Are the libs intellectually honest?

Question

When confronted with fact, will they switch their position if shown to be wrong?

For example, I changed my position on the Iraq war. But here's the trick: if libs can be shown that their policies harm instead of help society, will they stop throwing money at poor people?

Answer 1

Here are a few reasons why I've concluded that many (I won't say all or most) liberals are not intellectually honest:

1. When confronted by a conservative or, better yet, a libertarian, who adjusts quickly to the liberals' style of smashmouth debate by turning their own tactics against them, a liberal will often react reflexively, without even thinking about it, by trying to shut his interlocutor up -- either by boycotting the products of his interlocutor's sponsors, or orchestrating petition drives, or demonstrations, or whatever it takes to get the bastard off the air or off the stage or otherwise back in his box so nobody can hear him. Nothing at all about addressing the bastard's arguments on the merits. Heaven forfend!

2. The second way of dealing with a pesky conservative or libertarian interlocutor that often occurs to many liberals is to defame the bastard and seek to blacken his name and reputation in order to destroy his credibility. Again, no thought is given to engaging the bastard's arguments on the merits. If nobody will believe the bastard, not only will it be entirely unnecessary to shut him up, but it won't even be necessary to refute his arguments with logic and reason in order to defeat him.

3. The third aspect of a typical liberal is that he just laughs at people who take political debate seriously and who endeavor to marshall principled arguments in support of their positions. The liberal's approach to politics is entirely unprincipled and opportunistic. He'll do whatever it takes to obtain and retain power because he's really in the government business, a species of which is sometimes called "economic rent-seeking," rather than the business of manufacturing a real product or delivering a real service and competing honestly in the marketplace on the basis of such things as price, quality, and service. He's learned over long periods of time how to manipulate government power to his own advantage by, for example, obtaining the enactment of legislation that disables his competitors with onerous regulations or burdensome taxes that somehow don't apply with the same rigor to him, or requires the public to buy his product (e.g., ethanol). As his opponents stammer and stutter and sputter when the liberal tells baldfaced lies with a grin, not even trying to disguise the fact that he does not now believe and never has believed his own BS and is having a wonderful time laughing at the hilarity of the rest of us trying -- get this! -- to PERSUADE HIM that it's BS, it becomes apparent that the liberal thinks of the entire exercise as a game in which he can have fun and make money while laughing at the ineffectual flailings of his opponents, who unfortunately disarm themselves when they attempt to confront him because they often don't realize that any of this is going on and haven't got a clue about how to put a stop to it.

4. Last on my list of liberal tricks is the old hit-and-run. When faced with the prospect of a serious argument on an important topic, the liberal will lob in a glib and facile argument that sounds good when he says it fast and then, just as his opponent is about to begin dissecting and refuting it, the liberal changes the subject and goes charging off in a different direction, all for the obvious purpose of making a spurious point that he feels will give him a political advantage and then running away from a true debate on the point before one can be offered --in reality another species of shutting his opponent up.

Many people have come to understand that liberals are unable to win consistently based on their positions on the issues; rather, they can win only by hiding their true positions and dissembling, never leveling with the voters and never admitting that it's all a game of three-card monte. They also have no compunction whatever about playing smashmouth and crying bloody murder if their opponents decide to retaliate in kind.

I've come to the conclusion that the liberals have been beaten historically only whenever their opponents mete out the measure of lies, dishonesty, and smashmouth politics, and more than the measure, to the liberals that the liberals have meted out to their opponents -- to paraphrase Churchill in describing how the British, when their turn came, would "mete out" to the Germans as much death and destruction from the sky, and more, as the Germans had "meted out" to the British in the Battle of Britain. In other words, liberals will cry "uncle" only when they are served up a more bitter-tasting measure of their own stew. They will stop their lies only when they conclude that it's the only way to stop their opponents from retaliating in kind, without remorse and without apology.

Then maybe the Democrats would be willing to enter into a truce by promising not to lie about the Republicans if the Republicans promised not to tell the truth about the Democrats. It may come to that.

Answer 2

Ok Willis, First of all you have to address a couple of you assumptions. 1) All libs think alike. Obviously, you can't just say that because one lib is not honest than all libs are not honest. 2) Libs are responsible for throwing money at poor people. The truth is that no one party is responsible for such an allegation. There are complicated structural societal conventions that inherently will force there to be poor people. You will always have poor people unless you redefine all modern economic theory. IF you think that education and workforce training programs will defeat poverty you are gravely misinformed and naive. In economics, you have to have a certain number of unemployment. This is inherent and required. If you have too little unemployment, then output is increased and inflation becomes a concern. This is due to people being able to require higher wages because everyone has a job and new recruits are hard to find. More money more spending. More spending, less supply. Less supply, higher prices. Higher prices, less value for each dollar and so on. What do you do about poverty? That's a good question. Charity and social welfare programs are the best we've got so far. Now, on the topic of intellectually honesty? I assume that this is in response to recent elections. If that is the case, you need to ask yourself what is the biggest influence on public policy. It is not the people right now. People only make a difference when they amass a campaign for a cause. Currently, it is the media. The media is the largest lobbying group in the nation and probably the world. If the media is relentless on criticizing a cause, then politicians will have to address it. So, are libs intellectually honest? The question lacks intelligence in and of itself. It's not whether a person with ideological ideals consistent with liberal philosophy is intellectually honest. It is whether the media that is the biggest lobbyist for public policy is intellectually honest. The media is commo nly referred to as having a liberal slant. This is an error. The media is not liberally biased. If you consult non-traditional news and then compare with what is covered on the so-called "liberal media", you will undoubtedly find that the traditional media is corporately biased. Stories are reported because they will have a financial impact for the owners of the media outlet; not for the benefit of the citizens. You need to re-examine your logic. If the media has the power to promote or destroy candidates, do you think that there is an issue of intellectual honesty among party members? No. The question of honesty lies with those playing sideline politics. Media owners. You need to find out if they are intellectually honest. Obviously not. This is necessary in order to execute your corporate mission. The only reason for a corporation to exist is profit. If all corporations were honest, then there would be no need for lawsuits, EPA, consumer protection, etc. Now, because people who have significant amounts of money are not concerned with the financial problems (like 99% of the rest of us), their main concern is legacy. Since their legacy is the business or corporation they helped create or created themselves, they will want to protect it. If you want to protect your corporation, you cannot be completely honest because it will lower your profit margins. Therefore, your question of are the libs intellectually honest is a moot point? Liberals are just as honest as conservatives or independents. The integrity issue comes into play when you acknowledge where the pressure for public policy comes from. The media. Frankly, I think that the liberal media (i.e. air america) is more honest and fair and balanced than any other traditional media. They address questions that are relevant. You see, if you are in a position where your career is based on good terms with the media and therefore the public, you will need to bend a bit to get in good. So in that case, Willis, you must address anti-trust issues with media outlets, i.e. undo the telecommunications deregulation act. Then you will have more independent media, then you will have more points of view, more questions and more answers. Inherently, you will have intellectual honesty because spin is not viral among your news outlets. Hope you understand the situation better now. And one more thing Willis, Who taught you to label and categorize people in such a way. Where do you get the idea that all libs are one way or the other. You have to grow up and realize there is much more to people than some concocted stereotype. Though we are all connected, we are also individuals. Though we like to feel apart of a group or that we are with the in-crowd, we all have free will. Address the individual, not the label.

Answer 3

Sure let's have some facts. Actually, I agree with welfare reform & programs that help people to get on their own two feet. I believe many people would like to but need training or childcare etc. My concern is for the children. I want those kids to grow up into good, healthy tax-paying citizens! Sometimes we need to spend some money to get some back.

And there was a time, long ago, when I agreed with some republican values-not spending more than the revenue we bring in, their support of rights of privacy-once they did-now they think they should be concentrating on "morals". What happened to them? At least we agreed sometimes.

Answer 4

have you ever listened to a speech through Noam Chomsky? he's the most intellectually honest (and relentlessly astounding) sociopolitical critic operating at present. he's considered a important psychological be certain everywhere on earth notwithstanding the united states of a. study an hour of any random Chomsky speech with an hour of Limbaugh, Hannity, Dan Savage, O'Reilly, Coulter, or whichever properly-wing pundit you'll care to grant up, and that i'll post to you that any sane human ought to ought to finish that the left is incomparably extra intellectually honest and rigorous than the right. absolutely, you'll ought to finish that the left makes an honest attempt at honesty, at the same time as the right has no activity in honesty by any skill. i'm continually puzzled through this. Why do rightists experience it needed to pretend to care about honesty, fairness, and democracy? Why do not you basically come out and say, "We basically want to win, and we can benefit this through in spite of skill needed. definite, we are brutal, amoral fascists. we ought to gladly dedicate mass homicide adverse to each person who disagrees, stands in our way, or only annoys us."? each person fascinated interior the source of the pathology of the right ought to examine George Lakoff's "do not imagine of an Elephant"- that's an outstanding e book about the cognitive and social origins of political orientation.

Answer 5

Yes.

Prove it.

Are cons intellectually honest? Since >95% of all environmental scientists believe global warming is a real threat will cons change their policies and make power plants stop polluting with greenhouse gas emissions?

Answer 6

They don't throw money at poor people.The things the poor have to give them power over in their lives is a very high price to pay to keep ones family from starving.Have you ever wondered why DHS never takes children away from the rich.

Answer 7

no they are not. many have been shown wrong and still wont change, i.e. president carter, ted kennedy, john carrey has depending who he is talking to. they have not helped black people but still say they are there best hpope, but who appointed blacks to there cabinet. libs are just dishonest with themselves and the american public. the sad thing is they've pulled the wool over many peoples eyes.



dizz remember in the 70s those same scientist said we are having global cooling and we are going to freeze to death. no matter what we do china will not change and it has been proven that if we tottaly changed china will cancel us out. It has also been proven cows release more carbon monoxide in a day than cars so lets kill all the cows. there are more scientist out there than enviromental scientist who say it is bogus

Answer 8

Its possible if you can prove it but I submit since there are so many more poor people with votes its not going to change anytime soon. Obviously your not poor or ever have been so I can understand your feelings.

Answer 9

They have in The War on Poverty. When it was shown that the effect was to make people dependant rather than grow out of the poverty level, they drastically changed the policy.

Answer 10

No.

Yes.

No.


Look at the Waffle Master, John Kerry!!