Calling all Liberals

[Englebert]

I'm having an issue that I'm hoping you Liberals can help me with. As I have stated on multiple posts, since Trump has assumed the Presidency I have been mimicking the Liberal tactic of personal attacks when "debating" (LOL) with Liberals. The problem I am having is that I still feel bad after using this tactic. How do you Liberals absolve yourself of this innate guilt? Is it just a matter of conditioning through abundant use or do you employ some other sort of self-defense mechanism(s)? Is it an over-reliance of "the ends justify the ends" mantra? (That one would be lost on me and downright hopeless.) Is it a matter of teaching yourself to ignore controvertible facts? Or maybe employing a tactic of twisting facts to align with a pre-conceived outcome? Or possibly a combination of just ignoring anything that doesn't conform and over-weighting a reliance on conforming data. For any Liberal out there that knows the answer, please enlightened me.

I'm also very curious as to how you rid yourself of the guilt of running when confronted to backup claims. I haven't employed this tactic yet, but Liberals seem to be really good at making outrageous claims, run, then re-appear as if the subject was never offered. I'm not sure if I could ever master this tactic, but please share a blueprint of that path.

But the biggest feat that fascinates me is how Liberals can endure unadulterated hypocrisy without an ounce of shame. This one seems beyond the understanding of the premier scientists/psychologists. I know I will never be able to compete in this realm, but please share any insight.

Since the Liberals claim to encompass the best and brightest (and elitists), I'm confident that many enlightened responses will be imminent.

[stevenash]

Perhaps they are devoid of a conscience?

[LumRaiderFan]

Don't expect a debate from a liberal, their ideology is very difficult to defend.

[Law Man]

On 12/19/2018 at 0:22 AM, Englebert said:

I'm having an issue that I'm hoping you Liberals can help me with. As I have stated on multiple posts, since Trump has assumed the Presidency I have been mimicking the Liberal tactic of personal attacks when "debating" (LOL) with Liberals. The problem I am having is that I still feel bad after using this tactic. How do you Liberals absolve yourself of this innate guilt? Is it just a matter of conditioning through abundant use or do you employ some other sort of self-defense mechanism(s)? Is it an over-reliance of "the ends justify the ends" mantra? (That one would be lost on me and downright hopeless.) Is it a matter of teaching yourself to ignore controvertible facts? Or maybe employing a tactic of twisting facts to align with a pre-conceived outcome? Or possibly a combination of just ignoring anything that doesn't conform and over-weighting a reliance on conforming data. For any Liberal out there that knows the answer, please enlightened me.

I'm also very curious as to how you rid yourself of the guilt of running when confronted to backup claims. I haven't employed this tactic yet, but Liberals seem to be really good at making outrageous claims, run, then re-appear as if the subject was never offered. I'm not sure if I could ever master this tactic, but please share a blueprint of that path.

But the biggest feat that fascinates me is how Liberals can endure unadulterated hypocrisy without an ounce of shame. This one seems beyond the understanding of the premier scientists/psychologists. I know I will never be able to compete in this realm, but please share any insight.

Since the Liberals claim to encompass the best and brightest (and elitists), I'm confident that many enlightened responses will be imminent.

Both sides are often (always?) willing to compromise their moral high ground for gain. Both sides believe they are in the right and the opposition is in the wrong. But both sides will gladly  behave in immoral ways to win. Whether it's religion, politics, revenge or plain greed - there will always be a reason to disagree. To disagree is actually very popular and I mean no joke there.  It actually works.  Oh, Politicians fail all the time, but that too means that neither side got what their self interest wanted. Everyone tries to impose their vision of the world on everyone else. Violent or means of coercion are as popular internationally as they are here on the East Coast. Consider it this way. Both the community that wants the halfway house and the neighborhood that doesn't want it where they live have the moral ground.  Someone will win. I know where I stand on the issue but that doesn't mean either side would back down - even if they understood the other side believed just as strongly as they did.

 

[BLUEDOVE3]

Maybe because you guys believe in guy who pushes ridiculous conspiracy theories. 

[Hagar]

1 hour ago, BLUEDOVE3 said:

Maybe because you guys believe in guy who pushes ridiculous conspiracy theories. 

Says the guy who thinks Trump colluded with Russia?  Even after two years of 25 Trump haters checking everything from his old taxes to his old Yahtzee scoresheets, and finding nothing on him?  Yep, you gotta watch them conspiracy theorist.

[Hagar]

2 hours ago, Law Man said:

Both sides are often (always?) willing to compromise their moral high ground for gain. Both sides believe they are in the right and the opposition is in the wrong. But both sides will gladly  behave in immoral ways to win. Whether it's religion, politics, revenge or plain greed - there will always be a reason to disagree. To disagree is actually very popular and I mean no joke there.  It actually works.  Oh, Politicians fail all the time, but that too means that neither side got what their self interest wanted. Everyone tries to impose their vision of the world on everyone else. Violent or means of coercion are as popular internationally as they are here on the East Coast. Consider it this way. Both the community that wants the halfway house and the neighborhood that doesn't want it where they live have the moral ground.  Someone will win. I know where I stand on the issue but that doesn't mean either side would back down - even if they understood the other side believed just as strongly as they did.

 

The hypocrisy of politicians knows no bounds.  The current refusal by the democratic leadership to fund building a wall to protect our country, while most of that same leadership has walls protecting their homes, is a prime example.  Super head scratcher. 

[baddog]

4 hours ago, Hagar said:

The hypocrisy of politicians knows no bounds.  The current refusal by the democratic leadership to fund building a wall to protect our country, while most of that same leadership has walls protecting their homes, is a prime example.  Super head scratcher. 

Most of those politicians of which you speak used to be FOR LEGAL immigration and a border wall. 

[stevenash]

7 hours ago, BLUEDOVE3 said:

Maybe because you guys believe in guy who pushes ridiculous conspiracy theories. 

Dove, do you "believe" the sexual harassment "claims" of  Christine Blasey Ford plus the multiple other claimants that all appeared at the same time?

[Englebert]

8 hours ago, Law Man said:

Both sides are often (always?) willing to compromise their moral high ground for gain. Both sides believe they are in the right and the opposition is in the wrong. But both sides will gladly  behave in immoral ways to win. Whether it's religion, politics, revenge or plain greed - there will always be a reason to disagree. To disagree is actually very popular and I mean no joke there.  It actually works.  Oh, Politicians fail all the time, but that too means that neither side got what their self interest wanted. Everyone tries to impose their vision of the world on everyone else. Violent or means of coercion are as popular internationally as they are here on the East Coast. Consider it this way. Both the community that wants the halfway house and the neighborhood that doesn't want it where they live have the moral ground.  Someone will win. I know where I stand on the issue but that doesn't mean either side would back down - even if they understood the other side believed just as strongly as they did.

 

The ol' equivalency ploy. Both sides do it. Did you even read my post?

[Law Man]

Yes.

[Englebert]

13 minutes ago, Law Man said:

Yes.

Really? Based on your response you definitely fooled me, but affirmed my post. How do you rid yourself of guilt?

[Law Man]

You stated in your post you have a issue. You’ll be fine.

[Englebert]

37 minutes ago, Law Man said:

You stated in your post you have a issue. You’ll be fine.

I was asking for advice, which you failed to provide in your reply. So once again, how do you rid yourself of guilt?

[Law Man]

You will be fine. I’ve seen this before. 

[stevenash]

19 minutes ago, Law Man said:

You will be fine. I’ve seen this before. 

19 minutes ago, Law Man said:

You will be fine. I’ve seen this before. 

Personal experience?

[Law Man]

Yes, dealing with outlaws, gang bangers, peddifires mentally ill criminals. I protect and serve. You?

[Englebert]

46 minutes ago, Law Man said:

You will be fine. I’ve seen this before. 

Are you refusing to answer because you don't know the answer, or is it because you know how ridiculous your answer will be? One more time (j/k), how do YOU rid yourself of guilt when offering pathetic posts?

[Law Man]

Hagar’s response was more intellectual and his response was well received. You continue to diagnose instead of have a good dialogue.  I can’t help you. 

[Law Man]

Hagar's response was more intellectual and his response was well received. You continue to diagnose instead of having a good dialogue. I cant help you. My post clearly went over your head.

[Englebert]

1 hour ago, Law Man said:

Hagar's response was more intellectual and his response was well received. You continue to diagnose instead of having a good dialogue. I cant help you. My post clearly went over your head.

You refusing to answer a question leads you to believe I'm diagnosing. Now that is comical. Seriously, how are you not embarrassed (which ironically is the whole point of this thread)? 

For bonus points, please explain how your post went over my head. (It's very hard typing while laughing, but I was able to get this sentence posted through perseverance.) I know, in typical Liberal fashion you will again run from the questions, try to deflect with attacks, then claim you are intellectually superior. We've seen it before. Maybe the laughter you are hearing is not really just in your head.

[stevenash]

3 hours ago, Law Man said:

Yes, dealing with outlaws, gang bangers, peddifires mentally ill criminals. I protect and serve. You?

Is it safe to say that your third example is  pedophiles rather than peddifires?

[Law Man]

1 hour ago, Englebert said:

You refusing to answer a question leads you to believe I'm diagnosing. Now that is comical. Seriously, how are you not embarrassed (which ironically is the whole point of this thread)? 

For bonus points, please explain how your post went over my head. (It's very hard typing while laughing, but I was able to get this sentence posted through perseverance.) I know, in typical Liberal fashion you will again run from the questions, try to deflect with attacks, then claim you are intellectually superior. We've seen it before. Maybe the laughter you are hearing is not really just in your head.

A disorder in which you have a inflated sense of self importance. Treatment can help, but your condition can't be cured. Can last for years or be life long. Symptoms include an excessive need for admiration , disregard for others feelings, an inability to handle any criticism and a sense of entitlement.

Narcissistic Personality Disorder

Keep your bonus points. This ones on the house.

[Law Man]

12 minutes ago, stevenash said:

Is it safe to say that your third example is  pedophiles rather than peddifires?

You never answered the question.

[Englebert]

3 hours ago, Law Man said:

A disorder in which you have a inflated sense of self importance. Treatment can help, but your condition can't be cured. Can last for years or be life long. Symptoms include an excessive need for admiration , disregard for others feelings, an inability to handle any criticism and a sense of entitlement.

Narcissistic Personality Disorder

Keep your bonus points. This ones on the house.

You keep getting funnier the more you post. Please show evidence of my inflated ego. You actually (and very laughably) try to pass off me asking you a question as me in need of help. Remind us of where you obtained your psychology degree. And you claim I have an inflated ego. You are just too comical. Too bad we are not laughing with you.

And once again you failed to answer the original (or any) question. Embarrassed yet? Most people would be.

And you have the nerve to question stevenash for not answering your question. My original post asked how a Liberal can dismiss guilt when being hypocritical. How did you feel when making that post? How did you prevent an overwhelming feeling of guilt?