Most non-liberals are painfully aware that liberals spin - a LOT! But is it intentional, or is it just the way they view the world?
Science has already proven there is a vast difference in the thought processes of people who primarily use the right side of the brain and those who use the left side. Conservatives are left-brain thinkers, while liberals use the right side primarily. Left side is analytical, while right side is more creative. So, artsy folks are more apt to be liberal (think Greenwich Village or Hollywood) while people like farmers who need to be more analytical are most apt to be conservative.
But science has also proven that those who use the right brain are also less rational and are less logical. A couple of great reasons not to let them work on budgets or foreign affairs too much.
The right brain seems to give liberals a sort of "filter" through which they view the world, and it is this filter that causes them to spin (although sometimes it is just dishonesty for idealogical reasons, as it is with Debbie Wasserman-Schultz). As an example, when someone says, "Jesus walked on water", a liberal might very well hear, "Jesus could not swim." What they hear and see must fit into their preconceived perceptions. If it does not, they need to try and understand it by spinning it into something that does fit their perception.
When Gingrich says "poor familes", liberals hear "black people", or "minorities", because that is what they perceive - when a liberal thinks of poverty, they think of minority ghettos. It's their preconception. So, when Gingrich said "poor families", liberals like Juan Williams thought it to be a slam against minorities. They see racism, because that is what their filter makes them see.
When Gingrich says, "Let poor kids work to earn money to be less poor,", liberals hear, "Gingrich wants to repeal child labor laws and enslave our children."
And when Gingrich mentioned Obama as "the food stamp president", he simply meant (and said) that Obama presided over the largest consumption of food stamps in history. But the liberal filter makes liberals believe he was "belittling" those on food stamps, and belittling minorities. They simply cannot see that 40% of food stamp users are white, or that it is not a slam to the poor - it is a slam to the policies that MADE people poor.
So, the next time your liberal friend says something irrational that is not exactly factual, just smile and chalk it up to the liberal filter. Because no matter what you do or say, they will never see the reality - the filter will not let them.
/
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Is Juan Williams A Closet Racist?
Over the years I have given Juan Williams, Fox New analyst, a fair amount of respect. But over the last several months I have been noticing that Mr. Williams keeps sneaking race into issues that are not about race at all.
I have said this many times, and it holds true - the first person to bring race into an issue is the racist (no, I am not injecting race - this blog is being written because Williams did).
As an example, Newt Gingrich proposed that children from poor families be allowed to work and earn money, and to develop a work ethic. Mr. Williams immediately brings race into it, saying Gingrich has introduced race. He did not. He never mentioned race. He mentioned POOR PEOPLE. And there are poor whites as well as poor blacks - a point that seems to escape Williams. Williams also accused Gingrich of saying such people were lazy, but Mr. Gingrich said no such thing. He simply said these children need to DEVELOP a work ethic. But that is true of ALL children, as no one is born with a work ethic. Most children live in families where they can learn a work ethic. But that is less true in poor families, where work is less than consistent (which is why they are poor). And again, it is about POVERTY. But williams makes it about race.
Mr. Gingrich goes on to say Obama is the food stamp president. And Mr Williams immediately infers Gingrich is again slamming minorities, and introducing race. But what again escapes Mr Williams is that 40% of families who use food stamps are white. So again, it is about POVERTY, not race.
But Mr Williams and his liberal friends insist on claiming it is about race. That is because THEY are the true racists - injecting race where it does not belong.
Either they know it is not about race, and are trying to paint the candidates as racists, or they do not know it and therefore have no business commenting on it in the first place.
/
I have said this many times, and it holds true - the first person to bring race into an issue is the racist (no, I am not injecting race - this blog is being written because Williams did).
As an example, Newt Gingrich proposed that children from poor families be allowed to work and earn money, and to develop a work ethic. Mr. Williams immediately brings race into it, saying Gingrich has introduced race. He did not. He never mentioned race. He mentioned POOR PEOPLE. And there are poor whites as well as poor blacks - a point that seems to escape Williams. Williams also accused Gingrich of saying such people were lazy, but Mr. Gingrich said no such thing. He simply said these children need to DEVELOP a work ethic. But that is true of ALL children, as no one is born with a work ethic. Most children live in families where they can learn a work ethic. But that is less true in poor families, where work is less than consistent (which is why they are poor). And again, it is about POVERTY. But williams makes it about race.
Mr. Gingrich goes on to say Obama is the food stamp president. And Mr Williams immediately infers Gingrich is again slamming minorities, and introducing race. But what again escapes Mr Williams is that 40% of families who use food stamps are white. So again, it is about POVERTY, not race.
But Mr Williams and his liberal friends insist on claiming it is about race. That is because THEY are the true racists - injecting race where it does not belong.
Either they know it is not about race, and are trying to paint the candidates as racists, or they do not know it and therefore have no business commenting on it in the first place.
/
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Guess What The Liberal Univ. of San Francisco Study On Pot Says...
The headline on HuffPost/AOL today says, "GOOD NEWS FOR MARIJUANA USERS - Marijuana And Lungs: Study Finds Drug Doesn't Do Same Kind Of Damage As Tobacco"
Gee, go figure! But actually, that headline is dishonest, and is not what the study shows.The city that has been rooting for the legalization of pot for years is where this great study comes from. Who would have guessed? And the far-left, drug-crazy HuffPost/AOL misleads with their headline - again.
The story starts out, "Smoking a joint once a week or a bit more apparently doesn't harm the lungs, suggests a 20-year study that bolsters evidence that marijuana doesn't do the kind of damage tobacco does." Again, no surprize that these "researchers" make their point based on someone who only smokes one joint a week as opposed to the normal smoker who smokes 300 cigarettes a week. But hey, what's an extra 200-400 doses per week?
But the article later says, almost as if apologetically, "The results, from one of the largest and longest studies on the health effects of marijuana, are hazier for heavy users – those who smoke two or more joints daily for several years. The data suggest that using marijuana that often might cause a decline in lung function".
But even here there is a bug in their study - there own words state that there may be no difference between 40 cigarettes a day and pot smokers who only smoke "two or more" joints daily. Perhaps their study, if it were honest, would compare 40 joints a day to 40 cigarettes a day and report on the effects. Let's compare apples to apples, shall we?
Now, any educated person can infer from this study that one joint a week is less dangerous than 300 cigarettes a week. Go figure! And that two joints per day might be as dangerous as 40 cigarettes a day.
Those are the words of the researchers, not mine. The only difference is that I am not adding the liberal spin. Their own study indicates that, on a one-to-one basis, pot is either just as harmful, or more so, than tobacco.
/
Gee, go figure! But actually, that headline is dishonest, and is not what the study shows.The city that has been rooting for the legalization of pot for years is where this great study comes from. Who would have guessed? And the far-left, drug-crazy HuffPost/AOL misleads with their headline - again.
The story starts out, "Smoking a joint once a week or a bit more apparently doesn't harm the lungs, suggests a 20-year study that bolsters evidence that marijuana doesn't do the kind of damage tobacco does." Again, no surprize that these "researchers" make their point based on someone who only smokes one joint a week as opposed to the normal smoker who smokes 300 cigarettes a week. But hey, what's an extra 200-400 doses per week?
But the article later says, almost as if apologetically, "The results, from one of the largest and longest studies on the health effects of marijuana, are hazier for heavy users – those who smoke two or more joints daily for several years. The data suggest that using marijuana that often might cause a decline in lung function".
But even here there is a bug in their study - there own words state that there may be no difference between 40 cigarettes a day and pot smokers who only smoke "two or more" joints daily. Perhaps their study, if it were honest, would compare 40 joints a day to 40 cigarettes a day and report on the effects. Let's compare apples to apples, shall we?
Now, any educated person can infer from this study that one joint a week is less dangerous than 300 cigarettes a week. Go figure! And that two joints per day might be as dangerous as 40 cigarettes a day.
Those are the words of the researchers, not mine. The only difference is that I am not adding the liberal spin. Their own study indicates that, on a one-to-one basis, pot is either just as harmful, or more so, than tobacco.
/
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
The Big Lie - "Obama Ended The War In Iraq..."
The liberal media, following their marching orders from the White House keeps touting how Obama ended the war in Iraq. Nothing could be further from the truth.
It was the SURGE, authorized by Bush, that ended the war in Iraq. You might recall that Obama OPPOSED the Surge, along with other liberals. Despite objections from the left, Bush instituted the Surge. It worked. It brought the war pretty much to an end.
The only thing Obama did was call the troops home. That did not end the war. The Surge did that. In fact, the early withdrawal of troops may very well result in a resurgence of violence in Iraq.
So once again Obama takes credit for something he had no hand in. And he refuses to ttake credit for those things that do have his fingerprints - Solyndra, Fiskar, the Chevy Volt fiasco, illegal recess appointments while the Senate was not in recess, the high unemployment rate... the list is nearly endless.
/
It was the SURGE, authorized by Bush, that ended the war in Iraq. You might recall that Obama OPPOSED the Surge, along with other liberals. Despite objections from the left, Bush instituted the Surge. It worked. It brought the war pretty much to an end.
The only thing Obama did was call the troops home. That did not end the war. The Surge did that. In fact, the early withdrawal of troops may very well result in a resurgence of violence in Iraq.
So once again Obama takes credit for something he had no hand in. And he refuses to ttake credit for those things that do have his fingerprints - Solyndra, Fiskar, the Chevy Volt fiasco, illegal recess appointments while the Senate was not in recess, the high unemployment rate... the list is nearly endless.
/
Monday, January 9, 2012
Debbie Wasserman-Smith: More Dishonest By The Day...
In an interview with Chris Wallace, Debbie Wasserman-Smith (chairperson of the DNC) said there was no comparison between Mitt Romney as CEO of Bain Capital and Barack Obama's hand in the bankruptcy of Solyndra. Let's break it down...
Mitt Romney was CEO of Bain Capital - Barack Obama is CEO of America
Mitt Romney invested in companies that went bankrupt - Obama invested taxpayer money in Solyndra, which went bankrupt
Seems about the same to me - both acted as venture capitalists, and both invested in companies that went belly up and people got laid off. Yet Wasserman-Smith, as dishonest as ever, claims that Romney is responsible for putting people out of work, but Obama is not.
She is either ignorant or dishonest. In either case, she certainly should not be in any position of power.
/
Mitt Romney was CEO of Bain Capital - Barack Obama is CEO of America
Mitt Romney invested in companies that went bankrupt - Obama invested taxpayer money in Solyndra, which went bankrupt
Seems about the same to me - both acted as venture capitalists, and both invested in companies that went belly up and people got laid off. Yet Wasserman-Smith, as dishonest as ever, claims that Romney is responsible for putting people out of work, but Obama is not.
She is either ignorant or dishonest. In either case, she certainly should not be in any position of power.
/
The Myth That Republicans "Need" The Independent Vote...
All the talking heads keep saying that Republicans need to be "more moderate" in order to attract the "independent" vote and win elections.
Bull!
Sure, 40% of voters claim to be independents, while 31% claim to be Democrats and 27% claim to be Republicans. Based on those dumb stats, it would appear Republicans need independents.
But here is what those stats do not show - 40% of all voters claim to be CONSERVATIVE (as opposed to "republican"). Meanwhile, only 18% claim to be liberals. So, conservatives outnumber liberals by a wide margin.
So here is the untold truth - Republicans do not need independents. They need CONSERVATIVES. If the Republican party decides to actually stand for conservative values, they will have the support of the Republicans AND the conservative portion of the independents. And that would give them a majority, since most "independents" lean to the right (remember - conservatives outnumber liberals by more than 2 to 1).
In 2008 Republicans ran a moderate RiNO Republican in the hope of attracting independents, and Republicans lost - McCain was not conservative enough, and conservative independents just stayed home on election day.
No, Republicans do not need to compromise their values in order to court independents. On the contrary - they need to be conservative enough to get the conservative majority fired up!
/
Bull!
Sure, 40% of voters claim to be independents, while 31% claim to be Democrats and 27% claim to be Republicans. Based on those dumb stats, it would appear Republicans need independents.
But here is what those stats do not show - 40% of all voters claim to be CONSERVATIVE (as opposed to "republican"). Meanwhile, only 18% claim to be liberals. So, conservatives outnumber liberals by a wide margin.
So here is the untold truth - Republicans do not need independents. They need CONSERVATIVES. If the Republican party decides to actually stand for conservative values, they will have the support of the Republicans AND the conservative portion of the independents. And that would give them a majority, since most "independents" lean to the right (remember - conservatives outnumber liberals by more than 2 to 1).
In 2008 Republicans ran a moderate RiNO Republican in the hope of attracting independents, and Republicans lost - McCain was not conservative enough, and conservative independents just stayed home on election day.
No, Republicans do not need to compromise their values in order to court independents. On the contrary - they need to be conservative enough to get the conservative majority fired up!
/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)