Reply to Thread New Thread |
08-31-2011, 06:44 PM | #1 |
|
All my life I've puzzled over L-tards and their unique ability to look at a problem.. Then look at a list of options to correct the problem.. and then pick the absolute worst one. I mean it's uncanny how they do this. Further, they can consistently choose the worst option even while in isolation. Meaning, they don't have to confer on it. They're just consistently wrong. You lock 10 liberals away from each other, and they'll ALL come to the same, wrong conclusion.. It's really pretty incredible when you think about it..
And I've puzzled over this for as long as I can remember.. How do they do this? If we could graph this process, what would the mechanics behind it look like? And I think I finally have an answer.. Try this on: Imagine a hypothetical situation where a good man sits down to solve a problem.. Let's say he needs more money to pay his bills. What steps does he take to solve it? First (and probably at a subconscious level) he discards every answer that is morally unacceptable. In this case, since he's a good man, the first thing that happens in his mind is he discards theft, crime and other immoral behavior that is unacceptable to him. (Rob a bank, pimp the wife out, start an X-Rated website, etc) Once that is done, the acceptable options that remain are the tools he will use (Or, the list of options he has to pick through) to solve the problem. Now, that might seem self evident, but lets look at what happens when a liberal goes through this process.. Think about all the options they have to discard right off the bat? It's nearly everything. It's like they throw away all their tools at the onset, then all they have left is a hammer.. So every problem MUST become a nail by necessity. Srsly, it's a lot to discard.. Their answers can't: Benefit the "rich" Benefit Whites. Benefit Red States. Fail to show favor to blacks, gays and other minorities. Their answers can't benefit the religious. They can't fail to protect the environment. They can't be unabashedly capitalist. They can't benefit big business, corporations in general or Wall Street in particular. They have to accentuate the plight of the "poor" The solution can't benefit "improper" segments of the economy, or society.. or "encourage" people to behave "unacceptably" (Like buy a big screen, or an SUV, for example) or otherwise interfere with liberal orthodoxy in ANY WAY WHATSOEVER. And fuck, man.. after that.. What's left? Srsly.. They're reflexive anti-capitalists. Is it any WONDER they can't think critically about economic problems? They toss away every tool that might help at the onset and, when it is time to reach a decision, they HAVE NO TOOLS LEFT TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM WITH.. because Liberal orthodoxy prohibits their use. If this is correct, Liberals can't be trusted to solve problems at all, and shouldn't even be consulted in the process of solving the country's problems. Especially economic issues, as they will consistently arrive at the wrong conclusion. Their solutions will necessarily be very narrow, completely un-creative, measures. They will be racially biased and completely biased against growth and the industrial policies that made this country great. Further, there's nothing that can change this outcome.. excepting that liberals stop being liberals and drop their ridiculous orthodoxy. To summarize: It's not their fault and debate is pointless.. They literally CANNOT SEE any other options, as their orthodoxy has blinded them to their existence. They are cast off before the process even began. They do this instinctively, and that is how, even in isolation, they can consistently arrive at incorrect answers. |
|
08-31-2011, 07:09 PM | #2 |
|
That sums it up pretty good. But in addition, they seem to have a knack for making problems bigger in their quest to solve them. Even in the rare event that they realize it, their excuse is to put it off for a later day explaining that it will correct itself over time. It's exactly how they are approaching the economy.
|
|
08-31-2011, 10:15 PM | #6 |
|
Liberals remind me of kids, in a lot of ways.
Remember the story about the kid who wrote a letter (helped by has parents), to the N. Korea dictator? He wanted to plant trees along the DMZ, so North and South could frolic in the forests, and love each other. Their ideas are often like that.......retarded, child-like, and without merit or common sense. |
|
09-01-2011, 04:05 PM | #8 |
|
Jhoffa makes a great point though.
A rational man, will quickly kick out the impossible/morally wrong/illegal/ ideas....and work from there. Liberal males, with their extra high estrogen, will approach it from a perspective that simply WILL NOT make sense to normal people. They have no morals, they have no concept of reality..... |
|
09-01-2011, 04:20 PM | #9 |
|
|
|
09-01-2011, 04:23 PM | #10 |
|
Jhoffa makes a great point though. Then, they're not equipped to solve the problem.. So they can't. |
|
09-01-2011, 04:24 PM | #11 |
|
"A study funded by the US government has concluded that conservatism can be explained psychologically as a set of neuroses rooted in "fear and aggression, dogmatism and the intolerance of ambiguity. This intolerance of ambiguity can lead people to cling to the familiar, to arrive at premature conclusions, and to impose simplistic cliches and stereotypes,"
http://www.sodahead.com/united-state...ss/blog-29112/ |
|
09-01-2011, 04:25 PM | #12 |
|
They have their little liberal "morals" and that will reject a huge number of tools right off the bat... All of the effective ones will be immediately rejected. It's not a shock their ideas never work. |
|
09-01-2011, 04:26 PM | #13 |
|
|
|
09-01-2011, 04:26 PM | #14 |
|
"A study funded by the US government has concluded that conservatism can be explained psychologically as a set of neuroses rooted in "fear and aggression, dogmatism and the intolerance of ambiguity. This intolerance of ambiguity can lead people to cling to the familiar, to arrive at premature conclusions, and to impose simplistic cliches and stereotypes," |
|
09-01-2011, 04:27 PM | #15 |
|
"A study funded by the US government has concluded that conservatism can be explained psychologically as a set of neuroses rooted in "fear and aggression, dogmatism and the intolerance of ambiguity. This intolerance of ambiguity can lead people to cling to the familiar, to arrive at premature conclusions, and to impose simplistic cliches and stereotypes," |
|
Reply to Thread New Thread |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 3 (0 members and 3 guests) | |
|