Why Are Conservatives More Susceptible to Believing Lies?

[Keith&Co.]

Cenk didn't agree! Because when it came to HIS business, oh now that's DIFFERENT.

LOL!

Why do you think a private business is the same thing as a campaign for public office?

He doesn't, but he just sees 'larges sums of money being invested' as 'large sums donated' and calls it the same thing.
Questioning this premise is probably labeled as 'sputtering.'

 

[Half-Life]

Cenk didn't agree! Because when it came to HIS business, oh now that's DIFFERENT.

LOL!

Why do you think a private business is the same thing as a campaign for public office?

He doesn't, but he just sees 'larges sums of money being invested' as 'large sums donated' and calls it the same thing.
Questioning this premise is probably labeled as 'sputtering.'

But you guys are the ones who say "we can't trust right wing channels because they run on donations from billionaire conservatives!"

So, that means we can't trust left-wing sources either since they are funded by leftists.

 

[PyramidHead]

He doesn't, but he just sees 'larges sums of money being invested' as 'large sums donated' and calls it the same thing.
Questioning this premise is probably labeled as 'sputtering.'

But you guys are the ones who say "we can't trust right wing channels because they run on donations from billionaire conservatives!"

So, that means we can't trust left-wing sources either since they are funded by leftists.

Leftists are good though, that's the difference

 

[ZiprHead]

He doesn't, but he just sees 'larges sums of money being invested' as 'large sums donated' and calls it the same thing.
Questioning this premise is probably labeled as 'sputtering.'

But you guys are the ones who say "we can't trust right wing channels because they run on donations from billionaire conservatives!"

So, that means we can't trust left-wing sources either since they are funded by leftists.

You say a lot of things you think left wingers say. When called on it to prove it and provide sources you run away like a little girl who saw a spider.

We don't trust some right wing channels because they lie. The Wall Street Journal is right wing but I would not have any issue with using it as a source.

 

[Keith&Co.]

He doesn't, but he just sees 'larges sums of money being invested' as 'large sums donated' and calls it the same thing.
Questioning this premise is probably labeled as 'sputtering.'

But you guys are the ones who say "we can't trust right wing channels because they run on donations from billionaire conservatives!"

So, that means we can't trust left-wing sources either since they are funded by leftists.

None of which has anything to do with conservatives knowing less than they think they do.
Example: you, and the Jesus quote about homosexuals
Example: you, and the pre-invasion phone cal from Turkey
Example: you, and women being comparable to a commodity
Example: you, and whether a 'survey's' results count as a 'dependable study'
Example: you, thinking that business start-up investments are the same as campaign contributions


....seems to be quite the trend, here.

 

[Half-Life]

He doesn't, but he just sees 'larges sums of money being invested' as 'large sums donated' and calls it the same thing.
Questioning this premise is probably labeled as 'sputtering.'

But you guys are the ones who say "we can't trust right wing channels because they run on donations from billionaire conservatives!"

So, that means we can't trust left-wing sources either since they are funded by leftists.

Leftists are good though, that's the difference

One can just as easily say, "conservatives are good." You have provided ZERO evidence.

I been on leftists channels and see them calling to bring back the guillotine if the rich don't pay more taxes, despite the fact they already pay 37% of our nation's taxes. Very tolerant of them.

 

[PyramidHead]

Leftists are good though, that's the difference

One can just as easily say, "conservatives are good." You have provided ZERO evidence.

I been on leftists channels and see them calling to bring back the guillotine if the rich don't pay more taxes, despite the fact they already pay 37% of our nation's taxes. Very tolerant of them.

All of which is good, thanks for proving my point

 

[Half-Life]

Leftists are good though, that's the difference

One can just as easily say, "conservatives are good." You have provided ZERO evidence.

I been on leftists channels and see them calling to bring back the guillotine if the rich don't pay more taxes, despite the fact they already pay 37% of our nation's taxes. Very tolerant of them.

All of which is good, thanks for proving my point

Then I never want to see you complain again about any type of violence conservatives threaten against leftists. They are completely justified, then.

 

[Keith&Co.]

All of which is good, thanks for proving my point

Then I never want to see you complain again about any type of violence conservatives threaten against leftists. They are completely justified, then.

Dude, you have been caught in lie after lie after lie, and i never WANT to see you lie about what leftists do, or what bonespurs did, or whether any liberal ever spent time in uniform.... but that's not likely a gie the gifties gie me, is it?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Whoops.

 

[Half-Life]

All of which is good, thanks for proving my point

Then I never want to see you complain again about any type of violence conservatives threaten against leftists. They are completely justified, then.

Dude, you have been caught in lie after lie after lie, and i never WANT to see you lie about what leftists do, or what bonespurs did, or whether any liberal ever spent time in uniform.... but that's not likely a gie the gifties gie me, is it?

Can;t you see the problem, Keith?

If leftists threaten violence against conservatives, that's fine and dandy.

If conservatives threaten violence against leftists, the conservatives are labeled as unhinged violent intolerant bigots.

Very hypocritical. Same as how poor whites who vote for Trump are labeled uneducated idiotic inbred rednecks but poor blacks who vote Democrat are not called uneducated inbred idiots.

 

[ZiprHead]

"Republicans are evil because they make ads paid for by donors and script the whole thing themselves!"

Then Bernie does the same exact thing and not a peep from leftists. I suppose it's OK for donors to give money to leftists, but when donors give money to Republicans, it's evil and corrupt.

c There was no need to expand on those falsehoods.

I asked "Is it possible for you to perform some self-reflection and then explain why you believe both of those falsehoods?". Your responses is a tacit acknowledgement that you are either unwilling or incapable of such self-reflection.

They aren't falsehoods. Have you seen the debate with Cenk and Ben Shapiro at Politicon a few years ago? Cenk was saying, "Money needs to get out of politics! Big donors need to be stopped!" Ben Shapiro said, "That goes for your business, "The Young Turks", too? You were given 4 million dollars to start it." Cenk was speechless and stammering.

So out of curiosity I watched the Uygur/Shapiro debate. And again we find Half-life completely misrepresenting the situation. About the only thing HL got right was the debaters were Uygur and Shapiro. Yes, Shapiro commented on Cenk getting 4 million to start the company, but Cenk certainly wasn't speechless and he certainly didn't stammer AT ALL. He waited a moment for the crowd to calm and then responded succinctly.

[YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/8ko0DVJkLG0?t=2645[/YOUTUBE]

Start at the 45 minute mark if you don't want to watch the whole thing. Shapiro makes the same mistake HL is making, equating money in politics with business investment. It was worth the watch.

 

[Half-Life]

They aren't falsehoods. Have you seen the debate with Cenk and Ben Shapiro at Politicon a few years ago? Cenk was saying, "Money needs to get out of politics! Big donors need to be stopped!" Ben Shapiro said, "That goes for your business, "The Young Turks", too? You were given 4 million dollars to start it." Cenk was speechless and stammering.

So out of curiosity I watched the Uygur/Shapiro debate. And again we find Half-life completely misrepresenting the situation. About the only thing HL got right was the debaters were Uygur and Shapiro. Yes, Shapiro commented on Cenk getting 4 million to start the company, but Cenk certainly wasn't speechless and he certainly didn't stammer AT ALL. He waited a moment for the crowd to calm and then responded succinctly.

Then Shapiro said, "I'm not in favor of getting all money out of politics while making an exception for the Young Turks." This is the whole point. Cenk wants money out of politics, but it's OK for HIS business to keep getting money.

That's why it's hypocritical.

 

[ZiprHead]

They aren't falsehoods. Have you seen the debate with Cenk and Ben Shapiro at Politicon a few years ago? Cenk was saying, "Money needs to get out of politics! Big donors need to be stopped!" Ben Shapiro said, "That goes for your business, "The Young Turks", too? You were given 4 million dollars to start it." Cenk was speechless and stammering.

So out of curiosity I watched the Uygur/Shapiro debate. And again we find Half-life completely misrepresenting the situation. About the only thing HL got right was the debaters were Uygur and Shapiro. Yes, Shapiro commented on Cenk getting 4 million to start the company, but Cenk certainly wasn't speechless and he certainly didn't stammer AT ALL. He waited a moment for the crowd to calm and then responded succinctly.

Then Shapiro said, "I'm not in favor of getting all money out of politics while making an exception for the Young Turks." This is the whole point. Cenk wants money out of politics, but it's OK for HIS business to keep getting money.

That's why it's hypocritical.

And there you go again, equating business investment with politics.

Do you acknowledge that you misrepresented Cenk's response as stammering and speechless?

 

[laughing dog]

They aren't falsehoods. Have you seen the debate with Cenk and Ben Shapiro at Politicon a few years ago? Cenk was saying, "Money needs to get out of politics! Big donors need to be stopped!" Ben Shapiro said, "That goes for your business, "The Young Turks", too? You were given 4 million dollars to start it." Cenk was speechless and stammering.

So out of curiosity I watched the Uygur/Shapiro debate. And again we find Half-life completely misrepresenting the situation. About the only thing HL got right was the debaters were Uygur and Shapiro. Yes, Shapiro commented on Cenk getting 4 million to start the company, but Cenk certainly wasn't speechless and he certainly didn't stammer AT ALL. He waited a moment for the crowd to calm and then responded succinctly.

Then Shapiro said, "I'm not in favor of getting all money out of politics while making an exception for the Young Turks." This is the whole point. Cenk wants money out of politics, but it's OK for HIS business to keep getting money.

That's why it's hypocritical.

I was unaware that the Young Turks had become a political party. Because if they are not a political party, then Mr. Shapiro is babbling again.

 

[Patooka]

They aren't falsehoods. Have you seen the debate with Cenk and Ben Shapiro at Politicon a few years ago? Cenk was saying, "Money needs to get out of politics! Big donors need to be stopped!" Ben Shapiro said, "That goes for your business, "The Young Turks", too? You were given 4 million dollars to start it." Cenk was speechless and stammering.

So out of curiosity I watched the Uygur/Shapiro debate. And again we find Half-life completely misrepresenting the situation. About the only thing HL got right was the debaters were Uygur and Shapiro. Yes, Shapiro commented on Cenk getting 4 million to start the company, but Cenk certainly wasn't speechless and he certainly didn't stammer AT ALL. He waited a moment for the crowd to calm and then responded succinctly.

[YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/8ko0DVJkLG0?t=2645[/YOUTUBE]

Start at the 45 minute mark if you don't want to watch the whole thing. Shapiro makes the same mistake HL is making, equating money in politics with business investment. It was worth the watch.

I guess that explains why Half-life never cites his sources.

 

[abaddon]

I guess that explains why Half-life never cites his sources.

Well, he does occasionally. He just doesn't understand his sources or anything else. Half-Life lets others do his thinking for him. His arguments are nothing but him relaying arguments from his alt-right ingroup to "the leftist" outgroup. He's a groupie, a fellow looking for something to belong to. Not much of what you see in his posts are a product of thinking, it's mostly (and maybe entirely) mimicry. He arms himself with others' criticisms and then lobs them willy-nilly at the perceived enemy. That's why he can seem like a parody of the alt-right... It's not parody though, it's mindless parroting which is very different.

The reluctance to cite sources might be that he doesn't want how much parroting he does to show.

 

[Jarhyn]

Then Shapiro said, "I'm not in favor of getting all money out of politics while making an exception for the Young Turks." This is the whole point. Cenk wants money out of politics, but it's OK for HIS business to keep getting money.

That's why it's hypocritical.

I was unaware that the Young Turks had become a political party. Because if they are not a political party, then Mr. Shapiro is babbling again.

That and... Politics shouldn't be business. Business shouldn't be politics.

Implying that politics is a business is an admission that you think that you should be able to get something merely by paying for it. That laws should be on the menu.

In reality, politics should be as far from a business as possible: laws should be made on the basis of what serves the people of a society in their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

Cenk's business is a discussion of things which violate the lives, liberties, and abilities to pursue happiness for people. It is not lobbying. It is not creating laws, though it very much discussed the laws. It is not politics, but rather reporting about politics. There is a difference, though nuanced distinctions don't seem to be something the conservative mind tends to be able to grok.

 

[Patooka]

I guess that explains why Half-life never cites his sources.

Well, he does occasionally. He just doesn't understand his sources or anything else. Half-Life lets others do his thinking for him. His arguments are nothing but him relaying arguments from his alt-right ingroup to "the leftist" outgroup. He's a groupie, a fellow looking for something to belong to. Not much of what you see in his posts are a product of thinking, it's mostly (and maybe entirely) mimicry. He arms himself with others' criticisms and then lobs them willy-nilly at the perceived enemy. That's why he can seem like a parody of the alt-right... It's not parody though, it's parroting which is very different.

If nothing else, it is a splendid example of the original post in this thread being accurate.

 

[abaddon]

If nothing else, it is a splendid example of the original post in this thread being accurate.

Yes indeed.

You've likely seen some Trump voters snickering over how Trump gets under democrat's skins. "He's got a sense of humor and they don't. I LOVE IT!" That's a pretty desperate "unconscious wish" to belong and gain a sense of self and of empowerment, by believing whichever lies work to feel like you're "winning" against the enemy.