opinion whatever.

[JohnJohnsn]

On May 4, 4:23 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>
>
> http://www.mediaite.com/online/survey-liberals-more-likely-to-block-y...

>
> No surprise. All the left-wing blabber about "diversity" has nothing to
> do with diversity of opinion. In fact, leftists are *far* more intolerant of
> opinions they dislike or with which they disagree than are conservatives.
> William McGowan spoke of this in his excellent book from a few years
> back, "Coloring the News". He wrote of news organizations that went
> to extraordinary lengths to get a rainbow of news readers and reporters
> hired, but they all say exactly the same left-wing dogma - no diversity
> of opinion whatever.
>

"Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then
are shocked and offended to discover that there _are_ other views."
— William F. Buckley, Jr.

[George Plimpton]

That's exactly right. And *both* parts of Buckley's observation are
borne out in fact: leftists not only are shocked, they are *offended*
that there are views other than their doctrine.

[PrecisionmachinisT]

"JohnJohnsn" <TopCo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:19adeabd-2197-4842...@r9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...

On May 4, 4:23 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>
>
> http://www.mediaite.com/online/survey-liberals-more-likely-to-block-y...
>
> No surprise. All the left-wing blabber about "diversity" has nothing to
> do with diversity of opinion. In fact, leftists are *far* more intolerant of
> opinions they dislike or with which they disagree than are conservatives.

The reason I tend to eventually killfile conservatives because in far too many cases, their opinions are based on a moral conviction, instead of upon facts and sound reasoning.

In other words, I'm not going to waste much time debating with someone who is clearly not sane.

> William McGowan spoke of this in his excellent book from a few years
> back, "Coloring the News". He wrote of news organizations that went
> to extraordinary lengths to get a rainbow of news readers and reporters
> hired, but they all say exactly the same left-wing dogma - no diversity
> of opinion whatever.
>
"Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then
are shocked and offended to discover that there _are_ other views."
— William F. Buckley, Jr.

Back into the bozo bin with the both of you--feel free to discuss it till your heart's content.

[George Plimpton]

On 5/4/2012 3:44 PM, PrecisionmachinisT wrote:
>
> "JohnJohnsn"<TopCo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:19adeabd-2197-4842...@r9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> On May 4, 4:23 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>
>>
>> http://www.mediaite.com/online/survey-liberals-more-likely-to-block-y...
>>
>> No surprise. All the left-wing blabber about "diversity" has nothing to
>> do with diversity of opinion. In fact, leftists are *far* more intolerant of
>> opinions they dislike or with which they disagree than are conservatives.
>
> The reason I tend to eventually killfile conservatives because in far too many cases, their opinions are based on a moral conviction, instead of upon facts and sound reasoning.

The reason you do it is because you're intellectually intolerant.

In fact, that absolute unshakable conviction of moral truth applies
*far* more to leftists. Leftists just *know*, for example, that people
have a "right" to free health care and forgiveness of their student
loans, and they simply don't want to hear - *refuse* to hear - arguments
to the contrary.

This gets back, as this debate so often does, to a well-known bromide
that oversimplifies the difference between conservatives and liberals,
but nonetheless contains an element of truth and goes a long way toward
explaining the inherently uncivil behavior of leftists in civic discourse:

Conservatives think liberals are stupid; liberals think
conservatives are evil

The implications of that are huge. Conservatives may think liberals are
stupid, but as long as the liberals aren't brain damaged, they may be
amenable to instruction. Thus, conservatives generally don't naturally
start off being uncivil, as doing so would make the listener unreceptive
to the lesson. Conservatives tend to see civility as a virtue.

But liberals, with their reflexive belief that conservatives are evil,
*start* with incivility, and given their assumption, why wouldn't they?
Liberals see incivility as a virtue when dealing with those whom they
sophomorically see as incorrigibly evil.

[Wayne]

On Fri, 04 May 2012 14:23:00 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
wrote:
>
http://www.mediaite.com/online/survey-liberals-more-likely-to-block-you

-online-for-posting-differing-opinions/




> No surprise. All the left-wing blabber about "diversity" has
nothing to
> do with diversity of opinion. In fact, leftists are *far* more
> intolerant of opinions they dislike or with which they disagree
than are
> conservatives. William McGowan spoke of this in his excellent book
from
> a few years back, "Coloring the News". He wrote of news
organizations
> that went to extraordinary lengths to get a rainbow of news readers
and
> reporters hired, but they all say exactly the same left-wing dogma
- no
> diversity of opinion whatever.

Another excellent example of lefties trying to suppress opinions that
don't match their own is the FCC " diversity czar" Mark Lloyd. He
would like to pull FCC licenses from stations who don't toe federally
defined standards.

[JohnJohnsn]

On May 4, 5:44 pm, "Half-assedmachinisT" <123mac...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
> "JohnJohnsn" <TopCop1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

> news:19adeabd-2197-4842...@r9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
> On May 4, 4:23 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>
>>http://www.mediaite.com/online/survey-liberals-more-likely-to-block-y...
>
>> No surprise. All the left-wing blabber about "diversity" has nothing to
>> do with diversity of opinion. In fact, leftists are *far* more intolerant of
>> opinions they dislike or with which they disagree than are conservatives.
>
> The reason I tend to eventually killfile conservatives because in far too
> many cases, their opinions are based on a moral conviction, instead of
> upon facts and sound reasoning.
>

So; you have no moral convictions: we already knew that since you are
a dyed-in-the-wool Liberal Socialist Democrat.

>
> In other words, I'm not going to waste much time debating with someone
> who is clearly not sane.
>

The Fifth Law of Leftist Debate:
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence that is counter
to his preconceived world view and, the more difficult it becomes
for him to refute it without losing face, the chance of him
denigrating
the intelligence of the poster or accusing you of having some sort
of mental illness approaches infinity.

Boomerang corollary:
Said leftist will display his own lack of intelligence or mental
defects in his responses accusing you of same and never
get the irony of it.

>
>> William McGowan spoke of this in his excellent book from a few years
>> back, "Coloring the News". He wrote of news organizations that went
>> to extraordinary lengths to get a rainbow of news readers and reporters
>> hired, but they all say exactly the same left-wing dogma - no diversity
>> of opinion whatever.
>
>"Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then
> are shocked and offended to discover that there _are_ other views."
> — William F. Buckley, Jr.
>
> Back into the bozo bin with the both of you--feel free to discuss it till
> your heart's content.
>

Translation: He's "shocked and offended" that someone would write such
an inciteful article about Liberals -- and he's not going to listens
to it; let alone discuss it.

Thanks for proving that the article is correct and true.

"Confronting Liberals with the facts of reality is very much akin
to clubbing baby seals. It gets boring after a while, but because
Liberals are so stupid it is easy work."
— Steven M. Barry

[Tom Gardner]

On 5/4/2012 6:44 PM, PrecisionmachinisT wrote:
> <snip>

>
> The reason I tend to eventually killfile conservatives because in far too many cases, their opinions are based on a moral conviction, instead of upon facts and sound reasoning.
>
> In other words, I'm not going to waste much time debating with someone who is clearly not sane.
>

Of all the posts I've read from you, you have never "debated". Instead,
you pontificate then plonk anybody that has another opinion. So, it's
now time to plonk me...again. Do it, I won't be offended, I'd be proud!

[Tom Gardner]

It's the arrogance of some liberals that I notice. They usually don't
debate, they preach. Where do they get their value system, the one that
flies in the face of reason, common sense and accountability? How does
whatever idea they embrace, no matter how crazy, compel them to exclude
ANY contrary data?

[Gray Guest]

Tom Gardner <mars@tacks> wrote in
news:KJudnUG7f99OBjnS...@giganews.com:

> On 5/4/2012 7:14 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 5/4/2012 3:44 PM, PrecisionmachinisT wrote:
>>>
>>> "JohnJohnsn"<TopCo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

>>> news:19adeabd-2197-4842-b2f2-1c37de0ef833

Why do we tolerate them?

--
I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to
be sure.

What I like about this attitude is it works equally well for Iran and the
Democrat National Covention.

http://nukeitfromorbit.com/

[de...@dudu.org]

Buckley was the last conservative with a brain.

[Lookout]

And that quote is 30 years old. A lot has changed since then

[Ed Huntress]

On Sat, 05 May 2012 09:42:32 -0600, de...@dudu.org wrote:

But he also was an extreme elitist who legitimized the whole put-down
syndrome that we see here today.

The shift was from Russell Kirk (_The Conservative Mind_), who made a
respectful and scholarly case for conservatism, to Ayn Rand, who
demonized the left, and then to Buckley, who used his elitist put-down
skills learned in the ivy-league clubs to build a magazine that
catered to the right's frustrations and anger with snarky quips. He
had utter disdain for commoners.

I liked Bill Buckley, but only from a distance. I suspect that his
cologne evoked hints of Courvoisier and single-malt Scotch, with an
understory of burning peasants.

--
Ed Huntress

[Lookout]

AHAHAHH
That's pretty good.

[Frank]

I see moron in other ng that reported me to ng provider as a troll is
exactly what op here is suggesting.

You do nothing but prove his point.

[George Plimpton]

Yes, leftists have become even more intolerant of different views.

[de...@dudu.org]

On Sat, 05 May 2012 12:52:45 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
wrote:

Funny all the censorship comes from the right wing though. It's
always the Christians and the corporations who want to censor and
limit free speech.

[George Plimpton]

Bullshit. Most conservative, and all libertarian, pundits are far
smarter than left-wing blowhards.

There's a reason why conservative politicians generally seem much less
intelligent than left-wing politicians. Intelligent leftists are
attracted to government because they see it as the best and most
effective way to exercise power. Conservatives and libertarians see it
as the *worst* form of power, so intelligent conservatives and
libertarians are drawn to private enterprise, because accumulated wealth
is the best way to exercise power. Conservatives with money sponsor
stupid people like Palin and Bachmann and McCain as their useful idiots.

[George Plimpton]

It wasn't; it was several degrees too precious. not-so-fast eddie is
vastly overimpressed with what he takes to be his wit.

[Greg Arama]

wrote in message news:t91bq75ts3vn3mdo7...@4ax.com...

<^^^
Name something censored by corporations , you retard!

After all, ALL Presidents and people in the Government CLAIM to be
"Religious ."

Why are YOU still abusing Ambien?

[de...@dudu.org]

On Sat, 05 May 2012 12:56:24 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
wrote:

>On 5/5/2012 8:42 AM, de...@dudu.org wrote:
>> On Fri, 4 May 2012 14:36:37 -0700 (PDT), JohnJohnsn
>> <TopCo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On May 4, 4:23 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.mediaite.com/online/survey-liberals-more-likely-to-block-y...
>>>>
>>>> No surprise. All the left-wing blabber about "diversity" has nothing to
>>>> do with diversity of opinion. In fact, leftists are *far* more intolerant of
>>>> opinions they dislike or with which they disagree than are conservatives.
>>>> William McGowan spoke of this in his excellent book from a few years
>>>> back, "Coloring the News". He wrote of news organizations that went
>>>> to extraordinary lengths to get a rainbow of news readers and reporters
>>>> hired, but they all say exactly the same left-wing dogma - no diversity
>>>> of opinion whatever.
>>>>
>>> "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then
>>> are shocked and offended to discover that there _are_ other views."
>>> — William F. Buckley, Jr.
>>
>> Buckley was the last conservative with a brain.
>
>Bullshit. Most conservative, and all libertarian, pundits are far
>smarter than left-wing blowhards.

Wrong dumbass. Progressives are the smarter ones. All the studies
prove it. Progressives have more education and higher IQs than
conservatives.

>
>There's a reason why conservative politicians generally seem much less
>intelligent than left-wing politicians.

Yep. Because they're lying idiots. Take Romney for example.

> Intelligent leftists are
>attracted to government because they see it as the best and most
>effective way to exercise power.

That's try for all authoritarians. Right and left.

> Conservatives and libertarians see it
>as the *worst* form of power,

Authoritarian conservatives see it as the same basis of power as do
leftists authoritarians. A libertarian politician is an oxymoron.
Nobody who goes into politics for the power are going to strive for a
system in which they have less power. Supposed libertarians are just
lying to the masses just like socialist dictators.

>so intelligent conservatives and
>libertarians are drawn to private enterprise, because accumulated wealth
>is the best way to exercise power. Conservatives with money sponsor
>stupid people like Palin and Bachmann and McCain as their useful idiots.

No argument there.

[Ed Huntress]

On Sat, 05 May 2012 12:57:49 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
wrote:

Aw, you've been grouchy all day, Plumper. What's the matter, did
somebody pee on your cornflakes this morning?

--
Ed Huntress

[RD Sandman]

de...@dudu.org wrote in news:t91bq75ts3vn3mdo7...@4ax.com:

Hmmm, you mean the ones who want the government to pull Fox News license?

--

It's too bad the people who really know how to run this
country are so busy cutting hair and driving taxis!!

George Burns


Sleep well, tonight.....

RD (The Sandman)

[de...@dudu.org]

If he violated FCC regulations the punishment is revocation of his
broadcast license. I don't make the rules.

[RD Sandman]

de...@dudu.org wrote in news:g96bq7d4tfmn4v9gd...@4ax.com:

And just what FCC regulations did he violate? Please be specific.

[de...@dudu.org]

On Sat, 05 May 2012 16:53:23 -0500, RD Sandman

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/02/fox-broadcast-licenses-rupert-murdoch-phone-hacking_n_1470831.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+HP%2Fmedia+%28Media+on+The+Huffington+Post%29

[George Plimpton]

It doesn't - it all comes from the left, particularly on university
campuses, but increasingly on left-wing blogs and other web sites.

http://dissidentvoice.org/2011/01/left-establishment-censorship-in-the-age-of-obama/

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CGMQtwIwBA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcofcc.org%2F2011%2F05%2Fleft-wing-extremists-want-censorship-of-conservative-websites%2F&ei=1KSlT4WIHImSiQLzzLGtAg&usg=AFQjCNERQLLhAw_0nQLwvmZOJtk4f2FmGA

I've personally been banned from posting to Huffington Post, and it
wasn't for any personal attacks or nasty language; simply for forcefully
criticizing left-wing dogma.

[George Plimpton]

On 5/5/2012 1:18 PM, de...@dudu.org wrote:
> On Sat, 05 May 2012 12:56:24 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
> wrote:
>
>> On 5/5/2012 8:42 AM, de...@dudu.org wrote:
>>> On Fri, 4 May 2012 14:36:37 -0700 (PDT), JohnJohnsn
>>> <TopCo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On May 4, 4:23 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.mediaite.com/online/survey-liberals-more-likely-to-block-y...
>>>>>
>>>>> No surprise. All the left-wing blabber about "diversity" has nothing to
>>>>> do with diversity of opinion. In fact, leftists are *far* more intolerant of
>>>>> opinions they dislike or with which they disagree than are conservatives.
>>>>> William McGowan spoke of this in his excellent book from a few years
>>>>> back, "Coloring the News". He wrote of news organizations that went
>>>>> to extraordinary lengths to get a rainbow of news readers and reporters
>>>>> hired, but they all say exactly the same left-wing dogma - no diversity
>>>>> of opinion whatever.
>>>>>
>>>> "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then
>>>> are shocked and offended to discover that there _are_ other views."
>>>> — William F. Buckley, Jr.
>>>
>>> Buckley was the last conservative with a brain.
>>
>> Bullshit. Most conservative, and all libertarian, pundits are far
>> smarter than left-wing blowhards.
>
> Wrong dumbass. Progressives are the smarter ones.

They're not. It's simply not so.

>>
>> There's a reason why conservative politicians generally seem much less
>> intelligent than left-wing politicians.
>
> Yep. Because they're lying idiots. Take Romney for example.

Nope. Romney and especially Gingrich stand out as two remarkably bright
conservatives. Gingrich is crazy, of course, but that doesn't mean he
isn't bright.

>> Intelligent leftists are
>> attracted to government because they see it as the best and most
>> effective way to exercise power.
>
> That's try for all authoritarians. Right and left.

Nope. It's a well known feature of the left. Smart leftists want to
exercise power through government; smart conservatives want to exercise
power through wealth.

>> Conservatives and libertarians see it
>> as the *worst* form of power,
>
> Authoritarian conservatives

There are virtually no such persons in the US. Overwhelmingly,
authoritarian impulses are found on the left in the US, not on the right.

[de...@dudu.org]

On Sat, 05 May 2012 15:15:55 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>

Find a liberal to read this to you and explain the big words.

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-02-26/health/liberals.atheists.sex.intelligence_1_sexual-behaviors-liberalism-exclusivity?_s=PM:HEALTH

>
>>>
>>> There's a reason why conservative politicians generally seem much less
>>> intelligent than left-wing politicians.
>>
>> Yep. Because they're lying idiots. Take Romney for example.
>
>Nope. Romney and especially Gingrich stand out as two remarkably bright
>conservatives. Gingrich is crazy, of course, but that doesn't mean he
>isn't bright.

With that we can agree.

>
>
>>> Intelligent leftists are
>>> attracted to government because they see it as the best and most
>>> effective way to exercise power.
>>
>> That's try for all authoritarians. Right and left.
>
>Nope. It's a well known feature of the left. Smart leftists want to
>exercise power through government; smart conservatives want to exercise
>power through wealth.

Which is used to control the government so it's the same damned thing.

>
>
>>> Conservatives and libertarians see it
>>> as the *worst* form of power,
>>
>> Authoritarian conservatives
>
>There are virtually no such persons in the US.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA

Fuck, you're a lunatic.

> Overwhelmingly,
>authoritarian impulses are found on the left in the US, not on the right.
>

Such as?

Oh right, public schools, right? A den of commies out to corrupt your
children with education. All the them.

[Hawke]

On 5/4/2012 3:44 PM, PrecisionmachinisT wrote:

>> http://www.mediaite.com/online/survey-liberals-more-likely-to-block-y...
>>
>> No surprise. All the left-wing blabber about "diversity" has nothing to
>> do with diversity of opinion. In fact, leftists are *far* more intolerant of
>> opinions they dislike or with which they disagree than are conservatives.
>

> The reason I tend to eventually killfile conservatives because in far too many cases,

their opinions are based on a moral conviction, instead of upon facts
and sound reasoning.
>

> In other words, I'm not going to waste much time debating with someone who is clearly not sane.
>

>> William McGowan spoke of this in his excellent book from a few years
>> back, "Coloring the News". He wrote of news organizations that went
>> to extraordinary lengths to get a rainbow of news readers and reporters
>> hired, but they all say exactly the same left-wing dogma - no diversity
>> of opinion whatever.
>>
> "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then
> are shocked and offended to discover that there _are_ other views."
> — William F. Buckley, Jr.
>

> Back into the bozo bin with the both of you--feel free to discuss it till your heart's content.
>

Their implication is that liberals are worse than conservatives when it
comes to diversity and tolerance of other points of view. Unfortunately,
we have seen decades worth of evidence that conservatives do not abide
by any ideas but their own. The most intolerant people have always been
conservatives. Hell, it's in their name that they aren't likely to
accept anything new, whether it's ideas or people.

This is just like when they claim that liberals are more racist than
conservatives. We know that's a load of horseshit too. The least
tolerant and unforgiving people are conservatives. Always have been and
still are. They just want to get that monkey off their back so they are
trying to foist their sins on to liberals. It doesn't work. One survey
doesn't trump years of conservative intolerance.

Hawke

[Hawke]

On 5/4/2012 10:21 PM, Gray Guest wrote:

>>> Conservatives think liberals are stupid; liberals think conservatives
>>> are evil
>>>
>>> The implications of that are huge. Conservatives may think liberals are
>>> stupid, but as long as the liberals aren't brain damaged, they may be
>>> amenable to instruction. Thus, conservatives generally don't naturally
>>> start off being uncivil, as doing so would make the listener unreceptive
>>> to the lesson. Conservatives tend to see civility as a virtue.
>>>
>>> But liberals, with their reflexive belief that conservatives are evil,
>>> *start* with incivility, and given their assumption, why wouldn't they?
>>> Liberals see incivility as a virtue when dealing with those whom they
>>> sophomorically see as incorrigibly evil.
>>
>> It's the arrogance of some liberals that I notice. They usually don't
>> debate, they preach. Where do they get their value system, the one that
>> flies in the face of reason, common sense and accountability? How does
>> whatever idea they embrace, no matter how crazy, compel them to exclude
>> ANY contrary data?
>>
>
> Why do we tolerate them?

Because if you try anything against them they will outsmart you and the
next thing you know you will wind up in the ground.

Hawke

[Hawke]

On 5/5/2012 8:50 AM, Lookout wrote:

That's right. What now passes for mainstream conservatism would have
been considered the lunatic fringe back in Buckley's day. Back when
Buckley was a leading conservative they slapped down the goof ball
fringe like the John Birch Society. Today it's the equivalent of the
Birchers that is your average conservative.

What's even harder to take is their insufferable arrogance. They have
the nerve to call liberals arrogant. What a crock. Every time I meet an
arrogant SOB these days he's always a conservative. They all act just
like Rush Limbaugh. Like they know better than anyone and they're never
wrong about anything. The problem is most of them are only average guys.
They just think they're special. Plimpton is a perfect example of this.
He's like a C student that thinks he's an intellectual. The fact is he's
just Joe Blow with a very big mouth and not much else. All the
conservatives seem to have the same problem of over rating their ability.

Hawke

[Hawke]

>CNERQLLhAw_0nQLwvmZOJtk4f2FmGA
>
>
> I've personally been banned from posting to Huffington Post, and it
> wasn't for any personal attacks or nasty language; simply for forcefully
> criticizing left-wing dogma.

What that means is that you made such an ass of yourself that they had
to ask you to leave. That's not exactly a shock to any of us who have
heard the kind of crazy shit you say all the time and the negativity you
bring with you. You're lucky they still let a knucklehead like you post
here.

Hawke

[AC]

George Plimpton wrote:
> On 5/4/2012 3:44 PM, PrecisionmachinisT wrote:
>>

>> "JohnJohnsn"<TopCo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

>> news:19adeabd-2197-4842...@r9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...

>> On May 4, 4:23 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.mediaite.com/online/survey-liberals-more-likely-to-block-y...
>>>
>>> No surprise. All the left-wing blabber about "diversity" has nothing to
>>> do with diversity of opinion. In fact, leftists are *far* more
>>> intolerant of
>>> opinions they dislike or with which they disagree than are
>>> conservatives.
>>

>> The reason I tend to eventually killfile conservatives because in far
>> too many cases, their opinions are based on a moral conviction,
>> instead of upon facts and sound reasoning.
>

> The reason you do it is because you're intellectually intolerant.
>
> In fact, that absolute unshakable conviction of moral truth applies
> *far* more to leftists. Leftists just *know*, for example, that people
> have a "right" to free health care and forgiveness of their student
> loans, and they simply don't want to hear - *refuse* to hear - arguments
> to the contrary.
>
> This gets back, as this debate so often does, to a well-known bromide
> that oversimplifies the difference between conservatives and liberals,
> but nonetheless contains an element of truth and goes a long way toward
> explaining the inherently uncivil behavior of leftists in civic discourse:
>

> Conservatives think liberals are stupid; liberals think conservatives
> are evil
>
> The implications of that are huge. Conservatives may think liberals are
> stupid, but as long as the liberals aren't brain damaged, they may be
> amenable to instruction. Thus, conservatives generally don't naturally
> start off being uncivil, as doing so would make the listener unreceptive
> to the lesson. Conservatives tend to see civility as a virtue.
>
> But liberals, with their reflexive belief that conservatives are evil,
> *start* with incivility, and given their assumption, why wouldn't they?
> Liberals see incivility as a virtue when dealing with those whom they
> sophomorically see as incorrigibly evil.

Wow, you proved his point.

--
AC

[George Plimpton]

On 5/5/2012 8:28 PM, Hawke wrote:
> On 5/4/2012 3:44 PM, PrecisionmachinisT wrote:
>
>>> http://www.mediaite.com/online/survey-liberals-more-likely-to-block-y...
>>>
>>> No surprise. All the left-wing blabber about "diversity" has nothing to
>>> do with diversity of opinion. In fact, leftists are *far* more
>>> intolerant of
>>> opinions they dislike or with which they disagree than are
>>> conservatives.
>>
>> The reason I tend to eventually killfile conservatives because in far
>> too many cases,
>

> our opinions are based on a moral conviction, instead of upon facts
> and sound reasoning.

I fixed that for you.

>>
>> In other words, I'm not going to waste much time debating with someone
>> who is clearly not sane.
>>
>>> William McGowan spoke of this in his excellent book from a few years
>>> back, "Coloring the News". He wrote of news organizations that went
>>> to extraordinary lengths to get a rainbow of news readers and reporters
>>> hired, but they all say exactly the same left-wing dogma - no diversity
>>> of opinion whatever.
>>>
>> "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then
>> are shocked and offended to discover that there _are_ other views."
>> — William F. Buckley, Jr.
>>
>> Back into the bozo bin with the both of you--feel free to discuss it
>> till your heart's content.
>>
>
> Their implication is that liberals are worse than conservatives when it
> comes to diversity and tolerance of other points of view.

And that's an indisputable fact.

[George Plimpton]

What I mean is what I wrote: leftists are much more intolerant of
contrary views than are conservatives. Libertarians, of course, are the
most tolerant of all.

[George Plimpton]

On 5/4/2012 8:17 PM, Tom Gardner wrote:

> On 5/4/2012 7:14 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 5/4/2012 3:44 PM, PrecisionmachinisT wrote:
>>>

>>> "JohnJohnsn"<TopCo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:19adeabd-2197-4842...@r9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...

>>> On May 4, 4:23 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.mediaite.com/online/survey-liberals-more-likely-to-block-y...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No surprise. All the left-wing blabber about "diversity" has nothing to
>>>> do with diversity of opinion. In fact, leftists are *far* more
>>>> intolerant of
>>>> opinions they dislike or with which they disagree than are
>>>> conservatives.
>>>

>>> The reason I tend to eventually killfile conservatives because in far

>>> too many cases, their opinions are based on a moral conviction,

>>> instead of upon facts and sound reasoning.
>>

>> The reason you do it is because you're intellectually intolerant.
>>
>> In fact, that absolute unshakable conviction of moral truth applies
>> *far* more to leftists. Leftists just *know*, for example, that people
>> have a "right" to free health care and forgiveness of their student
>> loans, and they simply don't want to hear - *refuse* to hear - arguments
>> to the contrary.
>>
>> This gets back, as this debate so often does, to a well-known bromide
>> that oversimplifies the difference between conservatives and liberals,
>> but nonetheless contains an element of truth and goes a long way toward
>> explaining the inherently uncivil behavior of leftists in civic
>> discourse:
>>
>> Conservatives think liberals are stupid; liberals think conservatives
>> are evil
>>
>> The implications of that are huge. Conservatives may think liberals are
>> stupid, but as long as the liberals aren't brain damaged, they may be
>> amenable to instruction. Thus, conservatives generally don't naturally
>> start off being uncivil, as doing so would make the listener unreceptive
>> to the lesson. Conservatives tend to see civility as a virtue.
>>
>> But liberals, with their reflexive belief that conservatives are evil,
>> *start* with incivility, and given their assumption, why wouldn't they?
>> Liberals see incivility as a virtue when dealing with those whom they
>> sophomorically see as incorrigibly evil.
>

> It's the arrogance of some liberals that I notice. They usually don't
> debate, they preach. Where do they get their value system, the one that
> flies in the face of reason, common sense and accountability? How does
> whatever idea they embrace, no matter how crazy, compel them to exclude
> ANY contrary data?

You touched on *the* basic defect of leftists. Leftists aren't
inherently stupid; it's not their intellect. The issue is their values.

Leftists like to make much of the fact that most academics are leftists,
as if that somehow "proves" that leftists are more intelligent. It
doesn't - not even close. Leftists are more prone in the first place to
go into academe. It's an escape from reality. Super intelligent people
with libertarian or conservative leanings are more apt to go into
business or some other part of the productive economy.

But no matter how intelligent a person is, and it's probably fair to say
that the most prominently visible leftists are more intelligent and
articulate than the most prominently visible conservatives, it can't do
anything to make up for bad values.

[Hawke]

On 5/6/2012 9:32 AM, George Plimpton wrote:

>>> Conservatives think liberals are stupid; liberals think conservatives
>>> are evil
>>>
>>> The implications of that are huge. Conservatives may think liberals are
>>> stupid, but as long as the liberals aren't brain damaged, they may be
>>> amenable to instruction. Thus, conservatives generally don't naturally
>>> start off being uncivil, as doing so would make the listener unreceptive
>>> to the lesson. Conservatives tend to see civility as a virtue.
>>>
>>> But liberals, with their reflexive belief that conservatives are evil,
>>> *start* with incivility, and given their assumption, why wouldn't they?
>>> Liberals see incivility as a virtue when dealing with those whom they
>>> sophomorically see as incorrigibly evil.
>>
>> It's the arrogance of some liberals that I notice. They usually don't
>> debate, they preach. Where do they get their value system, the one that
>> flies in the face of reason, common sense and accountability? How does
>> whatever idea they embrace, no matter how crazy, compel them to exclude
>> ANY contrary data?
>
> You touched on *the* basic defect of leftists. Leftists aren't
> inherently stupid; it's not their intellect. The issue is their values.

It is a matter of values and the values that are the superior ones are
the values held by liberals. Conservative values revolve mainly around
self aggrandizement and materialism. They are self centered rather than
outwardly directed. Enrichment of the self is what holds the highest
value for conservatives.

>
> Leftists like to make much of the fact that most academics are leftists,
> as if that somehow "proves" that leftists are more intelligent.

Most people believe that being successful at the kind of pursuit that
takes the most intellectual ability to achieve is proof of higher
intelligence. If it takes a lot of intellect to earn a Ph.D then it's
clear that people with a Ph.D are more intelligent than those without
one. There are exceptions to this but it is generally true that people
displaying high academic achievements do have high IQs. So it's
reasonable to believe those in academia are indeed more intelligent than
other people.

It
> doesn't - not even close. Leftists are more prone in the first place to
> go into academe.

Because that is what highly intelligent people are drawn to. Smart
people are more interested in intellectual challenges than in earning as
much as they can.

It's an escape from reality. Super intelligent people
> with libertarian or conservative leanings are more apt to go into
> business or some other part of the productive economy.

Your attitude of arrogance and condescension is obvious as you put down
academics for not being a part of "the productive economy". As if only
making money is productive behavior. This is a good example of the
difference in values between conservatives and other people. The
conservatives only see that work that produces profits is actually
productive. Any kind of work that doesn't is discounted and not valued.
That's because only the acquisition of money and material goods is seen
as productive to a conservative. That's what is wrong with their values.
They don't understand the value of anything that doesn't involve making
a profit.

The truth is making money is only one thing that has value. Many other
things are much more important than making money. Conservatives don't
understand this. That's why they are seen as not being intelligent. All
they understand is working for money and nothing else has value to them.
There are moral limits to the free market. Liberals understand this and
so do most people. Conservatives are confounded by it.

Hawke

> But no matter how intelligent a person is, and it's probably fair to say
> that the most prominently visible leftists are more intelligent and
> articulate than the most prominently visible conservatives, it can't do
> anything to make up for bad values.

Yeah, and when you're the typical conservative that values profit making
above everything else then you definitely have bad values.

Hawke

[Hawke]

On 5/6/2012 8:38 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
In other words, I'm not going to waste much time debating with someone
>>> who is clearly not sane.
>>>
>>>> William McGowan spoke of this in his excellent book from a few years
>>>> back, "Coloring the News". He wrote of news organizations that went
>>>> to extraordinary lengths to get a rainbow of news readers and reporters
>>>> hired, but they all say exactly the same left-wing dogma - no diversity
>>>> of opinion whatever.
>>>>
>>> "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then
>>> are shocked and offended to discover that there _are_ other views."
>>> — William F. Buckley, Jr.
>>>
>>> Back into the bozo bin with the both of you--feel free to discuss it
>>> till your heart's content.
>>>
>>
>> Their implication is that liberals are worse than conservatives when it
>> comes to diversity and tolerance of other points of view.
>
> And that's an indisputable fact.

But only in one place. The warped mind of a libertarian.


Hawke

[Hawke]

All the scientific research says that conservatives are the least
tolerant people in the U.S. Maybe you can give us some reason why we
should believe otherwise. You know, show us that the most tolerant and
accepting people are conservatives. I'd like to see you prove that. Good
luck. You'd be as successful at that as proving that dwarfs aren't short.

Hawke

[Lookout]

Hell..he can't even define "leftist".

[Larry]

In article <jo4s44$ld$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, davesm...@digitalpath.net
says...

> All the
> conservatives seem to have the same problem of over rating their ability.

I feel surrounded by irrational tree huggers convinced that GM foods are
going to destroy the planet, and blowhard right wingers who can't stand being
forced to act responsibly. They all seem to think that just because they
believe something, that makes it true.

[RD Sandman]

de...@dudu.org wrote in news:lp8bq7p4t8rvs2s4p...@4ax.com:

Glee Recap

An ethics watchdog group is calling on the FCC to revoke Fox's
broadcasting licenses in the wake of the bombshell phone hacking report
released on Tuesday.

The Guardian reports that Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics (Crew)
has written to FCC chairman Julius Genachowski asking that he withdraw
Rupert Murdoch's licenses on the grounds of character. The news comes one
day after Parliament came to a damning verdict about Murdoch's handling
of the long-running phone hacking scandal at News Corp.

On Tuesday, the Culture, Media and Sport committee concluded that he was
"not a fit person" to run a major international company, and that he
"turned a blind eye and exhibited willful blindness to what was going on
in his companies and publications."

Crew director Melanie Sloane argued that the report had major
implications for American regulators. "If they are not passing the
character standard under British law, it seems to me that they are not
going to meet the character standard in America," she told the Guardian.
Current FCC regulations require that media owners must have good
"character" and serve the "public interest."

You do understand that is in Europe and not the US where that occurred,
don't you? Now tell me what FCC laws he violated.

[Ed Huntress]

You can join the Real Center, or the Radical Center. Both groups are
among the declining number who are still sane, but the Radical Center
is really interesting people:

http://newamerica.net/publications/books/the_radical_center

http://newamerica.net/

--
Ed Huntress (Real Center, aka True Center, but admires the Radical
Center)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/the-real-center-of-americ_b_776681.html

[Scout]

<de...@dudu.org> wrote in message
news:lp8bq7p4t8rvs2s4p...@4ax.com...

>>>>>>>>> views." - William F. Buckley, Jr.

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Buckley was the last conservative with a brain.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And that quote is 30 years old. A lot has changed since then
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes, leftists have become even more intolerant of different views.
>>>>>
>>>>> Funny all the censorship comes from the right wing though. It's
>>>>> always the Christians and the corporations who want to censor and
>>>>> limit free speech.
>>>>
>>>>Hmmm, you mean the ones who want the government to pull Fox News
>>license?
>>>
>>> If he violated FCC regulations the punishment is revocation of his
>>> broadcast license. I don't make the rules.
>>>
>>
>>And just what FCC regulations did he violate? Please be specific.
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/02/fox-broadcast-licenses-rupert-murdoch-phone-hacking_n_1470831.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+HP%2Fmedia+%28Media+on+The+Huffington+Post%29

"on the grounds of character"

Hmm... where exactly in the FCC regulations do I find those covering a
person's character?

[Ed Huntress]

In the Communications Act of 1934. You xan look up the Act itself, or
consider this:

http://tinyurl.com/7wu7d58

"The Communications Act of 1934 requires that broadcast licensees
apply for license renewal every three years.' When a licensee applies
for renewal, its application can be challenged by any person desiring
to take over the license. 3 When such a challenge occurs, the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) is charged with the responsibility of
determining which applicant will best serve the "public interest,
convenience, and necessity."4

"This process is essentially accomplished in two steps. First, the
Commission must determine which applicants are minimally qualified to
be licensees. Second, if there is more than one minimally qualified
applicant, the FCC must compare the applicants to decide which one is
most qualified. In making the first determination, the Commission must
decide whether the applicants possess certain basic financial and
technical qualifications.' In addition, the Communications Act
specifically requires that the FCC determine, as a threshold matter,
whether applicants meet minimal standards of character.' The
Communications Act, while establishing a character qualification,
does not define "character." In making such a determination, then, the
FCC relies on its interpretation of that requirement, as reflected in
prior FCC decisions and policy statements."

The character question has rarely been invoked but it used to come up
when there were communist-related organizations applying for licenses.
Still, it stands as a requirement and the FCC has jurisdiction --
subject to court challenges, of course.

--
Ed Huntress (who conducted broadcast licence-renewal application
studies from 1969 to 1972)
>

[Scout]

<de...@dudu.org> wrote in message
news:og2bq71qdt8pcdte7...@4ax.com...
>A libertarian politician is an oxymoron.
> Nobody who goes into politics for the power are going to strive for a
> system in which they have less power. Supposed libertarians are just
> lying to the masses just like socialist dictators.

A socialist politician is an oxymoron.
Nobody who goes into politics for the power are going to strive for a
system in which they have less power. Supposed socialists are just
lying to the masses just like all other politicians interested in
personal power.

Dudu calls such people socialist dictators...and Dudu wants to be just like
them.

[Oglethorpe]

"Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
news:jo4s44$ld$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

Nie lie. Your mommy buy it for you?

[de...@dudu.org]

On Sun, 06 May 2012 16:08:47 -0500, RD Sandman

That's presently unknown for sure. The extent of his spying on people
is yet to be determined. But I doubt that one he gets out of hot
water in GB his problems are not over and he will start being called
to FCC hearings of his abuses in the US.

[Lookout]

On Sun, 6 May 2012 18:05:24 -0400, "Scout"
<me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:

>
>
><de...@dudu.org> wrote in message
>news:og2bq71qdt8pcdte7...@4ax.com...
>>A libertarian politician is an oxymoron.
>> Nobody who goes into politics for the power are going to strive for a
>> system in which they have less power. Supposed libertarians are just
>> lying to the masses just like socialist dictators.
>
>A socialist politician is an oxymoron.
>

So that means Obama can't be a socialist, right?

[whoyakidding]

On Sun, 06 May 2012 15:20:35 -0500, Lookout <mrloo...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Here these rightards have Gunner's well documented example of their
brand of tolerance and success yet they never seem to use it. In fact
he seems to embody their fantasy of what a leftist is! It really puts
their up is down black is white world in perspective.

[George Plimpton]

On 5/6/2012 12:58 PM, Hawke wrote:
> On 5/6/2012 9:32 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>
>>>> Conservatives think liberals are stupid; liberals think conservatives
>>>> are evil
>>>>
>>>> The implications of that are huge. Conservatives may think liberals are
>>>> stupid, but as long as the liberals aren't brain damaged, they may be
>>>> amenable to instruction. Thus, conservatives generally don't naturally
>>>> start off being uncivil, as doing so would make the listener
>>>> unreceptive
>>>> to the lesson. Conservatives tend to see civility as a virtue.
>>>>
>>>> But liberals, with their reflexive belief that conservatives are evil,
>>>> *start* with incivility, and given their assumption, why wouldn't they?
>>>> Liberals see incivility as a virtue when dealing with those whom they
>>>> sophomorically see as incorrigibly evil.
>>>
>>> It's the arrogance of some liberals that I notice. They usually don't
>>> debate, they preach. Where do they get their value system, the one that
>>> flies in the face of reason, common sense and accountability? How does
>>> whatever idea they embrace, no matter how crazy, compel them to exclude
>>> ANY contrary data?
>>
>> You touched on *the* basic defect of leftists. Leftists aren't
>> inherently stupid; it's not their intellect. The issue is their values.
>
> It is a matter of values and the values that are the superior ones are
> the values held by liberals.

That's wrong. Liberals hold entirely toxic values, first and foremost
that individuals are not capable of making their own choices. They go
on to hold the wrong value that some kind of collective interest
supersedes private interests, when in fact there is on such thing as a
collective interest.

Liberals love their government and fear the people; Americans love their
country and fear their government. The left-wing view of government is
fundamentally evil.

>> Leftists like to make much of the fact that most academics are leftists,
>> as if that somehow "proves" that leftists are more intelligent.
>
> Most people believe that being successful at the kind of pursuit that
> takes the most intellectual ability to achieve is proof of higher
> intelligence.

Being an academic doesn't take the most intellectual ability. The loser
felons who taught you at Chico State are proof of that.

>> It doesn't - not even close. Leftists are more prone in the first place to
>> go into academe.
>
> Because

Because they denigrate productivity and wealth creation.

>> It's an escape from reality. Super intelligent people
>> with libertarian or conservative leanings are more apt to go into
>> business or some other part of the productive economy.
>
> Your attitude of arrogance and condescension

non sequitur

>
>
>> But no matter how intelligent a person is, and it's probably fair to say
>> that the most prominently visible leftists are more intelligent and
>> articulate than the most prominently visible conservatives, it can't do
>> anything to make up for bad values.
>
>
> Yeah,

Yeah.

Settled: liberals have bad values.

[George Plimpton]

Universally.

[George Plimpton]

No, there's no such research.

[de...@dudu.org]

On Sun, 06 May 2012 17:33:14 -0500, Lookout <mrloo...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 6 May 2012 18:05:24 -0400, "Scout"
><me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>><de...@dudu.org> wrote in message
>>news:og2bq71qdt8pcdte7...@4ax.com...
>>>A libertarian politician is an oxymoron.
>>> Nobody who goes into politics for the power are going to strive for a
>>> system in which they have less power. Supposed libertarians are just
>>> lying to the masses just like socialist dictators.
>>
>>A socialist politician is an oxymoron.
>>
>So that means Obama can't be a socialist, right?

Scout just stepped in it big time on that one, eh? Too funny.

[Lookout]

On Sun, 06 May 2012 17:18:02 -0600, de...@dudu.org wrote:

>On Sun, 06 May 2012 17:33:14 -0500, Lookout <mrloo...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 6 May 2012 18:05:24 -0400, "Scout"
>><me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>><de...@dudu.org> wrote in message
>>>news:og2bq71qdt8pcdte7...@4ax.com...
>>>>A libertarian politician is an oxymoron.
>>>> Nobody who goes into politics for the power are going to strive for a
>>>> system in which they have less power. Supposed libertarians are just
>>>> lying to the masses just like socialist dictators.
>>>
>>>A socialist politician is an oxymoron.
>>>
>>So that means Obama can't be a socialist, right?
>
>Scout just stepped in it big time on that one, eh? Too funny.
>

And now he's got to pretend he didn't see it.
Just like your typical punk ass conservative. He fucked up and just
can't admit it.

[whoyakidding]

On Sun, 06 May 2012 18:22:49 -0500, Lookout <mrloo...@yahoo.com>

wrote:

>On Sun, 06 May 2012 17:18:02 -0600, de...@dudu.org wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 06 May 2012 17:33:14 -0500, Lookout <mrloo...@yahoo.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 6 May 2012 18:05:24 -0400, "Scout"
>>><me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>><de...@dudu.org> wrote in message
>>>>news:og2bq71qdt8pcdte7...@4ax.com...

>>>>A socialist politician is an oxymoron.
>>>>
>>>So that means Obama can't be a socialist, right?
>>
>>Scout just stepped in it big time on that one, eh? Too funny.
>>
>And now he's got to pretend he didn't see it.
>Just like your typical punk ass conservative. He fucked up and just
>can't admit it.

That's the risk he takes by making up his horseshit as he goes along.
I don't see it as a problem for him though because all he needs to do
is come up with a new excuse with some implausible deniability. Going
by his habit it might be something along the lines of he could have
been briefly interrupted in the middle of his post and somebody else
could have snuck in the stupid statement and now it would be illogical
to hold him accountable because nobody can prove for sure that he
wrote it. And if anyone questions that excuse then THEY are the ones
making things up. Yeah that's the ticket. Is imitating Scout easy or
what?

[Lookout]

No doubt he looks and sounds like a cross between John Lovitz and Rob
Schneider (copy boy) from SNL.

[Jeff M]

On 5/6/2012 5:46 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
[snip]

>>> What I mean is what I wrote: leftists are much more intolerant of
>>> contrary views than are conservatives. Libertarians, of course, are the
>>> most tolerant of all.
>>
>> All the scientific research says that conservatives are the least
>> tolerant people in the U.S.
>
> No, there's no such research.

That is a classic example of what psychology types call "denial."

A simple and quick Google search could easily verify or refute the
claim, but its even easier and much safer to simply deny it, I suppose.
But I wonder what there is to be so afraid of that makes some people
so unwilling to seek and unable to face the truth.

It took me only a few seconds to find one good example of the kind of
scientific research Hawke was referencing, from the Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology:

"Conservatives--at least, the subset prone to authoritarianism--also
show a stronger emotional sensitivity to threats to the social order
that motivate them to limit liberties in defense of that order
(Altemeyer, 1996; Stenner, 2005; McCann, 2008). Jost, Glaser, Sulloway,
and Kruglanski (2003) concluded from a meta-analysis of this literature
that the two core aspects of conservative ideology are resistance to
change and acceptance of inequality."

http://www.pdfdownload.org/pdf2html/pdf2html.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Ffaculty.virginia.edu%2Fhaidtlab%2Fmft%2FGHN.final.JPSP.2008.12.09.pdf&images=yes

[Lookout]

On Sun, 06 May 2012 19:57:16 -0500, Jeff M <NoS...@NoThanks.org>
wrote:

Plimpton is an inveterate liar. I blocked him because he simply lies
to much.
We've all seen assholes like him in real life. He's lonely..so lonely.
But it's his own fault.

[Jeff M]

Yes, I've noticed that before, many times.

I blocked him because he simply lies
> to much.

Yeah, me too, but I obviously need to update my kill filter on this
laptop. Several recent additions still aren't on it yet.

> We've all seen assholes like him in real life. He's lonely..so lonely.
> But it's his own fault.

You gotta wonder just what some of those have made of their real lives,
especially the ones who come across as particularly stupid, angry and
pathetic in their posts, beyond merely having rather extreme or singular
political views.

[Lookout]

On Sun, 06 May 2012 20:25:31 -0500, Jeff M <NoS...@NoThanks.org>

I believe several are unemployed, probably whining about a bad back or
depression and collecting SSI disability. There is no way they could
last in today's workplace with their misogyny and multiple racial
prejudices. It's the lying the baffles me..how in the world could they
get by in society and lie so often? You can get by today with a low IQ
but the lying? What supervisor would but up with that crap?

[Scout]

<de...@dudu.org> wrote in message
news:ek1eq7ph4o6i3id3c...@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 06 May 2012 17:33:14 -0500, Lookout <mrloo...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 6 May 2012 18:05:24 -0400, "Scout"
>><me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>><de...@dudu.org> wrote in message
>>>news:og2bq71qdt8pcdte7...@4ax.com...
>>>>A libertarian politician is an oxymoron.
>>>> Nobody who goes into politics for the power are going to strive for a
>>>> system in which they have less power. Supposed libertarians are just
>>>> lying to the masses just like socialist dictators.
>>>
>>>A socialist politician is an oxymoron.
>>>
>>So that means Obama can't be a socialist, right?

No that could just mean that Obama is lying about his real agenda...and you
are stupid enough to swallow it hook, line and sinker....just as Dudu
pointed out would be the case.

> Scout just stepped in it big time on that one, eh? Too funny.

Not really since I've never said Obama was a socialist politician, but it's
interesting how you both seem to feel that he is.

Very telling.

I though out something general and you found it fit you.

So tell me, what about that "lying to the masses" part?

Do you think Obama is going that as well?

[Jeff M]

On 5/6/2012 8:44 PM, Lookout wrote:
[snip]

>>> Plimpton is an inveterate liar.
>>
>> Yes, I've noticed that before, many times.
>>
>> I blocked him because he simply lies
>>> to much.
>>
>> Yeah, me too, but I obviously need to update my kill filter on this
>> laptop. Several recent additions still aren't on it yet.
>>
>>> We've all seen assholes like him in real life. He's lonely..so lonely.
>>> But it's his own fault.
>>
>> You gotta wonder just what some of those have made of their real lives,
>> especially the ones who come across as particularly stupid, angry and
>> pathetic in their posts, beyond merely having rather extreme or singular
>> political views.
>>
> I believe several are unemployed, probably whining about a bad back or
> depression and collecting SSI disability. There is no way they could
> last in today's workplace with their misogyny and multiple racial
> prejudices. It's the lying the baffles me..how in the world could they
> get by in society and lie so often? You can get by today with a low IQ
> but the lying? What supervisor would but up with that crap?

I think the combination of a dull intellect and a short-fused temper
must bring some of them considerable trouble. As for lying, they
typically don't possess enough knowledge, wit or charm to do it very
well, so I suppose those forced to be around them are used to it.

[Lookout]

On Sun, 6 May 2012 21:44:36 -0400, "Scout"

<me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:

>
>
><de...@dudu.org> wrote in message
>news:ek1eq7ph4o6i3id3c...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 06 May 2012 17:33:14 -0500, Lookout <mrloo...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 6 May 2012 18:05:24 -0400, "Scout"
>>><me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>><de...@dudu.org> wrote in message
>>>>news:og2bq71qdt8pcdte7...@4ax.com...
>>>>>A libertarian politician is an oxymoron.
>>>>> Nobody who goes into politics for the power are going to strive for a
>>>>> system in which they have less power. Supposed libertarians are just
>>>>> lying to the masses just like socialist dictators.
>>>>
>>>>A socialist politician is an oxymoron.
>>>>
>>>So that means Obama can't be a socialist, right?
>
>No that could just mean that Obama is lying about his real agenda...and you
>are stupid enough to swallow it hook, line and sinker....just as Dudu
>pointed out would be the case.
>

Uhh..YOU have stated he's a socialist. Don't blame him for your words.
So...YOU said a socialist politician is an oxymoron. And YOU said he's
a socialist. So are you saying he's not a politician?

>
>> Scout just stepped in it big time on that one, eh? Too funny.
>
>Not really since I've never said Obama was a socialist politician, but it's
>interesting how you both seem to feel that he is.
>
>Very telling.
>
>I though out something general and you found it fit you.
>
>So tell me, what about that "lying to the masses" part?
>
>Do you think Obama is going that as well?
>

Can you name a politician (besides my father) who didn't lie to the
masses?

Go ahead...take your time.

[Gunner Asch]

On Sun, 06 May 2012 17:33:14 -0500, Lookout <mrloo...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 6 May 2012 18:05:24 -0400, "Scout"
><me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>><de...@dudu.org> wrote in message
>>news:og2bq71qdt8pcdte7...@4ax.com...
>>>A libertarian politician is an oxymoron.
>>> Nobody who goes into politics for the power are going to strive for a
>>> system in which they have less power. Supposed libertarians are just
>>> lying to the masses just like socialist dictators.
>>
>>A socialist politician is an oxymoron.
>>
>So that means Obama can't be a socialist, right?

Nope..it means he isnt a politician.

Damned shame too.

>>
>>Nobody who goes into politics for the power are going to strive for a
>>system in which they have less power. Supposed socialists are just
>>lying to the masses just like all other politicians interested in
>>personal power.
>>
>>Dudu calls such people socialist dictators...and Dudu wants to be just like
>>them.
>>

--
"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry
capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency.
It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an
Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense
and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have
such a man for their? president.. Blaming the prince of the
fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of
fools that made him their prince".

[George Plimpton]

On 5/5/2012 1:18 PM, de...@dudu.org wrote:
> On Sat, 05 May 2012 12:56:24 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
> wrote:

>
>> On 5/5/2012 8:42 AM, de...@dudu.org wrote:
>>> On Fri, 4 May 2012 14:36:37 -0700 (PDT), JohnJohnsn
>>> <TopCo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On May 4, 4:23 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.mediaite.com/online/survey-liberals-more-likely-to-block-y...
>>>>>
>>>>> No surprise. All the left-wing blabber about "diversity" has nothing to
>>>>> do with diversity of opinion. In fact, leftists are *far* more intolerant of
>>>>> opinions they dislike or with which they disagree than are conservatives.
>>>>> William McGowan spoke of this in his excellent book from a few years
>>>>> back, "Coloring the News". He wrote of news organizations that went
>>>>> to extraordinary lengths to get a rainbow of news readers and reporters
>>>>> hired, but they all say exactly the same left-wing dogma - no diversity
>>>>> of opinion whatever.
>>>>>
>>>> "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then
>>>> are shocked and offended to discover that there _are_ other views."
>>>> — William F. Buckley, Jr.
>>>
>>> Buckley was the last conservative with a brain.
>>

>> Bullshit. Most conservative, and all libertarian, pundits are far
>> smarter than left-wing blowhards.
>
> Wrong dumbass. Progressives are the smarter ones.

No.

> A libertarian politician is an oxymoron.

Wrong. A libertarian politician wants to exercise power within the
proper confines of legitimate government. Legitimate government has far
less power than what we see contemporarily.

[George Plimpton]

On 5/6/2012 5:57 PM, Jeff M wrote:
> On 5/6/2012 5:46 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
> [snip]
>>>> What I mean is what I wrote: leftists are much more intolerant of
>>>> contrary views than are conservatives. Libertarians, of course, are the
>>>> most tolerant of all.
>>>
>>> All the scientific research says that conservatives are the least
>>> tolerant people in the U.S.
>>
>> No, there's no such research.
>
> That is a classic example of what psychology types call "denial."

There is no such research.

> "Conservatives--at least, the subset prone to authoritarianism-

So, they go looking for something, and they massage their "data" [read:
anecdotes] to ensure they find it.

You're a clown.

[George Plimpton]

Ha ha ha ha ha! Proof of the point: "liberals", who in fact are
illiberal, are intolerant of different views.

I don't lie.


> Yeah, me too, but

You're a classic intolerant leftist.

[Ed Huntress]

On Sun, 06 May 2012 21:57:22 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
wrote:

>On 5/6/2012 5:57 PM, Jeff M wrote:
>> On 5/6/2012 5:46 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> [snip]
>>>>> What I mean is what I wrote: leftists are much more intolerant of
>>>>> contrary views than are conservatives. Libertarians, of course, are the
>>>>> most tolerant of all.
>>>>
>>>> All the scientific research says that conservatives are the least
>>>> tolerant people in the U.S.
>>>
>>> No, there's no such research.

The academic literature has been loaded with such research for close
to a century.

"Contemporary researchers have documented the extent to which
cognitive complexity decreases as one moves from left to right across
the ideological spectrum (Tetlock, 1983), the extent to which racism
increases with political conservatism, even among highly educated
people (Sidanius, Pratto, & Bobo, 1996), and the extent to which
individual difference measures of “right-wing authoritarianism”
(Altemeyer, 1988; Peterson, Doty, & Winter, 1993) and “social
dominance orientation” (Pratto, et al., 1994) are capable of
predicting a wide range of anti-social attitudes and behaviors." --
[John T. Jost, Arie W. Kruglanski Linda Simon: "Effects of epistemic
motivation on conservatism, intolerance, and other system justifying
attitudes". Research paper, Graduate School of Business, Stanford
University]

That one contains data from the research, as do many of the following,
a short list -- just a few A's and B's -- to help get you started on
your journey from darkness into light:


Abercrombie, N. (1980). _Class, structure, and knowledge_. New York:
New York University Press.

Adorno, T.W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D.J., & Sanford, R.N.
(1950). _The authoritarian personality_. New York: Harper.

Allport, G.W. (1954). _The nature of prejudice_. Cambridge, MA:
Addison Wesley.

Altemeyer, B. (1988). _Enemies of freedom: Understanding right-wing
authoritarianism_. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Berger, J., Ridgeway, C., Fisek, M.H., & Norman, R.Z. (in press). "The
legitimation and delegitimation of power and prestige orders."
American Sociological Review.

Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1967). _The social construction of
reality_. New York: Doubleday/Anchor.


And here's one just for you:

Gergen, K. J. (1991). _The saturated self_. New York: Basic Books.

>
>
>
>> "Conservatives--at least, the subset prone to authoritarianism-
>
>So, they go looking for something, and they massage their "data" [read:
>anecdotes] to ensure they find it.
>
>You're a clown.

You're a phony. And you're no libertarian. "Tribal plutocrat" is more
like it.

--
Ed Huntress

[George Plimpton]

On 5/7/2012 6:20 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
> On Sun, 06 May 2012 21:57:22 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
> wrote:
>
>> On 5/6/2012 5:57 PM, Jeff M wrote:
>>> On 5/6/2012 5:46 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>>>> What I mean is what I wrote: leftists are much more intolerant of
>>>>>> contrary views than are conservatives. Libertarians, of course, are the
>>>>>> most tolerant of all.
>>>>>
>>>>> All the scientific research says that conservatives are the least
>>>>> tolerant people in the U.S.
>>>>
>>>> No, there's no such research.
>
> The academic literature has been loaded with such research for close
> to a century.

None of the bullshit you "cited" supports the claim above: that
conservatives are more intolerant. And the bullshit you "cited" merely
purports to show that conservatives are more authoritarian and "racist"
- and yes, the bullshit is using "racist" very loosely, not in accord
with the self-serving definition you keep harping on.

That "research" was all conducted by far-left idiots. Jesus fucking
Christ, not-so-fast eddie:

Theodor Adorno - Frankfurt School (fucking "neo-Marxists")

Robert Altemeyer - fucking NDP hack in Canada

Gordon Allport - "Those social scientists who were not cultural
minorities, such as Gardner Murphy, Goodwin Watson, and Gordon Allport,
were the products of liberal/leftist political tradition, often with an
overlay of radical Christian theology that emphasized the equality of
human beings." "Social Scientists for Social Justice: Making the Case
against Segregation", John P Jackson, Jr. (himself naturally a far-left
academic whose writings indicate race obsession.)

Nicholas Abercrombie - proponent of derived Leninist concept of
"internal imperialism"


You went looking for a bunch of leftists saying bad things about
conservatives, you cynical smarmy cocksucker, and by golly, you found
some! Wow!

Good job, comrade. You'll win an Order of Lenin medal for your <choke>
"scholarship".

[Ed Huntress]

On Mon, 07 May 2012 07:56:27 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>

wrote:

>On 5/7/2012 6:20 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>> On Sun, 06 May 2012 21:57:22 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/6/2012 5:57 PM, Jeff M wrote:
>>>> On 5/6/2012 5:46 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>> What I mean is what I wrote: leftists are much more intolerant of
>>>>>>> contrary views than are conservatives. Libertarians, of course, are the
>>>>>>> most tolerant of all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All the scientific research says that conservatives are the least
>>>>>> tolerant people in the U.S.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, there's no such research.
>>
>> The academic literature has been loaded with such research for close
>> to a century.
>

>None of the bullshit you "cited" supports the claim above: conservatives are more intolerant.

Aha! You're a fast reader. What's that, about 25,000 words per minute?
d8-)

You phony. The reseach consistently supports it, and it always has.
Anyone who has ever studied conservatism seriously -- and I have,
finding many good ideas in it but also some ugly ones -- knows that
the nativist/intolerant/authoritarian streaks run deep.

You're so fouled up with your wacky "libertarianism" that you don't
know what you think.

>
>That "research" was all conducted by far-left idiots. Jesus fucking
>Christ, not-so-fast eddie:

Of course the Plumper would say that. Being embarrassed to learn that
he made another stupid statement, and being too lazy and sloppy to
ever check the research itself, Plumper reverts to type.

You're just another rightard, Plumper. You live in a world you've made
up in your own mind.

--
Ed Huntress

[George Plimpton]

On 5/7/2012 8:08 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
> On Mon, 07 May 2012 07:56:27 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
> wrote:
>
>> On 5/7/2012 6:20 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>> On Sun, 06 May 2012 21:57:22 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/6/2012 5:57 PM, Jeff M wrote:
>>>>> On 5/6/2012 5:46 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>>> What I mean is what I wrote: leftists are much more intolerant of
>>>>>>>> contrary views than are conservatives. Libertarians, of course, are the
>>>>>>>> most tolerant of all.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All the scientific research says that conservatives are the least
>>>>>>> tolerant people in the U.S.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, there's no such research.
>>>
>>> The academic literature has been loaded with such research for close
>>> to a century.
>>
>> None of the bullshit you "cited" supports the claim above: conservatives are more intolerant.
>
> Aha! You're a fast reader. What's that, about 25,000 words per minute?
> d8-)
>
> You phony. The reseach consistently supports it,

Fuck off, not-so-fast eddie. The bullshit *you* cited doesn't support
the claim of the original fuckwit above, to wit, that conservatives are
more intolerant of opposing points of view than leftists. The bullshit
you cited *purports* - but merely purports - to show that conservatives
are more authoritarian and more <chortle> "racist", where "racism" is
used as *I* use it, not as you self-servingly define it.

>>
>> That "research" was all conducted by far-left idiots. Jesus fucking
>> Christ, not-so-fast eddie:
>
> Of course the Plumper would say that.

*OF COURSE* you'd cite a mob of Marxist-Leninist professional liars in
support of your far-left agenda.

You're out, not-so-fast eddie: you're a fucking lying far-left stooge.

[Ed Huntress]

On Mon, 07 May 2012 08:16:20 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>

wrote:

>On 5/7/2012 8:08 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>> On Mon, 07 May 2012 07:56:27 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/7/2012 6:20 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 06 May 2012 21:57:22 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/6/2012 5:57 PM, Jeff M wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/6/2012 5:46 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>>>> What I mean is what I wrote: leftists are much more intolerant of
>>>>>>>>> contrary views than are conservatives. Libertarians, of course, are the
>>>>>>>>> most tolerant of all.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All the scientific research says that conservatives are the least
>>>>>>>> tolerant people in the U.S.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, there's no such research.
>>>>
>>>> The academic literature has been loaded with such research for close
>>>> to a century.
>>>
>>> None of the bullshit you "cited" supports the claim above: conservatives are more intolerant.
>>
>> Aha! You're a fast reader. What's that, about 25,000 words per minute?
>> d8-)
>>
>> You phony. The reseach consistently supports it,
>
>Fuck off, not-so-fast eddie.

Aha, the wit and wisdom of The Plumper fails him in the face of the
facts, once again.

At least try to be alliterative. You may not be George Plimpton, but
you are The Plumper, Literateur. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

[RD Sandman]

de...@dudu.org wrote in news:butdq75pjjvs3ev63...@4ax.com:

> On Sun, 06 May 2012 16:08:47 -0500, RD Sandman
> <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>de...@dudu.org wrote in
>>news:lp8bq7p4t8rvs2s4p...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Sat, 05 May 2012 16:53:23 -0500, RD Sandman
>>> <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>de...@dudu.org wrote in
>>>>news:g96bq7d4tfmn4v9gd...@4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 05 May 2012 16:15:45 -0500, RD Sandman
>>>>> <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>de...@dudu.org wrote in
>>>>>>news:t91bq75ts3vn3mdo7...@4ax.com:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, 05 May 2012 12:52:45 -0700, George Plimpton
>>>>>>> <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On 5/5/2012 8:50 AM, Lookout wrote:

>>>>>>>>> And that quote is 30 years old. A lot has changed since then
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Yes, leftists have become even more intolerant of different
>>>>>>>>views.
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Funny all the censorship comes from the right wing though. It's
>>>>>>> always the Christians and the corporations who want to censor
>>>>>>> and limit free speech.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Hmmm, you mean the ones who want the government to pull Fox News
>>>>license?
>>>>>
>>>>> If he violated FCC regulations the punishment is revocation of his
>>>>> broadcast license. I don't make the rules.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>And just what FCC regulations did he violate? Please be specific.
>>>
>>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/02/fox-broadcast-licenses-ruper
>>> t-
>>> murdoch-phone-hacking_n_1470831.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium
>>> =f
>>> eed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+HP%2Fmedia+%28Media+on+The+Huffington+Post%2
>>> 9
>>>
>>
>>Glee Recap
>>
>>An ethics watchdog group is calling on the FCC to revoke Fox's
>>broadcasting licenses in the wake of the bombshell phone hacking
>>report released on Tuesday.
>>
>>The Guardian reports that Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics
>>(Crew) has written to FCC chairman Julius Genachowski asking that he
>>withdraw Rupert Murdoch's licenses on the grounds of character. The
>>news comes one day after Parliament came to a damning verdict about
>>Murdoch's handling of the long-running phone hacking scandal at News
>>Corp.
>>
>>On Tuesday, the Culture, Media and Sport committee concluded that he
>>was "not a fit person" to run a major international company, and that
>>he "turned a blind eye and exhibited willful blindness to what was
>>going on in his companies and publications."
>>
>>Crew director Melanie Sloane argued that the report had major
>>implications for American regulators. "If they are not passing the
>>character standard under British law, it seems to me that they are not
>>going to meet the character standard in America," she told the
>>Guardian. Current FCC regulations require that media owners must have
>>good "character" and serve the "public interest."
>>
>>You do understand that is in Europe and not the US where that
>>occurred, don't you? Now tell me what FCC laws he violated.
>
> That's presently unknown for sure. The extent of his spying on people
> is yet to be determined. But I doubt that one he gets out of hot
> water in GB his problems are not over and he will start being called
> to FCC hearings of his abuses in the US.
>

If he has any. However, what this above shows is simply that it is a
request from a group in Britain to pull his US license. So much for
liberal's ideas on free speech.

--

It's too bad the people who really know how to run this
country are so busy cutting hair and driving taxis!!

George Burns


Sleep well, tonight.....

RD (The Sandman)

[Ed Huntress]

On Mon, 07 May 2012 10:24:21 -0500, RD Sandman

From the '40s into the '60s, conservatives used the "character"
requirement in the Communications Act of 1934 to deny licenses to
broadcasters they perceived to be politically leftist.

Now there is a REAL individual character issue involved in the
ownership of 27 broadcast licenses, and the conservatives are
shrouding themselves in the First Amendment.

<sigh>

--
Ed Huntress

[George Plimpton]

> liberals' ideas on free speech.

It's a purely cynical political move to try to attack opponents they
can't defeat in the marketplace of ideas. It proves beyond dispute that
leftists are authoritarian censors.

[George Plimpton]

Leftists blocking speech they dislike:

http://volokh.com/2010/02/12/free-speech-on-campus-michael-oren-at-uc-irvine/

http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/news/2687/being-shouted-down

http://www.bloggingcanadians.ca/ConservativeBlogs/free-speech-on-mcgill-campus-shouted-down/

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2009/oct/09100605



Leftist media supporting the leftists who blocked speech they didn't like:

http://www.mrc.org/node/139



This behavior on university campuses is engaged in exclusively by
leftists.

[de...@dudu.org]

On Mon, 07 May 2012 10:24:21 -0500, RD Sandman

Spying on private citizens is not free speech.

[George Plimpton]

No one said it was. British leftists wanting to provoke the pulling of
Fox's US licenses is an attempt at suppressing speech they don't like.
Fox US didn't commit any crimes.

You're a left-wing fascist.

[RD Sandman]

Ed Huntress <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in
news:ucqfq71f858hega32...@4ax.com:

As liberals did in the '40s and '60s. <sigh> And still do....unless
you are Rush Limbaugh and not Ed Schultz. ;)

[RD Sandman]

de...@dudu.org wrote in news:7csfq75sidhq1good...@4ax.com:

>>>>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/02/fox-broadcast-licenses-
ruper
>>>>> t-
>>>>> murdoch-phone-hacking_n_1470831.html?
utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium
>>>>> =f
>>>>> eed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+HP%2Fmedia+%
28Media+on+The+Huffington+Post%2

Care to place your cite on Murdoch spying on citizens in the US right
below? Or is this another in your list of claims such as Zimmerman only
shot Martin because he was black.

[George Plimpton]

Scheisskopf doesn't care about truth or logical consistency. All he
knows is there's some kind of a club out there with which to whack
political opponents, and he'll use it. He's unscrupulous.

[Scout]

<de...@dudu.org> wrote in message
news:7csfq75sidhq1good...@4ax.com...

>>>>>>>>>>>>> views." - William F. Buckley, Jr.

No one said it was. So I'll leave you to feed your strawman.

[George Plimpton]

Leftists like Scheisskopf can't make it through life without that kind
of straw man.

[George Plimpton]

On this issue of who wants to abridge whose free speech rights, there is
an important secondary issue: left-wing dishonesty. The dishonesty
appears twice.

First, leftists are lying when they say that conservatives are more
prone to want to suppress speech they dislike. The overwhelming
evidence, especially on university campuses but by no means limited to
them, is that leftists want to shout down and in other ways prevent
conservatives from speaking *far* more than conservatives want to do the
same to leftists. Leftists are brazenly lying about where the greater
threat to free speech lies. It occurs mainly on the left.

The other lie is in talking about their own propensity to suppress
speech at all. Leftists simply deny that they do it or even that they
want to do it. Those conservatives who do want to suppress speech don't
shy away from saying that's what they're trying to do. They are at
least honest about their intellectual intolerance; leftists lie about
and try to conceal theirs.

Libertarians, of course, don't try to suppress anyone's speech.

[Jeff M]

On 5/7/2012 11:22 AM, RD Sandman wrote:
> de...@dudu.org wrote in news:7csfq75sidhq1good...@4ax.com:
>> On Mon, 07 May 2012 10:24:21 -0500, RD Sandman

[snip]

>>>>> You do understand that is in Europe and not the US where that
>>>>> occurred, don't you? Now tell me what FCC laws he violated.
>>>>
>>>> That's presently unknown for sure. The extent of his spying on
>>>> people
>>>> is yet to be determined. But I doubt that one he gets out of hot
>>>> water in GB his problems are not over and he will start being called
>>>> to FCC hearings of his abuses in the US.
>>>
>>> If he has any. However, what this above shows is simply that it is a
>>> request from a group in Britain to pull his US license. So much for
>>> liberal's ideas on free speech.
>>
>> Spying on private citizens is not free speech.
>>
> Care to place your cite on Murdoch spying on citizens in the US right
> below? Or is this another in your list of claims such as Zimmerman only
> shot Martin because he was black.

As a general rule, in administrative matters such as licensing and
character requirements, the agency may consider crimes and misconduct
committed in foreign jurisdictions, even if that foreign jurisdiction
does not consider the matter a crime or took no action against the
applicant itself. They may consider other matters, and they are not
bound by the restrictive rules of evidence used in a court of law.

However, I don't know how, specifically, the FCC and related agencies
handle such matters.

[RD Sandman]

Jeff M <NoS...@NoThanks.Org> wrote in news:mq-
dnc1XOdRIYDrSn...@giganews.com:

> On 5/7/2012 11:22 AM, RD Sandman wrote:

>> de...@dudu.org wrote in news:7csfq75sidhq1good1ilupnatl4t8apr8r@

Neither does Dudu and that was my point. I haven't seen a cite yet where
Murdoch violated any FCC regs. He may have but I haven't seen a cite for
it and I know that Dudu hasn't.

[Ed Huntress]

On Mon, 07 May 2012 11:21:18 -0500, RD Sandman

Really? I've not heard of such. Before 1985, the "moral character"
requirement for licensing mostly referred to felonies committed by
individual owners. From roughly 1985 to 1995, character was almost
dismissed from the requirement. Then it was re-established. Until the
1980s, there were few successful challenges on those grounds, anyway.

But not for lack of trying. The right used "moral character" to
challenge licensees who they claimed had some connection with the
communist party, or some related subterfuge to attack anyone to the
left of center. I had this college class in 1970, IIRC, so I can't
tell you how many were successful. Memory cells are leaving me. d8-)

The left started challenging the right for license renewals on the
basis of civil rights and the public interest, not character, with the
WLBT case in 1964. I've never heard of a case brought from the left
over character, but that doesn't mean it never happened. If a case is
brought over Murdoch, it will be the first one I can recall from the
left.

> And still do....unless
>you are Rush Limbaugh and not Ed Schultz. ;)

I'm not following you there but the fact is that character is a
legitimate basis for a license challenge, and character has most
closely been tied to commission of felonies by the owners. There
apparently is a character issue with Murdoch. But unless he is
convicted of something, I doubt if there could be a successful
challenge.

--
Ed Huntress

[RD Sandman]

Ed Huntress <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in

news:8ntfq750a7ag9t44g...@4ax.com:

> On Mon, 07 May 2012 11:21:18 -0500, RD Sandman
> <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Ed Huntress <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in
>>news:ucqfq71f858hega32...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Mon, 07 May 2012 10:24:21 -0500, RD Sandman
>>> <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>

>>>>de...@dudu.org wrote in news:butdq75pjjvs3ev63e1im8b2lrtmd1ukva@

Freedom of speech? Try the First Amendment which you referred to above.

[de...@dudu.org]

On Mon, 07 May 2012 09:47:26 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
wrote:

>On this issue of who wants to abridge whose free speech rights, there is
>an important secondary issue: left-wing dishonesty. The dishonesty
>appears twice.
>
>First, leftists are lying when they say that conservatives are more
>prone to want to suppress speech they dislike. The overwhelming
>evidence, especially on university campuses but by no means limited to
>them, is that leftists want to shout down and in other ways prevent
>conservatives from speaking *far* more than conservatives want to do the
>same to leftists. Leftists are brazenly lying about where the greater
>threat to free speech lies. It occurs mainly on the left.

Prove it.

>
>The other lie is in talking about their own propensity to suppress
>speech at all. Leftists simply deny that they do it or even that they
>want to do it. Those conservatives who do want to suppress speech don't
>shy away from saying that's what they're trying to do. They are at
>least honest about their intellectual intolerance; leftists lie about
>and try to conceal theirs.
>

What about all the censorship from the Christian right? That's where
most of the attack on freedom of speech comes from.

>Libertarians, of course, don't try to suppress anyone's speech.

Libertarians are conservatives who are too stupid to know the
difference.

[Ed Huntress]

On Mon, 07 May 2012 12:21:25 -0500, RD Sandman

We were talking about challenges to broadcast licenses, RD.

But for that matter, what examples are you thinking of, regarding free
speech attacks by "liberals...in the '40s and '60s"? Most of what
comes to mind is the obscenity challenges, challenges to communist
party literature, and so on. They were all coming from the right.

Do you have examples, or are you making this up?

--
Ed Huntress

[George Plimpton]

On 5/7/2012 10:25 AM, de...@dudu.org wrote:
> On Mon, 07 May 2012 09:47:26 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
> wrote:
>
>> On this issue of who wants to abridge whose free speech rights, there is
>> an important secondary issue: left-wing dishonesty. The dishonesty
>> appears twice.
>>
>> First, leftists are lying when they say that conservatives are more
>> prone to want to suppress speech they dislike. The overwhelming
>> evidence, especially on university campuses but by no means limited to
>> them, is that leftists want to shout down and in other ways prevent
>> conservatives from speaking *far* more than conservatives want to do the
>> same to leftists. Leftists are brazenly lying about where the greater
>> threat to free speech lies. It occurs mainly on the left.
>
> Prove it.

Already done.

>>
>> The other lie is in talking about their own propensity to suppress
>> speech at all. Leftists simply deny that they do it or even that they
>> want to do it. Those conservatives who do want to suppress speech don't
>> shy away from saying that's what they're trying to do. They are at
>> least honest about their intellectual intolerance; leftists lie about
>> and try to conceal theirs.
>>
> What about all the censorship from the Christian right?

Show any.

>
>> Libertarians, of course, don't try to suppress anyone's speech.
>
> Libertarians are conservatives

No, they aren't.

[de...@dudu.org]

I'm sure there will be an indepth investigation. Probably already
ongoing. Considering his actions in GB there is no reason to think
he didn't do the same thing here. I'm pretty sure that once he gets
out of the shark pool in GB he is just going to find himself in the
middle of the same thing here.

[RD Sandman]

Ed Huntress <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in

news:o51gq7t4ptk43ssj2...@4ax.com:

Yes, and you brought up conservatives shrouding themselves in the First
Amendment. I replied that liberals did the same thing in the '40s and
the '60s.

> But for that matter, what examples are you thinking of, regarding free
> speech attacks by "liberals...in the '40s and '60s"?

Where did you come up with that? You said conservatives were using the
"character" requirement to deny licenses. It would seem to me that means
that conservatives were the ones trying to shut down free speech and then
it would have been the liberals fighting for it........like Larry Flint.
;)

Most of what
> comes to mind is the obscenity challenges, challenges to communist
> party literature, and so on. They were all coming from the right.
>
> Do you have examples, or are you making this up?

No, I suggest that you clear your mind and go back over what was said.

[RD Sandman]

de...@dudu.org wrote in news:bg1gq7peofhure37f...@4ax.com:

Could well be. I would simply prefer to wait until the facts are
produced before I took a stance. You should try it. ;)

[JohnJohnsn]

On May 7, 8:20 am, Metuchen, NJ's resident Liberal troll to T.P.G.,
Edward A. Huntress <hunt...@optonline.net>, a/k/a "KC2NZT," wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, 06 May 2012 21:57:22 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
> wrote:
>
>> On 5/6/2012 5:57 PM, Jeff M wrote:
>
>>> On 5/6/2012 5:46 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>
>>> [snip]
>
>>>>>> What I mean is what I wrote: leftists are much more
>>>>>> intolerant of contrary views than are conservatives.
>

"Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then
are shocked and offended to discover that there _are_ other views."
— William F. Buckley, Jr.
>

>>>>>> Libertarians, of course, are the most tolerant of all.
>
>>>>> All the scientific research says that conservatives are the
>>>>> least tolerant people in the U.S.
>
>>>> No, there's no such research.
>
> The academic literature has been loaded with such research
> for close to a century.
>

There's the keyword: "academic."

It's well established that a large percentage of academia is Left-wing
Liberal Socialist; a/k/a "Progressive:"

Why Are Academics So Liberal?
by Lisa Wade, Jan 20, 2010, at 10:54 am

The stereotype that professors are more likely to be liberal than
people in other occupations was confirmed by a recent study by
sociologists Neil Gross and Ethan Fosse:

Ideology at Work

Professors are more likely to identify themselves as Liberals than
those in any other occupation, according to an analysis of General
Social Survey from 1996 to 2009:
http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2010/01/20/why-are-academics-so-liberal/popup-v2/

[ You'll find me in that list, Ed:
[ I'm there in that 89% `non-Liberal': "Law enforcement officers"
[ Which category is yours, Ed?
[ Continuing:

The study measured a number of reasons why college professors may be
more liberal. Among others, they argued that already liberal people
may be drawn to academia because they perceive that academics are
liberal. That is, just as women are drawn to teaching and men to
construction work because these jobs are gendered, academia is a
politically-typed job that draws people who identify as liberal
already.

They also speculate that the relative low pay, given the high
educational attainment that the profession requires and high status
that it brings, may lead professors to lean towards democratic
principles of economic redistribution. They write:

"Deprived of economic success relative to those in the world of
commerce, intellectuals are less likely to be invested in preserving
the socioeconomic order, may turn toward redistributionist policies in
hopes of reducing perceived status inconsistency, and may embrace
unconventional social or political views in order to distinguish
themselves culturally from the business classes.
(quoted here: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/01/18/liberal)
...
http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2010/01/20/why-are-academics-so-liberal/
>
>"Contemporary researchers have documented the extent
> to which cognitive complexity decreases as one moves
> from left to right across the ideological spectrum
> (Tetlock, 1983)
>
Then explain me, Ed: until I reached the age of thirty (+/-) I was an
anti-gun Democrat.

Yet now, I am a pro-gun Conservative (not necessarily supporting the
Republicans, as I often vote for local conservative Democrats).

Are you one of those who believes "nurture; not nature," Ed: that you
become more Liberal as you are exposed to Liberalism as you age?

Well, Ed; I again ask: how do you explain my going exactly the
opposite direction from you, and your Liberal jealousy of
Conservatives, with both of us being in the same age group?

IOW: "Where did YOU go wrong, Ed?"

[de...@dudu.org]

On Mon, 07 May 2012 13:26:50 -0500, RD Sandman

<rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:

>de...@dudu.org wrote in news:bg1gq7peofhure37f...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Mon, 07 May 2012 11:22:52 -0500, RD Sandman
>> <rdsandman[spamremove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>If he has any. However, what this above shows is simply that it is a
>>>>>request from a group in Britain to pull his US license. So much for
>>>>>liberal's ideas on free speech.
>>>>
>>>> Spying on private citizens is not free speech.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Care to place your cite on Murdoch spying on citizens in the US right
>>>below? Or is this another in your list of claims such as Zimmerman
>only
>>>shot Martin because he was black.
>>
>> I'm sure there will be an indepth investigation. Probably already
>> ongoing. Considering his actions in GB there is no reason to think
>> he didn't do the same thing here. I'm pretty sure that once he gets
>> out of the shark pool in GB he is just going to find himself in the
>> middle of the same thing here.
>>
>
>Could well be. I would simply prefer to wait until the facts are
>produced before I took a stance. You should try it. ;)

I know all about Murdock. I know the kind of person he is. He
deserves to be in jail just as much as George Zimmerman.

[George Plimpton]

I know all about you, Scheisskopf, you murdering terrorist shitbag. I
know the kind of person you are. You deserve to be on trial for your
life, just as much as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

[Greg Arama]

DooDoo wrote in message news:gs5gq71e1l92dlib8...@4ax.com...

<^^^^

It is to laugh.
Even when he does NOT have any facts or knowledge of either person or the
cases, DooDoo blatantly disregards the useful advice RD gave, and pronounced
them both guilty before they were in court.