burritos;842330532 said:

---

IMO, when every opinion on every issue devolves into Obama being a socialist, evolution being propaganda to debunk Christianity, and global warming being a world order conspiracy to take away our freedoms, then yes. Not all, but those in the newspaper, that is my opinion on them.

---

I feel enlightened when every opinion on every issue elevates to an apologetic on Obama and why he should be sainted, when every type of faith is being esteemed except Christianity and during the advancement of global warming after the initial panic over global cooling.

CalZebra2012;842330563 said:

---

I feel enlightened when every opinion on every issue elevates to an apologetic on Obama and why he should be sainted, when every type of faith is being esteemed except Christianity and during the advancement of global warming after the initial panic over global cooling.

---

CalZebra2012;842330563 said:

---

I feel enlightened when every opinion on every issue elevates to an apologetic on Obama and why he should be sainted, when every type of faith is being esteemed except Christianity and during the advancement of global warming after the initial panic over global cooling.

---

Good one, I thought conservatives couldn't do satire.

Bobodeluxe;842330232 said:

---

Sorry about the confusion.

I often forget how little those who attend Cal actually know about Berkeley. The Thousand Oaks District in the northeast corner of Berkeley is the traditional heart of Republican power which controlled city hall for most of its history, until the early eighties.

My point was, most folks were watching the game, even Ann's fictional Real Americans.


http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2014-06-25.html

---

Well your condescending remark to Cal grads is rather curious with your lack of knowledge of Berkeley politics history. The shift in power happened in the 60's NOT the 80's. It looks like you need the tutorial, not Cal grads!:bluecarrot:

NYCGOBEARS;842330466 said:

---

Which would you rather be?


conservative
kənˈsərvətiv/
adjective
1.
holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion.


liberal

Pronunciation: \ˈli-b(ə-)rəl\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin liberalis suitable for a freeman, generous, from liber free; perhaps akin to Old English lēodan to grow, Greek eleutheros free
Date: 14th century
1 a : of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts <liberal education> b archaic : of or befitting a man of free birth 2 a : marked by generosity : openhanded <a liberal giver> b : given or provided in a generous and openhanded way <a liberal meal> c : ample, full 3 obsolete : lacking moral restraint : licentious 4 : not literal or strict : loose <a liberal translation> 5 : broad-minded ; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms 6 a : of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism b capitalized : of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism ; especially : of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives.

---

Only if either party conformed to their corresponding definitions.

I rather be an individual without blind loyalty to one political group and without denying any other person of his/her humanity. None of us define our entire identity or existence based on our political leanings and, as such, we should avoid trying to do so with others. Members from both parties could use a little more (actually a lot more) patience, humility, grace, compassion, courage, forbearance, common sense and gentleness. My demonizing an entire group of people or my feeling the need to belittle (which I am definitely guilty of too often) an entire group of my fellow citizens says a lot more about me than the person I am judging.

CalZebra2012;842330563 said:

---

I feel enlightened when every opinion on every issue elevates to an apologetic on Obama and why he should be sainted, when every type of faith is being esteemed except Christianity and during the advancement of global warming after the initial panic over global cooling.

---

I agree with you on Christianity but I really don't get some people's desire to trivialize global warming. Even if the science behind global warming isn't 100%, shouldn't we be risk adverse when it comes to something with such great consequences? Are we not going to take any action for homeland security until we have 100%, unanimous agreement on the dangers of terrorism? Are we going to ignore ISIL until we have 100% consensus in Pentagon, CIA, Congress and WH on why they are growing so fast and what the dangers of their growth is? We are willing to use drones and kill civilians (I am not saying it is right or wrong but only that we are not waiting for it to be 100% and we are not always right) to go after terrorists but we are not willing to cut back on pollution because not every single scientists is in agreement on every detail of global warming and its cause? Seems disingenuous.

burritos;842330532 said:

---

IMO, when every opinion on every issue devolves into Obama being a socialist, evolution being propaganda to debunk Christianity, and global warming being a world order conspiracy to take away our freedoms, then yes. Not all, but those in the newspaper, that is my opinion on them.

---

Do you feel the same way about liberal talking heads? The problem is that these talking heads (both conservative and liberal) represent what we want to hear and our basest nature. We want to act like we are in the know and have an opinion without knowing the grimy details of the duality of our nature. Someone needs to be wrong or evil, and we are all entitled to cast our judgment on everyone and everything. Political debate is just gossip wearing grown up clothes.

I'd listen more the conservative talking heads *IF* they fact checked before they spouted off instead of just lying.

Study: Media Fact-Checker Says Republicans Lie More

This is from the non-partisan The Center for Media and Public Affairs at Geo Mason U. Bottomline: conservatives are 300% more likely to lie to the media.

calbear93;842330578 said:

---

I agree with you on Christianity but I really don't get some people's desire to trivialize global warming. Even if the science behind global warming isn't 100%, shouldn't we be risk adverse when it comes to something with such great consequences? Are we not going to take any action for homeland security until we have 100%, unanimous agreement on the dangers of terrorism? Are we going to ignore ISIL until we have 100% consensus in Pentagon, CIA, Congress and WH on why they are growing so fast and what the dangers of their growth is? We are willing to use drones and kill civilians (I am not saying it is right or wrong but only that we are not waiting for it to be 100% and we are not always right) to go after terrorists but we are not willing to cut back on pollution because not every single scientists is in agreement on every detail of global warming and its cause? Seems disingenuous.

---

That's a really interesting point. Dick Cheney gave us the 1% doctrine. He was quoted in a book as saying, "If there's a 1% chance that Pakistani scientists are helping al-Qaeda build or develop a nuclear weapon, we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response".

When you compare that assessment of probability to the consideration given to climate change from the same group of people it is somewhat staggering in its inconsistency.

btw, despite my 3.5 years at Cal I know next to nothing about Berkeley except for the few blocks around campus. Should I?

beelzebear;842330581 said:

---

I'd listen more the conservative talking heads *IF* they fact checked before they spouted off instead of just lying.

Study: Media Fact-Checker Says Republicans Lie More

This is from the non-partisan The Center for Media and Public Affairs at Geo Mason U. Bottomline: conservatives are 300% more likely to lie to the media.

---

I wonder what the stats would have been if the applicable period was during GWB's presidency. I honestly don't trust politicians or those representing a political party to tell me the truth since they have their own agenda beyond informing the public. However, I assume that there is less cause for the party that is represented in the WH to lie since there is less need to demonize the sitting president. I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised if the numbers were reversed during GWB's presidency.

i dont know about you guys, but the day everyone is seen carrying automatic rifles in to chipotle, will be the day we can finally declare that freedom has won.

calbear93;842330579 said:

---

Do you feel the same way about liberal talking heads? The problem is that these talking heads (both conservative and liberal) represent what we want to hear and our basest nature. We want to act like we are in the know and have an opinion without knowing the grimy details of the duality of our nature. Someone needs to be wrong or evil, and we are all entitled to cast our judgment on everyone and everything. Political debate is just gossip wearing grown up clothes.

---

I hear what you are saying. Having rivals is a permanent human condition. You go to any nation state and people will be at each others throats for reasons that people of another nation state could care less about.

tommie317;842330585 said:

---

i dont know about you guys, but the day everyone is seen carrying automatic rifles in to chipotle, will be the day we can finally declare that freedom has won.

---

Is this a satire? Has to be. I was duped into this one too.
http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/georgia-man-shoots-himself-in-the-dick-doesnt-notice-1594783276

burritos;842330597 said:

---

Is this a satire? Has to be. I was duped into this one too.
http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/georgia-man-shoots-himself-in-the-dick-doesnt-notice-1594783276

---

Deadspin is usually good, it depends on its source since it doesn't usually have its own content

beelzebear;842330568 said:

---

---

lol.

calbear93;842330578 said:

---

I agree with you on Christianity but I really don't get some people's desire to trivialize global warming. Even if the science behind global warming isn't 100%, shouldn't we be risk adverse when it comes to something with such great consequences? Are we not going to take any action for homeland security until we have 100%, unanimous agreement on the dangers of terrorism? Are we going to ignore ISIL until we have 100% consensus in Pentagon, CIA, Congress and WH on why they are growing so fast and what the dangers of their growth is? We are willing to use drones and kill civilians (I am not saying it is right or wrong but only that we are not waiting for it to be 100% and we are not always right) to go after terrorists but we are not willing to cut back on pollution because not every single scientists is in agreement on every detail of global warming and its cause? Seems disingenuous.

---

I hear you but the point is mitigated by the fact that threats from terrorists are imminent, as opposed to delayed, like global warming.

I wasn't so much condemning the theory on global warming as I was jabbing fun at the 70's panic that the earth would be covered in ice which changed to a panic that we'll boil a decade later.

Love the point on drones.

CalZebra2012;842330617 said:

---

I hear you but the point is mitigated by the fact that threats from terrorists are imminent, as opposed to delayed, like global warming.

I wasn't so much condemning the theory on global warming as I was jabbing fun at the 70's panic that the earth would be covered in ice which changed to a panic that we'll boil a decade later.

Love the point on drones.

---

Isn't the part about terrorist being imminent taken from a Bush State of the Union address a few years ago. Oil good, Carbon emissions good and waste water injection doesn't cause an increase in seismic activity. All those scientist must be wrong.

BearNIt;842331032 said:

---

Isn't the part about terrorist being imminent taken from a Bush State of the Union address a few years ago. Oil good, Carbon emissions good and waste water injection doesn't cause an increase in seismic activity. All those scientist must be wrong.

---

LOL. You're seeing the Bush Boogeyman under every rock and around every corner. I can assure you that I have been using the word "imminent" on my own for years. My point was that an AK-47 seems like a much more exigent thing than a cow farting.

I just couldn't help myself.:rollinglaugh: