Republicus

"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door." The Statue of Liberty (P.S. Please be so kind as to enter through the proper channels and in an orderly fashion)

Name:
Location: Arlington, Virginia, United States

Thursday, March 12, 2009

The Lefty Blog Trolls ATTACK! (and attack-attack-attack...and get ZAPPED!)

Look, it's fathead, Karl, simian, Karin, and the whole gang!




[I'm Gizmo, the benevolent, furry gremlin, and the human at 1:23-1:26 & 1:30-1:36 is fj (after having been smooch-smooched by the heavily-lipsticked trolletes--or trollops, as it were-- here), and the four humans @ 1:46-1:54 are Phelonius, Kelly, fj, and Nanc (astonished at the depth of the troll's decadent depravity)]

44 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

The moderator is offering anonymous oral sex yet it is the liberals who are "morally depraved"?!!?

7:16 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

LOL; various lefty sites:

Throughout the day we will be bringing you breaking coverage of today's 'We Surround Them' event, newsperson Glenn Beck's effort to demonstrate the raw power of the ultraconservative movement via barbecues, Chuck Norris, and threatening-sounding names for meaningless events.]

BREAKING: I am currently unsurrounded. I have also checked the mailbox, presuming it small enough to be one of the more surroundable things on my property: it too remains unsurrounded. More updates throughout the day.

7:20 AM  
Anonymous Ludi said...

I live in a small village...a couple guys with pitchforks were walking down the street...I thought oh oh this is it...turns out they'd just picked up a couple new ones at the hardware store and were putting them in their truck. It had a couple hay bales in it and Vote Obama sticker so I guess false alarm.

9:44 AM  
Anonymous KarinHall said...

Here's good news for conservatives. Now, they can stop compensating with big words, latin phrases and militaristic defensiveness and be accepted into Big Dick, aka Liberal, society:

Penile extender increased flaccid length by almost a third says independent clinical study
Men who wore a penile extender every day for six months were able to increase the flaccid length of their penis by up to 32% and their erectile function by up to 36%, according to an independent clinical study published in the March issue of BJU International.
Researchers from San Giovanni Battista Hospital at the University of Turin, Italy, are now suggesting that this treatment could provide a viable alternative to surgery, as the results were significant and patient satisfaction with the technique was high.
"Twenty-one highly motivated patients, with an average age of 47, were enrolled and 16 completed the 12-month study" says consultant urologist Dr Paolo Gontero.
"Having undergone psychosexual counselling, to make sure that the treatment would be beneficial, the men were asked to wear the Andro-Penis device for between four and six hours a day for six months. The device comprises a plastic ring, two dynamic rods that produce the traction and a silicon band to hold the penis in place. The men were told to increase the traction from 600g in month one to up to 1200g in month six. Follow ups were performed in months one, three, six and 12."
Key findings included:
Men who took part in the study wore the device for an average of five hours in the first month, five hours in the third month and four hours in the sixth month.
The men's average flaccid penile length was 7.15cm (2.82 inches) at baseline and had increased by 32 per cent to 9.45cm (3.72 inches) in month 12.
The men's average stretched penile length was 9.62cm (3.79 inches) at baseline and had increased by 18 per cent to 11.32 cm (4.45 inches) in month 12.
No significant increase in penile girth, which averaged 10.4cm (4.09 inches) at baseline, was reported.
Average erectile function scores improved by up to 36%, from 19.9 out of 30 at baseline to 27.1 out of 30 at 12 months.
Four patients discontinued the treatment for four different reasons: pain and penile bruising, satisfactory results after three months, lack of efficacy and inability to follow the protocol. Another was lost to follow-up.
High satisfaction levels were reported in all categories except penile girth. The average score for overall satisfaction was 2.8 on a scale of zero to four, where four represents the optimal result.
Flaccid penile length scored 2.31 on a scale of zero to three, where three represents significant improvement. Penile length during erection scored 2.37 out of three and sex life 2.3. Penile girth scored 1.1.
"A number of surgical procedures are available that aim to elongate the shaft of the penis or enlarge the penile girth" says Dr Gontero. "However these have a number of disadvantages, including a lack of standardisation, potential risk of complications and high patient dissatisfaction.
"It should also be pointed out that the majority of men who seek help for a small penis fail to meet the clinical criteria for surgery. For example, only one of the men in our study had a flaccid penis length of less than 4cm and American guidelines strongly discourage surgery if men exceed this measurement. Twelve had dysmorphia (excessive dislike of a body part) and the remaining eight had undergone surgery for curvature of the shaft."
The authors believe that the results are significant.
"Our study showed that the penile extender device produces an effective and durable lengthening of the penis, both in the flaccid and stretched state" concludes Dr Gontero.
"If these results are confirmed by further research, we propose that the device should be used as a first-line treatment option for men seeking a penile lengthening procedure."
###
Notes to editors
A pilot phase-11 prospective study to test the 'efficacy' and tolerability of a penile-extender device in the treatment of 'short penis'. Gontero et al. BJU International. 103, 793-797 (March 2009).
Established in 1929, BJU International is published 23 times a year by Wiley-Blackwell and edited by Professor John Fitzpatrick from Mater Misericordiae University Hospital and University College Dublin, Ireland. It provides its international readership with invaluable practical information on all aspects of urology, including original and investigative articles and illustrated surgery. http://www.bjui.org/
About Wiley-Blackwell. Wiley-Blackwell was formed in February 2007 as a result of the acquisition of Blackwell Publishing Ltd. by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., and its merger with Wiley's Scientific, Technical, and Medical business. Together, the companies have created a global publishing business with deep strength in every major academic and professional field. Wiley-Blackwell publishes approximately 1,400 scholarly peer-reviewed journals and an extensive collection of books with global appeal. For more information on Wiley-Blackwell, please visit http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ or http://interscience.wiley.com/

9:51 AM  
Anonymous simes said...

" have also checked the mailbox, presuming it small enough to be one of the more surroundable things on my property: it too remains unsurrounded."

hahaha...

10:14 AM  
Blogger John said...

Right, and christofacsist Emperor Bush did not shred the Constitution by invoking some penumbrous "war powers" justification to cancel the "election." And he did not "steal" Iraqi oil. And he did not use the Patriot Act to go after domestic traitors (which was all you were concerned with, since you thought the war was a "*faux* war," anyway). And he did not invade Iran, ALL of which your insane side spent--and wasted-- a significant amount of time scribbling and screaming about in your psychotic breadowns.

And Rove didn't "Frogmarch! HE'S GOING TO FROGMARCH! HAHAHA"

And Bush didn't get impeached either.

So "hahaha" yourself.

In other words, you were WRONG across the board.

The final proof of your insanity is that you still think you were right.

10:51 AM  
Anonymous B there or B square said...

Here's some urgent information!

Directions to Glenn Beck Meetup at Sidelines Sports Pub in Waynesboro:

From the West: Take I-64 east to Exit 94 (Waynesboro/Rt. 340/P. Buckley Moss/Target/Wal-Mart). At end of exit ramp bear RIGHT onto Rt. 340 toward Waynesboro; get in left lane and go to 3rd traffic light. Turn LEFT at 3rd traffic light onto LUCY LANE. Sidelines will be on the LEFT in COYNER PARK SHOPS directly across from entrance to Wal-Mart and Sonic Drive-In.

From the East: Take I-64 west to Exit 94 (Waynesboro/Rt. 340/P. Buckley Moss/Target/Wal-Mart). Turn right onto Rt. 340 toward Waynesboro; get in left land and go to 2nd traffic light. Turn LEFT at 2nd traffic light onto LUCY LANE. Sidelines will be on the LEFT in COYNER PARK SHOPS directly across from entrance to Wal-Mart and Sonic Drive-In.

11:39 AM  
Anonymous cul de sac said...

Of course we were right...and the Bush crimes are being revealed more every day:

Seymour Hersh Says Assassination Squad Reported Directly to Dick Cheney

In a testament to the vital need for non corporate, independent media, the non-profit MinnPost.com posted a Five Alarm bombshell: Seymour Hersh stated that a top secret assassination squad reported directly to Dick Cheney in the Bush Administration.

Ignored by the corporate mainstream press -- as usual -- Hersh's comments were picked up and followed up upon by the MinnPost following a forum at the University of Minnesota.

Hersh almost in passing revealed:

"Right now, today, there was a story in the New York Times that if you read it carefully mentioned something known as the Joint Special Operations Command -- JSOC it’s called. It is a special wing of our special operations community that is set up independently. They do not report to anybody, except in the Bush-Cheney days, they reported directly to the Cheney office. They did not report to the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff or to Mr. [Robert] Gates, the secretary of defense. They reported directly to him. ...

"Congress has no oversight of it. It’s an executive assassination ring essentially, and it’s been going on and on and on. Just today in the Times there was a story that its leaders, a three star admiral named [William H.] McRaven, ordered a stop to it because there were so many collateral deaths.

"Under President Bush’s authority, they’ve been going into countries, not talking to the ambassador or the CIA station chief, and finding people on a list and executing them and leaving. That’s been going on, in the name of all of us.

Moreover, Hersh dropped a second Five Alarm bombshell: the CIA was more deeply involved in spying on American citizens than ever previously revealed: "After 9/11, I haven’t written about this yet, but the Central Intelligence Agency was very deeply involved in domestic activities against people they thought to be enemies of the state. Without any legal authority for it. They haven’t been called on it yet."


Coming from anybody else, these allegations would be met with some skepticism. But Eric Black of the online MinnPost knew that Hersh, a long-time intelligence correspondent for the New Yorker, has impeccable credentials and bats nearly 100% with his analysis and conclusions. So he not only found the dynamite buried in a question and answer session, Black followed up by e-mail with Hersh to verify the quotes.


Hersh spoke indirectly to the need for alternative sources of information when he observed:

“The major newspapers joined the [Bush] team,” Hersh said. Top editors passed the message to investigative reporters not to “pick holes” in what Bush was doing. Violations of the Bill of Rights happened in the plain sight of the public. It it was not only tolerated, but Bush was re-elected.

When will Dick Cheney be tried and put away for war crimes and violations of American law?

11:46 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Glenn Beck's Second Cry for Help, Projecting his Frustrations onto Alabama Gunman

Anyone who's seen even a minute or two of Glenn Beck's show knows he's not the most stable individual. But yesterday, Beck was crying out for someone to step in by projecting his feelings of frustration onto a man who went on a killing rampage earlier this week.

OK, I admit earlier in the week when I warned everybody about Glenn Beck's plans to usurp the faded popularity of martial arts actor/activist Chuck Norris to push a special program recruiting people for his new anti-government militia, I was more upset with Beck appropriating simple ol' Chucky to raise ratings for his new venture into the world of Fox News.

But after seeing Bill O'Reilly look rather sane next to Beck yesterday, I'm actually worried about Beck's mental health. I really think he is crying out for help. Watch a clip of it for yourself, thanks to Think Progress:


When discussing with O'Reilly the recent Alabama massacre that saw a man lash out and shoot 10 people before committing suicide, Beck brought up supposed political motives for the killings where those actually involved in the case say there were none.

Police say killer Michael McLendon felt "unfulfilled" and "dissatisfied" with his life and the people in it. Nowhere do authorities point to political beliefs or frustration with the government. But that didn't stop Beck from projecting his own mental instability on the man who killed five relatives and five others.

Thiis is what Beck told O'Reilly about the man:

Here's a guy who felt that he had been wronged... He was disgruntled, and then he went out and shot a bunch of people... Clearly he's a psycho. But as I'm listening to him, I'm thinking about the American people that feel disenfranchised right now. That feel like nobody's hearing their voice. The government isn't hearing their voice. Even if you call, they don't listen to you, on both sides. If you're a conservative, you're called a racist, you want to starve children. Yada, yada, yada. And every time they do speak out, they're shut down by political correctness. How do you not have those people turn into that guy?

To his credit, O'Reilly tried to talk Beck down off the ledge:

Well, look, nobody, even if they're frustrated, is going to hurt another human being unless they're mentally ill. I think.
But Beck immediately challenged him, almost disbelieving that his partner in tirade would dismiss his grand theory of modern insanity being derived from the political environment:

I think, pushed to the wall -- you don't think people get pushed to the wall?
If you watch the rest, you'll see O'Reilly do a pretty masterful job of trying to get Beck to just calm the hell down. Which is, in itself, another sign that Beck needs an intervention. When Bill O'Reilly looks like a reasonable man when compared to you, it's time to get help.

And I really think that's what Beck is trying to do, whether he realizes it or not. This isn't the first time Beck expressed murderous rage on public airwaves. Beck has already hinted at his delusional plans to assemble an army in Texas and fight to overthrow the government. He plans to talk directly to his supporters in a special show today at 5 p.m. Eastern. Will someone with the proper credentials -- psychotherapist, hostage negotiator, crisis counselor... whatever we can get -- please go to Fox studios tonight in case Beck needs our help. Because it's only a matter of time before Beck goes off the deep end, and I hate to imagine how many innocent people he can take down there with him.

12:06 PM  
Anonymous MidNite said...

STAY AWAY FROM PUBLIC REST ROOMS TODAY!!!

Foley, Craig, Limbaugh, Haggard, this blogger and many other stereotypical GOPervs with GOPerv Repression Syndrome just like them are surrounding pubic toilet stalls all over the nation, today. Keep your pants up, stay aware of your surroundings and don't let yourself be surrounded.

12:11 PM  
Blogger John said...

"Of course we were right...and the Bush crimes are being revealed more every day:

Seymour Hersh Says Assassination Squad Reported Directly to Dick Cheney

In a testament to the vital need for non corporate, independent media..."

lol

Right, and as we were told over and over and over for quite some time--by partisan "independent" hacks like Hersh--Val Plame was America's own super-duper secret agent James Bond and Cheney (illegaly) outed her to warn her "Speaking Truth To Power" husband Wilson IV to stfu or he'd be outed as a feckless fraud.

Which he managed to do on his own anyway.

And it was "antiwar" Armitage who outed Plame to Novak, anyway, you lying, gremlinized fool.

12:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So the moderator was too busy waiting to blow Lana's Banana to overthrow the gov't? Pretty sad when even nutjobs like RepubliKKKus aren't supporting Beck and company.

12:45 PM  
Blogger John said...

You're confusing conservatives' Constitutional right to assemble peacably and the screaming, cursing, bottle-throwing and ectomorphic anarchists (i.e. "progressives") with BDS who want to overthrow the Constitutionally-constituted government and only progress to get themselves arrested and put on a terrorist watch list to boot.

Now they're noisily running around in the blogosphere because they learned their lesson and won't be making public spectacles and nuisances of themselves anytime soon.

It's much easier--and safer--to do that anonymously at someone else's blog.

3:41 PM  
Anonymous Blivins said...

I say now we've discovered this nutcase's predilections that we start calling this blog The Stall.

4:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Basically, here's what's going on: Glenn Beck has decided to organize
as many rightwingnutters as he can to surround all us evil, socialist,
commie, liberals. He is inviting his dittoheads to "meet up" at 1700
hours Eastern time, Friday, 13 March, in local restaurants, bars, and
private homes to watch his show and learn how to take back control of
the nation.


Hmmm. However -- there appear to be a few problems with this bit of
rightwing lunacy:


1. I just checked out the list of meet-up places in Virginia -- MOST
OF THEM ARE BARS. Looks like Glenn's entire crowd will consist of
redneck mouthbreathers who are looking for an excuse to stop by the
Dew Drop Inn, spend their Friday paycheck, and maybe score with some
barfly fallen angel.


2. 1700 Eastern on a Friday afternoon in Lent?? Right. What about
rightwingnutters on the West Coast? Seems as though 1300 hours is a
bit early to start drinking.


3. And isn't Michelle Malkin calling for some sort of nationwide
resistance movement at the same time?? Since Malkin and Beck both
skim from the same cesspool, seems as though there'll be some real
conflicts on the right today between Michelle's "Tea Parties" and
Beck's "We Surround Them."


And -- in case you haven't broken the code yet -- note that Beck is
calling for these "We Surround Them" parties to meet and watch his
show -- couldn't be that he needs to drum up ratings?? Maybe he's
going to run against Limbo for RNC chair after they finish lynching
Michael Steele.

4:20 PM  
Blogger John said...

Blivious, contrary to what is self-evident and to all evidence presented, persists in trying to hang "cocksucker" around my neck, anyway, in an "The debate is over" and "There is a consensus" kind of way:

"I say now (that) we've (note the demagogic "we've") discovered this nutcase's predilections (i.e. by the forced, fraudulent, and non-sequiturized interpretation that I was offering to fellate an anonymous poster when I was evidently--as diagrammed not once, or twice, but thrice-- engaging in a tete-a-tete with lana banana) we (yes, "we"! Fall in, gremlins!) start calling this blog The Stall."

Ha ha. Very clever. The party of gay marriage, NAMBLA, and Bonnie Fwank now use Larry Craig as a poster-boy for the GOP and, by extension--and moronically contrived association--the blog of Republicus a blogular, San Franciscan bath house (that caters-- ironically, I suppose-- to Pelosi's constituents).

Two things should be noted here:

1) Blivious thinks that he's operating under the radar, that his sniveling lies and cheap tactics--for the purpose of discrediting and assassinating the character of your host--are too "sophisticated" for anyone outside his Frankfurtian clique to recognize as bullshit.

But that's exactly what it is.

Nevertheles, look what Grima Wormtongue does:

Due to the ambiguity of the banter to lana banana that your host engaged in (but was very clear to her), blivious and the other gremlins seized on the ambiguity to arbitrarily--imperiously--insist on its meaning, i.e. your host was offering to fellate an anonymous poster that he presumed to be male.

That your host proved--*proved*--the scurrilous absurdity of the charge, repeatedly, is no matter: blivious is now trying hard to hammer a sign on Republicus that says "cocksucker."

That despicable m.o.--twisting data to make it conform to their own narrative, shouting down dissent of that, and sticking to their narrative despite presented evidence that debunks that very narrative (when none should have been needed to debunk what was obviously concocted off the bat), and running with it-- is not only precisely what was done to fj (who is now the resident "racist" at "Republikkkus"), but is the inherent m.o. driving the entire "progressive" movement.

"A lie told often enough becomes the truth." Lenin

Twisting and deforming data to make it conform to their own narrative, shouting down dissent of that, and sticking to their narrative despite presented evidence that debunks that narrative (when none should have been needed to debunk what was obviously concocted off the bat), and then running with it are, for example, the legs of the Global Warming hoax.

That very m.o. can be applied to everything: "It was just a blowjob," "Bush lied kids died," etc.

2) Why is blivious obsessed with attacking your host's masculinity (of all things)?

Well, for one, that's what liberals do when they lose arguments on logic and principle (which is always): Engage in character assassinating ad hominems.

But why would blivious--a leftist through and through-- behave like the kind of "homophobic bigot" leftists like him accuse conservatives of being, implying that your host's newly alleged homosexual "predilections" is a shameful thing?

Their usual rationale for "outing" homosexual conservatives/Republicans is that they want to expose the "hypocrisy" of those who say that homosexuality is "bad" or "sinful" (albeit one engaging in a behavior one considers "bad" or "sinful" does not necessarily make one a hypocrite: Is a smoker who tells his family and friends not to smoke a hypocrite? Why is he not an authority, instead?)

Yet Republicus' only publicized position involving homosexuals is his stance against gay "marriage," and that primarily on semantic grounds.

So what's going on here? Why is blivious hell-bent on castrating your randy host?

Because he's envious, that's why.

His own sexual identity is threatened, not because your host is such an alpha male (per se), but because he--blivious-- is nothing but an angry, sniveling omega who gets humiliatingly pummeled in front of Blossom and lana every time he comes in here and picks a fight.

And so: "Republicus is a cocksucker!"

And Rush Limbaugh--a beacon for conservatice family values-- is a child-molester!

George W. Bush--a president of great historical consequence who protected the nation from terrorist attacks during a war on terror, presided over a record-holding economy, and outsmarted the devious Democrats at every turn, steamrolling them in the first term and keeping both his policies and presidency intact in the second-- is a lying liar who tells lies, a moron, a Christo-facist imperialist, and the very worst president ever in history!

Glen Beck-- as patriotic and apple pie as they come-- is insanely, dangerously treasonous!

Anyone who questions the "consensus" of AGW (i.e. anthropogenic global warming) has their "head in the sand"--or snow, as it were-- and should be equated with Holocaust deniers and Flat Earthers.

And if they happen to be climatalogists with PhDs, then they're "shills for the oil company."

And fj--a patriot and champion of Liberty--"hates blacks and women."

Again, they just twist the data to make it conform to their own narrative, shout down dissent of that, and stick to their narrative despite presented evidence debunking that very narrative (when none should have been needed to debunk what was obviously concocted off the bat), and then running with it (despite the referee blowing the whistle back on the five yard line).

These are probably teenaged punks, these gremlins here. But that doesn't matter. It's not a waste of time assessing the brain patterns of these malevolent adolescents, because the adult liberal has their development arrested at adolescence, and so the same patterns are preserved.

That's why what these punks do here, their adult counterparts are doing in the real world at large.

On a final note, the identity of lana banana is elusive, and has been conflated--in the mind of Republicus-- with that of Blossom.

One of the girls confessed that there was "cross-dressing" going on (before running off with a giggle), which meant that either fathead, Karl, and/or simian could actually be females, or lana, blossom, and/or others really male.

Suspiciously, (larry) blivious and lana (banana) have the same initials. Coincidence? Perhaps, but it's possible that I was really telling xy blivious to blow me when I thought it was xx lana (but I was really thinking about xxx Blossom, who's definitely female).

But that could also explain why blivious was so insistent that I was propositioning a male (apart from the insistent m.o.), and why "lana" has never piped up (even to bash me with "authority").

If that's the case, blivy doth protest too much, methinks.

Then again, along those lines, xy blivious might really be xx lana, but that--despite blivious' effete cattiness-- is unlikely, as it wouldn't occur to her, disguised as a him, to accuse me of propositioning a him when she knew I thought I was propositioning her herself.

The conclusion to all this is that the only thing that devious, malicious, and gender-bending lefties can contribute both to this blog and to the nation is confusion.

Class dismissed.

9:48 PM  
Blogger Kelly said...

John, do you really think that gremlins will listen to you? The only way to deal with them is to get rid of them.

10:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your oh so wrong, Kelly...we listen to the little fellatore...he's almost as good for laughs as Sayet who seems to be in the holding tank again, lately. Check the hilariously desperate self justification above. That's solid gold.

Anyway, after a long day of extreme trepidation, none of us has so far seen any sign of surroundation, though maybe the rebels were just very stealthy and are watching us even now with their outrageous slings and arrows.

11:47 PM  
Blogger John said...

That's what we said about the American Indians, Kelly. And what Hitler said about Jews. And what they're saying about conservatives.

Granted, equating the digital destruction of unwanted viral trespassers and blog banning with genocidal persecution is a stretch (if not retarded), but, quintessentially, there are strong similarities (the most basic one of which being the desire for unpleasantry to go away).

But there are laws against harrassment, trespassing, and verbal assault that don't conflict with the Bill of Rights.

Even a librarian is perfectly within her rights to tell blathering BIG MOUTHS to stfu or gtfo without having to worry about being charged with censorship.

That is all common sense, and more than justifies the point when one human decides it's time to play the exterminator against other humans who choose to behave like cockroaches and scorpions, and who themselves care not one whit about their targets own humanity.

And when they chooose that path, they forfeit their rights and are eliminated from society via incarceration, or termination.

That, too, is common sense, but the invidious Left has inverted the values (e.g. the oppressor is the victim, and the self-defending victim the oppressor) and made things relative (e.g. "Blog removal is the same thing as fascist censorship and is virtual capital punishment"), which mires down the taking of action in Hamletized indecision and confusion, because conservatives have a soul that can be manipulated (something the soulless instillers of that intellectual uncertainty never have to worry about).

But that's why they're evil and must be destroyed.

Sometimes, though, Kelly, the cat plays with the mouse before delivering the coup de grace.

8:03 AM  
Blogger FJ said...

Don't worry paranoid blivinpoop. You aren't surrounded. Really.

8:04 AM  
Blogger John said...

Shweet.

8:21 AM  
Blogger John said...

"The final proof of your insanity is that you still think you were right."

"Of course we were right..."

As Stan The Man Lee says, "'nuff said."

9:39 AM  
Blogger John said...

P.S. Kelly, wouldn't it be best of all if they finally just gave up and left of their own accord?

9:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There's No Arguing With Conservatives ... No, Seriously, Scientific Studies Prove It

A new study out of Yale University confirms what argumentative liberals have long-known: Offering reality-based rebuttals to conservative lies only makes conservatives cling to those lies even harder. In essence, schooling conservatives makes them more stupid.

From the Washington Post article on the study, which came out on September 15th.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/14/AR2008091402375


" Political scientists Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler provided two groups of volunteers with the Bush administration's prewar claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. One group was given a refutation -- the comprehensive 2004 Duelfer report that concluded that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction before the United States invaded in 2003. Thirty-four percent of conservatives told only about the Bush administration's claims thought Iraq had hidden or destroyed its weapons before the U.S. invasion, but 64 percent of conservatives who heard both claim and refutation thought that Iraq really did have the weapons. The refutation, in other words, made the misinformation worse.

A similar "backfire effect" also influenced conservatives told about Bush administration assertions that tax cuts increase federal revenue. One group was offered a refutation by prominent economists that included current and former Bush administration officials. About 35 percent of conservatives told about the Bush claim believed it; 67 percent of those provided with both assertion and refutation believed that tax cuts increase revenue.

In a paper approaching publication, Nyhan, a PhD student at Duke University, and Reifler, at Georgia State University, suggest that Republicans might be especially prone to the backfire effect because conservatives may have more rigid views than liberals: Upon hearing a refutation, conservatives might "argue back" against the refutation in their minds, thereby strengthening their belief in the misinformation. Nyhan and Reifler did not see the same "backfire effect" when liberals were given misinformation and a refutation about the Bush administration's stance on stem cell research.
If you've ever gotten in an argument with your conservative friends (assuming you haven't offered each other a mutual Carville-Matalin-style political ceasefire to preserve the friendship), you've probably seen this "backfire effect" in action. The more you try to tell people that Sarah Palin is lying when she says she was against the Bridge to Nowhere, the more they believe she was telling the truth. The more you try to explain how similar McCain's policies are to Bush's, the more they maintain he's "the original maverick."

The typical mantra of the left is that we don't need to sink to the Republicans' level because we have the truth on our side. But if the other side is utterly immune to the truth -- and indeed, the truth only makes them dig deeper into their fantasy world in which the economy is fundamentally strong and the War in Iraq is a staggering success -- what's a leftie to do?

I ain't got the answers, ace, except to say this: When arguing with conservatives in front of on-the-fence independents, remember that you're not trying to convince the conservative to actually buy into silly notions like facts and reason. You're highlighting the differences between left and right for the outside observer. If the other guy insists on political views that belong only in Disney World's Fantasyland, other folks will realize what's happening.
But if there is no third party, do yourself a favor and save your breath. As the study demonstrates, you're only making matters worse. Consider that aforementioned ceasefire. It is football season, after all. There's plenty of other things to argue about. Go Mizzou! "

1:37 PM  
Blogger John said...

"Political scientists Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler..."

Political "scientists."

lol

Gee, I wonder what the political ideology of these independent, objective "scientists" is?

"In a paper approaching publication..."

Yes. "Approaching."

"Nyhan, a PhD student..."

lol

Yeah, that settles it.

Dismissed with a swift kick in your ass.

7:29 PM  
Blogger John said...

"But if the other side is utterly immune to the truth -- and indeed, the truth only makes them dig deeper into their fantasy world in which the economy is fundamentally strong and the War in Iraq is a staggering success -- what's a leftie to do?"

Hey bozo, lefty Obama's the one who said to O'Reilly that Iraq (thanks to Bush & McCain's surge) was "succeeding beyond wildest dreams"--i.e. a staggering success--and that the economy was fundamentally sound (after ridiculing McCain for saying that first).

You're insane. The whole damn junk "study" is a neurotic exercise in projection.

Listen to this:

"The typical mantra of the left is that we don't need to sink to the Republicans' level because we have the truth on our side."

That's a godammed inversion you invidious little snake. Bush's big mistake is precisely that he wouldn't stoop down to your level--in hell--from whence you spewed your poison at him for eight years, confident that he had the Truth on his side.

Which he did, as Obama admitted to O'Reilly vis-a-vis the Surge HE VOTED AGAINST and vis-a-vis the fundamentals of the economy, as he admitted just the other day after trash talking it down in order to fear monger his bloated socialist package through (and that had nothing to do with the aspects of the economy that need addressing).

"But if the other side is utterly immune to the truth -- and indeed, the truth only makes them dig deeper into their fantasy world..."

They're plagiarising what conservatives have said about the Left for decades.

These people are sick.

7:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lol...that's the kind of shrill, defensive explosion...twice...that we come here to see.

As the SCIENTIFIC STUDY points out so authoritatively, there is certainly no reason to come here to debate with this little cocksucker...well, with this would be cocksucker.

9:11 PM  
Blogger John said...

"A similar 'backfire effect' also influenced conservatives told about Bush administration assertions that tax cuts increase federal revenue."

They did. The Laffer Curve was confirmed (again).

The entire study is subjectively skewed by the "authoritative" and "scientific" student ideologues to premise leftist ideology as the bedrock Truth.

The post-bellum 2004 Duelfer Report did a lot more than report that Saddam had no WMD capabilities at the time we invaded (though we still managed to lose over 3,000 troops since the invasion), but students Brendan and Jason fixate on that one item (the same way the antiwar Left fixate--and obsess over--the one item of WMD over a dozen other *causus belli* that the Congress almost unanimously affirmed).

But the report also concludes that Saddam's biological weapons program had been put on ice and could have been kick-started within a month's time. It also concluded that Saddam intended to reestablish WMD capability after sanctions were lifted and the Iraqi economy was normalized.

Recall how the Left screamed bloody murder because the sanctions were causing the deaths of innocent Iraqis and should be lifted--blaming America's lead in imposing the sanctions which led to starvations when it was Saddam himself who invited them by his serial violations of UN sanctions, and the fact that the monies provided to specifically prevent starvations--The Oil For Food Program--was pilfered both by UN agents and Saddam himself to finance the construction of his palaces and acquire luxury, Western goods for himself and his sons.

The report concluded that Saddam was indeed ambitious for nuclear capabilities, but was pursuing that ambition a little bit at a time-- despite pressure from the international community not to and the risk of heavier sanctions--but his priority was on missile delivery and chemical weapons.

"The Sixteen Words" in Bush's SOTU--about Saddam snooping around in Africa for yellow cake--was, contrary to Joe Wilson's much ballyhooed testimony, true.

On the heels of 9/11, and both President Bush and Senator John Kerry agreeing, in an '04 presidential debate, that the greatest existential threat to the civilized world was WMD proliferation, the removal of Saddam Hussein was the responsible thing to do, for sundry other reasons, as well.

That Saddam Hussein had WMD prior to the invasion is a fact.

He used them to wipe out entire villages of Kurdish men, women, and children.

During his war against Iran, we ourselves supplied Saddam--the enemy of our enemy the Ayatollah, and so our friend--with WMD.

CIA director George Tenet infamously described the charge that Iraq had WMD a "slam dunk."

British and other European intelligence agencies believed Saddam was stockpiling WMD.

UN weapons inspector Hans Blix said Saddam was hiding *something,* and Saddam himself was playing "maybe I do, maybe I don't" and "catch me if you can games," and serially expelling Hans Blix at will, letting him back in at the 11th hour before suffering the "serious consequences" agreed to in the serially broken peace treaties, and repeating the process.

Meanwhile, we were spending billions each year patrolling the no-fly zones--while Saddam took pot-shots at our planes--and al Qaeda operatives were freely circulating, having nothing to fear if they only spat their venom at Israel and the US.

Saddam became so cocky with the West's spinelessness, he even saw fit to put a contract out on Bush 41's head, a plot that was foiled and punished by then-President Clinton with the lobbying of a few cruise missiles.

Bill Clinton himself launched Operation Desert Fox--a heavy aerial bombing campaign on Iraq--on the same justifications and rationales that Bush 43 used for Operation Iraqi Freedom, one of which was WMD.

Bill Clinton, btw, made regime change in Iraq an official US policy.

So Saddam did have--and use-- WMD before the invasion--which was why our troops were supplied with special, protective gear in the event that chemical WMD were used against them, as feared.

However, as the Duelfer Report concludes, after Operation Desert Storm in '91--carried out by Bush 41--Saddam did destroy his stockpiles--as coerced--but the report also concluded that he was eager for the opportunity to reacquire them, as soon as the sanctions were lifted (as demanded by the Left).

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the Duelfer Report was made after the fact, not before.

It could not have been made while Saddam was in power.

We could only take his word for it--and that was constantly changing, because Saddam WANTED the world--particularly his neighboring rivals--to think he had WMD.

With the nation on Red Alert after 9/11, such a character had to go.

Now watch what these "scientists" do:

"Political scientists Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler provided two groups of volunteers with the Bush administration's prewar claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction."

There they're trying to isolate Bush as the "unilateral war-monger"--who "lied about WMDs-- they most certainly believe he is and did.

Remember, however, at the time, the whole world thought Saddam had WMD.

Again, Bill Clinton launched a heavy bombing campaign against Iraq a few years before (he had ulterior, ego-related motives, but they hid well behind the objective charges). The CIA, British Intelligence, the UN, and even the Democrats in Congress considered Saddam a "grave threat" (the latter later explaining--when the war became unpopular-- that Bush the Moron tricked them to vote that way).

College students Brendan and Jason (the "authoritative scientists") are simplistically fixating on the empirical fact--removed completely out of its historical and situational context-- that Iraq had no operational WMD at the time of the invasion.

The kool Aid contimues:

"One group (of stupid conservatives) was given a refutation -- the comprehensive 2004 Duelfer report that concluded that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction before the United States invaded in 2003."

As an isolated, matter of fact, okay.

"Thirty-four percent of conservatives told only about the Bush administration's claims thought Iraq had hidden or destroyed its weapons before the U.S. invasion..."

Correct. They did. Along with destroying actual posession of WMD, they stashed away centrifuges and even buried fighter jets in the desert sand.

"...but 64 percent of conservatives who heard both claim and refutation thought that Iraq really did have the weapons."

But they did. And the Duelfer Report--and history-- concludes that.

"The refutation, in other words, made the misinformation worse."

"Scientists" Brendan and Jason (how many serious scientists do you know whose names sound like "Beverly Hills 10210" characters?) are completely disregarding the historical context and obsessing over "There were no WMDs." Ever. Saddam was an innocent victim of Bushitler's lies and imperial designs, and any disagreement of that "scientifically proven" (whatever) "fact" is engaging in some denial-driven "backfire effect."

Look here:

"Upon hearing a refutation, conservatives might "argue back" against the refutation in their minds, thereby strengthening their belief in the misinformation..."

In other words, any conservatrive who tried to explain to the "scientists" any of the context provided here, are accused of engaging in "The Backfire Effect."

"The Backfire Effect." Those pretentious punks are trying to inject their silly study with gravitas by subliminally invoking the "Butterfly Effect," essentially plagiarising science fiction to make their fiction sound scientific.

And the brainless buffoon here tries to rub in:

"As the SCIENTIFIC STUDY points out so authoritatively..."

You're a disgusting little creature.

Dismissed.

10:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was wondering how long it would be before dicklicker posted another of his boring unreading 5000 word responses. ZZZZZZ

10:01 AM  
Blogger FJ said...

Unread because you never intend a response to the facts, you just continue living your life in a little liberal government subsidized thought bubble where results don't matter, only good intentions do.

10:31 AM  
Anonymous A Great Comedienne... said...

Former White House spokesperson Dana Perino said on Sunday that the Bush administration, while presiding over the start of the current recession, nevertheless deserved some credit for the modest uptick Wall Street experienced this past week.

Appearing on CSPAN's Washington Journal, the last of Bush's press secretaries said it was "not a secret" that the current economic mess started under her boss's watch. But, she cautioned, the public had yet to realize the full extent to which the past president's policies "alleviat[ed] the downturn."

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha please stop me

11:09 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, I got through about three paragraphs...enought to see he's trying to provide a case history confirming the Yale study about debating dingbats.

11:13 AM  
Blogger John said...

"Dicklicker." Perhaps you should read and pay attention before blathering.

But no, you fall asleep in class and miss everything and then blame the teacher because you were up all night taking bong hits, eating ice cream, and playing with your X-Box.

And you wonder why I placed a dunce cap on your head (and, what the hell, shaved your eyebrows and drew a moustache on you with an indelible marker) while you snoozed and drooled on your desk, and why everyone's laughing at you.

I already busted:

"That your host proved--*proved*--the scurrilous absurdity of the charge (of 'dick licking'), repeatedly, is no matter: blivious is now trying hard to hammer a sign on Republicus that says 'cocksucker.'"

That despicable m.o.--twisting data to make it conform to their own narrative, shouting down dissent of that, and sticking to their narrative despite presented evidence that debunks that very narrative (when none should have been needed to debunk what was obviously concocted off the bat), and running with it-- is not only precisely what was done to fj (who is now the resident 'racist' at 'Republikkkus'), but is the inherent m.o. driving the entire 'progressive' movement.

'A lie told often enough becomes the truth.' Lenin"

I reenforced and exemplified:

"Twisting and deforming data to make it conform to their own narrative, shouting down dissent of that, and sticking to their narrative despite presented evidence that debunks that narrative (when none should have been needed to debunk what was obviously concocted off the bat), and then running with it are, for example, the legs of the Global Warming hoax."

And exemplified again:

"That very m.o. can be applied to everything: 'It was just a blowjob,' 'Bush lied kids died,' etc."

And how is that rebutted?

By cut & pasting a "SCIENTIFIC STUDY" by Brendan (an unpublished, PhD student in political science) and his little Igor Jason who "prove" that conservatives are in "backfiring" denial that "Bush Lied" (and kids died).

Of course, the entire study was an exercise in projection:

The "scientists" were trying to "prove" that conservatives who knew about Saddam's WMD record (i.e. that he had WMD at some point) engage in denial of "The Fact" that he--as imperiously premised--"had no WMD before the invasion," and then engage in some rationalizing, argumentative "backfire effect" when taking issue with and challenging that blanket premise (meant to suffocate debate).

But it is the "scientists" themselves who-as rationalized and argued on behalf of that BOGUS premise--are, via the "scientific study" itself, in denial and BACKFIRING from all the evidence that Bush & Co. (and all of the Western intelligence agencies) were RIGHT about the FACTS that (1) Saddam did indeed have WMD stockpiles at one time, and (2) that he was ready, willing, and able to start the WMD programs on ice up again as soon as he was left alone, both of which the Duelfer Report confirms.

And, despite Duelfer's (erroneous) conclusion, Saddam did--in FACT--snoop around Niger for yellowcake, as British Intelligence still stand by.

11:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here are the pertinent facts:
Anonymous posted:
groooan...more compensation from the wee dick illiterate...

I can't wait for Friday ... for nothing ... as usual from the chicken hawks.

It would be fun if they actually tried one of their 3 stooges plan, but these weenies are all talk.

9:02 PM
John said...
"I can't wait for Friday ..."

So you're coming over? :)

"...for nothing...as usual..."

You poor girl. Who conditioned you to have such low expectations?

Oh, right. Fathead and Obama.

"...but these weenies are all talk."

Don't worry. The oral examinations I have in mind don't involve any talking.



Dicklicker assumes anonymous is a female and names her Lana Banana?!!? Bottom line, nobody named Lana Banana posted in the thread. At best Dicklicker is offering anonymous oral sex to a woman; but is just as likely to be offering an anonymous BJ!

11:33 AM  
Blogger John said...

"'But, (Perino) cautioned, the public had yet to realize the full extent to which the past president's policies "alleviat[ed] the downturn."'

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha please stop me"

This wretched fool is laughing hysterically at what is true.

That's such a disgustingly shameless display of evil stupidity that it deserves obliterating deletion--as unconsciously pleaded for by the wretch-- but I will let it stand as a testament to the lying stupidity of the Left.

Their minds are as useless as those little orange-handled scissors in sewing kits.

11:37 AM  
Blogger John said...

"Bottom line, nobody named Lana Banana posted in the thread."

Bottom line, you're a clueless newbie.

"At best Dicklicker is offering anonymous oral sex to a woman..."

Ya think?

Is it possible that I was telling lana to suck my dick?

You know, "at best"?

11:41 AM  
Blogger John said...

"Well, I got through about three paragraphs..."

lol

"...enought to see he's trying to provide a case history confirming the Yale study about debating dingbats."

Projection. You yourself confirm the study (and that's why the "backfire effect" is the perfect name for it, though not for the reasons that Brandy and Jaysee thought).

11:48 AM  
Blogger John said...

fj said:

"...you just continue living your life in a little liberal government subsidized thought bubble where results don't matter, only good intentions do."

In the abstract. They claim, for example, that they're acting on behalf of people, but it's an amorphous "The People," while they hate, jeer at and threaten real people like you and I and millions of others not enthralled to their ideology.

In the concrete here and now, their intentions are evil, and they know it, hence the constant spinning and duplicity--in public--to hide those intentions.

12:36 PM  
Anonymous KarinHall said...

Lol...I hope he found himself convincing...cause everyone else is rolling in the aisles...or rolling their eyes.

12:50 PM  
Blogger John said...

Good luck on your high school finals this spring, Karin.

1:17 PM  
Blogger John said...

vanilla rulles asked:

"Hey, what pc little beotch took down my post...?"

'Twas I. Buh-bye.

4:52 PM  
Blogger Titus said...

I think we know who the pc bitches are John... the idiots that come here and try and tell us what to think just because some jackass of their's like Barney Fag had a brain fart.

6:52 AM  
Blogger Phelonius said...

Wow, John.... You were right. They had a fit over that one, so I guess you are still punching the correct buttons for a response.

I gave up on running over to the nursery every time one of the lefty-babies left the same old tired rhetoric and name-calling smelly diapers. While there is the occasional glimmer of hope that at least one or two could use their own language to debate specific points, they will not do it.

I thought your statement that the object of their intentions is not to argue points for an ideology but rather to destroy the person making points against them stands.

The hive cannot take criticism in any form.

3:09 PM  
Blogger Kelly said...

John, they will not leave on their own accord. That would take maturity.

5:47 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home