What's new
By:

Steve Bannon Quotes

Boris said:
Anyone who believed that is a dunce. Pres. Trump was at Hillary an Bills wedding. They are buddies. Bill has probably banged Evonka several times.
Click to expand...

Exactly. You cant believe anything that Trump says. I never thought he would go after hillary even when he was saying he would.
 
fishonjazz said:
Exactly. You cant believe anything that Trump says. I never thought he would go after hillary even when he was saying he would.
Click to expand...

It is the same problem I had in 2008. We don't really know what they will do.
 
From a somewhat calmer perspective:-)

Steve Bannon subscribes to a "theory of history" that I am unfamiliar with. It claims to identify 80 year cycles in societal overhaul that can be applied to virtually any nation state, and that can be used in a predictive manner. I would need to know a whole lot more regarding the causative factors in this hypothetical 80 year cycle to even begin to form a judgement on this theory.

But, far more relevant is that Steve Bannon apparently embraces this theory of history wholeheartedly, and in so doing, his own emphasis on the theory's predictive powers suggests some damn scary stuff. This is downright chilling when one realizes Bannon is this close to the seat of power.

This is the most chilling information I have come across regarding the beliefs of Steve Bannon.

If this is what he believes and expects, I want him out of the White House:


https://time.com/4575780/stephen-bannon-fourth-turning/

As the man who ran Breitbart News, Bannon basically ran one of the leading venues for alt-right viewpoints. It should not be minimized in recognizing that the originator of the very term alt-right, Richard Spencer, clearly recognizes that the alt right is a neo Nazi movement:

https://fusion.net/story/371657/richard-spencer-is-a-neo-nazi/

Our allies clearly recognize the chilling nature of the rise of the neo Nazi alt-right:

https://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsCo...ermany-and-Israel-as-US-white-supremacis.aspx



It is also somewhat encouraging that Trump himself recognizes the need to distance himself from a group that raises the Nazi salute to him:

https://www.ibtimes.com/trump-conde...pencer-members-react-president-elects-2450209

But, the real danger is Steve Bannon serving as Chief Strategist for Donald Trump. Spencer may dismiss Bannon as alt-right lite, but he ran a leading alt-right Internet venue, and has expressed views very sympathetic to the neo Nazism at the heart of the alt-right movement.
Given his expectations of how historical cycles play out, anyone not concerned with the motivations of Bannon, and his powerful position as Chief Strategist for Donald Trump might be described as having their heads in the sand.

Am I a leftist linking to leftist sites and crying fire in a crowded theater for no damn reason but left leaning delusions, as some here claim I am? Again, I believe those who ignore what Steve Bannon represents do Americans a great disservice in not calling out neo Nazis for what they are. And that calling out includes pointing out that Steve Bannon has no damn business being this close to the most powerful office on the planet. Wake up people!
 
Computer said:
Most people are fine with equal rights. Just not fine with special treatment and special privileges.

Money you say? So do white people just hand out free money? Or do they come to steal or use them for money? Or is it that they seek freedom, opportunity, and better treatment than what they currently get where they are at?
Click to expand...

How do you differentiate between equal rights and 'special treatment and privilege?" For years, that was one of the common retorts to gay rights (I know, because I used to be one of those saying it), that they wanted special treatment and privileges, when, really, all they want is the same opportunity to participate equallly in society like everyone else. But to those opposed to them, their lens of the world transformed 'equal rights' into 'special rights.'

So, I'm curious, what 'special treatment' or 'special privilege' are traditionally marginalized groups (e.g., women, LGBT, blacks, etc.) trying to get? Please enlighted us.
 
Ron Mexico said:
The government should not force moral values (particularly the Christian values they currently push) on people unless the things they are doing interfere with others ability to live their lives as they want.
Click to expand...

This is a fallacy. All laws or rules that govern society reflect some kind of underlying moral principle. Being humans, we invest moral meaning in everything we do, and morals are the foundation of societal governance.

The question for policy purposes is: Which morals are those that govern us and what is the process that society agrees on what those morals are?

My issue with religion as a basis for social morality is that it is an appeal to authority basis of morality that, because it comes from a 'divine' inscrutable source, is immune to reasoned, rational public discourse. It's hard to reason with someone who sees himself/herself as representing the will of the Supreme Creator of the Universe. For this reason, religion as a source of societal morality is inherently anti-democratic. Political freedom and religion (as the organizing source of public morality) are incompatible. The Founders recognized this, and it is why it religion is the only source of public morality/policy singled out for special attention proscribing its power in our Constitution.
 
Red said:
From a somewhat calmer perspective:-)

Steve Bannon subscribes to a "theory of history" that I am unfamiliar with. It claims to identify 80 year cycles in societal overhaul that can be applied to virtually any nation state, and that can be used in a predictive manner. I would need to know a whole lot more regarding the causative factors in this hypothetical 80 year cycle to even begin to form a judgement on this theory.

But, far more relevant is that Steve Bannon apparently embraces this theory of history wholeheartedly, and in so doing, his own emphasis on the theory's predictive powers suggests some damn scary stuff. This is downright chilling when one realizes Bannon is this close to the seat of power.

This is the most chilling information I have come across regarding the beliefs of Steve Bannon.

If this is what he believes and expects, I want him out of the White House:


https://time.com/4575780/stephen-bannon-fourth-turning/

As the man who ran Breitbart News, Bannon basically ran one of the leading venues for alt-right viewpoints. It should not be minimized in recognizing that the originator of the very term alt-right, Richard Spencer, clearly recognizes that the alt right is a neo Nazi movement:

https://fusion.net/story/371657/richard-spencer-is-a-neo-nazi/

Our allies clearly recognize the chilling nature of the rise of the neo Nazi alt-right:

https://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsCo...ermany-and-Israel-as-US-white-supremacis.aspx



It is also somewhat encouraging that Trump himself recognizes the need to distance himself from a group that raises the Nazi salute to him:

https://www.ibtimes.com/trump-conde...pencer-members-react-president-elects-2450209

But, the real danger is Steve Bannon serving as Chief Strategist for Donald Trump. Spencer may dismiss Bannon as alt-right lite, but he ran a leading alt-right Internet venue, and has expressed views very sympathetic to the neo Nazism at the heart of the alt-right movement.
Given his expectations of how historical cycles play out, anyone not concerned with the motivations of Bannon, and his powerful position as Chief Strategist for Donald Trump might be described as having their heads in the sand.

Am I a leftist linking to leftist sites and crying fire in a crowded theater for no damn reason but left leaning delusions, as some here claim I am? Again, I believe those who ignore what Steve Bannon represents do Americans a great disservice in not calling out neo Nazis for what they are. And that calling out includes pointing out that Steve Bannon has no damn business being this close to the most powerful office on the planet. Wake up people!
Click to expand...

When did Time start publishing alarmist drivel? Every time I read Time it is well researched, not this rag mag speculative junk. TiMeZ sounds like right wing radio after Obama first election.
 
Boris said:
When did Time start publishing alarmist drivel? Every time I read Time it is well researched, not this rag mag speculative junk. TiMeZ sounds like right wing radio after Obama first election.
Click to expand...

It isn't really drivel, as it's based on actual conversations with Steve Bannon. Bannon is the Chief Strategist to newly elected Trump. It's entirely justifiable to seek out individuals who can provide insight into the core beliefs of Bannon. I should think any thinking citizen who cares about the future of this nation would be so interested in knowing what the core beliefs are where the President's Chief Strategist is concerned. Combined with the fact that Trump's National Security Advisor, retired Lt.Gen. Michael Flynn, might be said to make Hillary look like a pacifist, these two appointments are very important. Remember, Trump has never governed before. He has only attended 2 national security briefings, and has turned away all other such briefings. So those two guys are going to have a huge influence, in all likelihood. Fair and to be expected to delve into their mindsets by whatever means and through people who can indeed offer insight, not drivel at all....

------------------------------------------------------------

"A second, more alarming, interaction did not show up in the film. Bannon had clearly thought a long time both about the domestic potential and the foreign policy implications of Strauss and Howe. More than once during our interview, he pointed out that each of the three preceding crises had involved a great war, and those conflicts had increased in scope from the American Revolution through the Civil War to the Second World War. He expected a new and even bigger war as part of the current crisis, and he did not seem at all fazed by the prospect.

I did not agree, and said so. But, knowing that the history of international conflict was my own specialty, he repeatedly pressed me to say we could expect a conflict at least as big as the Second World War in the near or medium term. I refused.

Apocalyptic rhetoric and apocalyptic thinking flourish during crisis periods. This represents perhaps the biggest danger of the Trump presidency, and one that will bear watching from all concerned citizens in the months and years ahead."
 
Red said:
From a somewhat calmer perspective:-)

Steve Bannon subscribes to a "theory of history" that I am unfamiliar with. It claims to identify 80 year cycles in societal overhaul that can be applied to virtually any nation state, and that can be used in a predictive manner. I would need to know a whole lot more regarding the causative factors in this hypothetical 80 year cycle to even begin to form a judgement on this theory.

But, far more relevant is that Steve Bannon apparently embraces this theory of history wholeheartedly, and in so doing, his own emphasis on the theory's predictive powers suggests some damn scary stuff. This is downright chilling when one realizes Bannon is this close to the seat of power.

This is the most chilling information I have come across regarding the beliefs of Steve Bannon.

If this is what he believes and expects, I want him out of the White House:


https://time.com/4575780/stephen-bannon-fourth-turning/

As the man who ran Breitbart News, Bannon basically ran one of the leading venues for alt-right viewpoints. It should not be minimized in recognizing that the originator of the very term alt-right, Richard Spencer, clearly recognizes that the alt right is a neo Nazi movement:

https://fusion.net/story/371657/richard-spencer-is-a-neo-nazi/

Our allies clearly recognize the chilling nature of the rise of the neo Nazi alt-right:

https://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsCo...ermany-and-Israel-as-US-white-supremacis.aspx



It is also somewhat encouraging that Trump himself recognizes the need to distance himself from a group that raises the Nazi salute to him:

https://www.ibtimes.com/trump-conde...pencer-members-react-president-elects-2450209

But, the real danger is Steve Bannon serving as Chief Strategist for Donald Trump. Spencer may dismiss Bannon as alt-right lite, but he ran a leading alt-right Internet venue, and has expressed views very sympathetic to the neo Nazism at the heart of the alt-right movement.
Given his expectations of how historical cycles play out, anyone not concerned with the motivations of Bannon, and his powerful position as Chief Strategist for Donald Trump might be described as having their heads in the sand.

Am I a leftist linking to leftist sites and crying fire in a crowded theater for no damn reason but left leaning delusions, as some here claim I am? Again, I believe those who ignore what Steve Bannon represents do Americans a great disservice in not calling out neo Nazis for what they are. And that calling out includes pointing out that Steve Bannon has no damn business being this close to the most powerful office on the planet. Wake up people!
Click to expand...

Saying that you're citing prejudiced or biased sources from an essentially unified propaganda front is not the same thing as claiming you're delusional or crying fire in a crowded theater.

your post here is at a most basic perspective actually "religious", as in something you devoutly believe and want to preach, with the presumption that everyone needs to see this. "Wake up people" is pretty much what the John Birch Society preaches from their Catholic pulpit. Authoritarians abound on Left and Right.

The POTUS is nowhere near the most powerful office on the planet, it a sort of bully pulpit for the collective interests that hold sway politically for a few years. Anyone in the Oval Office making decisions will have people looking over his shoulder every step of the way. Pres. Obama made Trump President, by being such an egocentric sociopath waving a pen and using a phone to get things done outside the bounds of Constitutional principles. Obama was the most dangerous man we have ever had in the Oval Office, and much more dangerous than Trump will be.

Trump recognizes the existence and relevance of the US Constitution, and he got to the Oval Office by realizing that ordinary people do matter.
 
As interesting a character as Steve Bannon is, we could easily have an equally revealing thread on Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, Trump's pick for National Security Advisor. Like Trump, like Bannon and Breitbart News, and like Alex Jones, whom Trump recently called to thank him and his conspiracy mongering fans for their votes(and promised to appear once again on Jone's show soon), ret. Lt. Gen. Flynn is a fan of conspiracy thinking:

https://www.cnn.com/2016/11/23/politics/kfile-michael-flynn-sharia/

Interesting that, given the irrationality of conspiracy thinking in general, that the President-Elect and some of his key appointments and allies are such keen fans of irrationality. I'm not sure it can really be said that subscribing to irrational conspiracy theories( remember Bitherism, chiefly promoted by Trump himself?) is an admirable quality in a President. But there it is. He's a fan, Bannon is a fan, and Flynn is a fan as well.

I keep in mind that, in terms of being an elected governing official, Trump is a tabula rosa. He is truly a blank slate. Presidential briefings, including being kept abreast of our foreign policy actions, missions, etc, are offered daily since the election, but Trump has only attended two, the last being this past Tuesday, before he flew to Florida for Thanksgiving. He's not the first President-Elect to be adverse to daily briefings I suspect. Pence has attended a briefing every day. I think, given Tony Schwartz's( author of "The Art of the Deal") observation that Trump has the attention span of a child, I can't be surprised that Trump is not interested in being educated on American foreign policy. Maybe that will change once he's in office; maybe not. I do suspect not.

Making his surrogates and official appointments all the more important, perhaps. He indicated recently that he would like to keep holding rallies. I predicted that would be the case in one of our Trump threads. I did so based on my belief his oversized ego would need those cheering crowds in the manner of an ego stroking fix. I suspect his governing style will mix rallies and official TV addresses. Minus the press. I believe we will continue to see a very adversarial relationship toward the press. It will be interesting to see if he continues to communicate by twitter once he is in office.

Since he has tweeted "lying media" more often then I can count, and singled out the press corps for derision at virtually every rally, and since public opinion of the press has probably never been lower then it is in 2016, we probably should expect a free press to have very little ability to convince the public that any decision a President Trump makes is anything other then the best thing the American people could ever hope for. When the media says anything critical at the time, Trump can dismiss them yet again as "the lying media", and dismiss any criticism that way. He laid the groundwork for his followers to thoroughly hate the mainstream media. I suspect that will continue, and twitter has been his preferred method for demonizing the press. We'll see if that continues to be the preferred attack vessel.

At any rate, the two guys likely to have the easiest access to Trump's ear would seem to be Bannon and Flynn. And, since like Trump,,they are fans of conspiracy thinking, and subscribe to questionable beliefs, it would seem the big 3 of Trump, Bannon, and Flynn have a strong foundation in irrational mind sets. I don't believe I am speaking from either a liberal or a conservative bias when I say that concerns me quite a bit. I am, however, looking forward to an exciting 4 years. If Trump intends to turn America into Amerika, well, I also look forward to the Resistance. I certainly don't expect internment camps for liberals, lol, but we'll see, lol.....
 
jimmy eat jazz said:
This is a fallacy. All laws or rules that govern society reflect some kind of underlying moral principle. Being humans, we invest moral meaning in everything we do, and morals are the foundation of societal governance.

The question for policy purposes is: Which morals are those that govern us and what is the process that society agrees on what those morals are?

My issue with religion as a basis for social morality is that it is an appeal to authority basis of morality that, because it comes from a 'divine' inscrutable source, is immune to reasoned, rational public discourse. It's hard to reason with someone who sees himself/herself as representing the will of the Supreme Creator of the Universe. For this reason, religion as a source of societal morality is inherently anti-democratic. Political freedom and religion (as the organizing source of public morality) are incompatible. The Founders recognized this, and it is why it religion is the only source of public morality/policy singled out for special attention proscribing its power in our Constitution.
Click to expand...

You do realize a driving force behind the founding of our country was groups of people looking for religious freedom right? The proscription of religion you mention is not meant to limit the power of religion, it is meant to limit the power of government in controlling religion. The establishment clause means that the government shall not sanction an official religion of the government. This allows all people the freedom to worship what or who they want to, which freedom was NOT allowed in many of the European countries the founding fathers came from, particularly England.
 
Red said:
As interesting a character as Steve Bannon is, we could easily have an equally revealing thread on Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, Trump's pick for National Security Advisor. Like Trump, like Bannon and Breitbart News, and like Alex Jones, whom Trump recently called to thank him and his conspiracy mongering fans for their votes(and promised to appear once again on Jone's show soon), ret. Lt. Gen. Flynn is a fan of conspiracy thinking:

https://www.cnn.com/2016/11/23/politics/kfile-michael-flynn-sharia/

Interesting that, given the irrationality of conspiracy thinking in general, that the President-Elect and some of his key appointments and allies are such keen fans of irrationality. I'm not sure it can really be said that subscribing to irrational conspiracy theories( remember Bitherism, chiefly promoted by Trump himself?) is an admirable quality in a President. But there it is. He's a fan, Bannon is a fan, and Flynn is a fan as well.

I keep in mind that, in terms of being an elected governing official, Trump is a tabula rosa. He is truly a blank slate. Presidential briefings, including being kept abreast of our foreign policy actions, missions, etc, are offered daily since the election, but Trump has only attended two, the last being this past Tuesday, before he flew to Florida for Thanksgiving. He's not the first President-Elect to be adverse to daily briefings I suspect. Pence has attended a briefing every day. I think, given Tony Schwartz's( author of "The Art of the Deal") observation that Trump has the attention span of a child, I can't be surprised that Trump is not interested in being educated on American foreign policy. Maybe that will change once he's in office; maybe not. I do suspect not.

Making his surrogates and official appointments all the more important, perhaps. He indicated recently that he would like to keep holding rallies. I predicted that would be the case in one of our Trump threads. I did so based on my belief his oversized ego would need those cheering crowds in the manner of an ego stroking fix. I suspect his governing style will mix rallies and official TV addresses. Minus the press. I believe we will continue to see a very adversarial relationship toward the press. It will be interesting to see if he continues to communicate by twitter once he is in office.

Since he has tweeted "lying media" more often then I can count, and singled out the press corps for derision at virtually every rally, and since public opinion of the press has probably never been lower then it is in 2016, we probably should expect a free press to have very little ability to convince the public that any decision a President Trump makes is anything other then the best thing the American people could ever hope for. When the media says anything critical at the time, Trump can dismiss them yet again as "the lying media", and dismiss any criticism that way. He laid the groundwork for his followers to thoroughly hate the mainstream media. I suspect that will continue, and twitter has been his preferred method for demonizing the press. We'll see if that continues to be the preferred attack vessel.

At any rate, the two guys likely to have the easiest access to Trump's ear would seem to be Bannon and Flynn. And, since like Trump,,they are fans of conspiracy thinking, and subscribe to questionable beliefs, it would seem the big 3 of Trump, Bannon, and Flynn have a strong foundation in irrational mind sets. I don't believe I am speaking from either a liberal or a conservative bias when I say that concerns me quite a bit. I am, however, looking forward to an exciting 4 years. If Trump intends to turn America into Amerika, well, I also look forward to the Resistance. I certainly don't expect internment camps for liberals, lol, but we'll see, lol.....
Click to expand...

Huh. Here you attack alleged skeptics with skepticism.
 
Red, andt the little valiant band of believers in progressive media sources. . . .

It's been quite a stretch trying to believe you're so out of touch you don't realize the bias of your sources.

I've looked into the Trump nominees and it just looks like more fake news. It will be a hard sale makingTrump and the inco I g admin what you fear.

Glenn Beck made a big deal about the cyclical trends with Demographucs. It is true that people change some, sometimes predictably but mostly for some reason. If Hillary had won, I'd be expecting an e en more massive turnout to end the Liberal reign of Terror. As it is, trump or Pence, if the hate takes it's toll, will have almost four years to make you the ridiculous alarmists. If the Administration acts reasonably with good results, the reps win again and probably yet again.

Don't discredit yourselves with a lying push to ake fascists of people who uphold Constitutional government.

Obama and HillRy would have done worse if they had effective management skills in pushing their Constitution-shredding ideologies.

Progressives have shown themselves u fit to govern this country, and the failure of your media to discover that fact has discredited your.partyli e howlers.
 
babe said:
Red, andt the little valiant band of believers in progressive media sources. . . .

It's been quite a stretch trying to believe you're so out of touch you don't realize the bias of your sources.

I've looked into the Trump nominees and it just looks like more fake news. It will be a hard sale makingTrump and the inco I g admin what you fear.

Glenn Beck made a big deal about the cyclical trends with Demographucs. It is true that people change some, sometimes predictably but mostly for some reason. If Hillary had won, I'd be expecting an e en more massive turnout to end the Liberal reign of Terror. As it is, trump or Pence, if the hate takes it's toll, will have almost four years to make you the ridiculous alarmists. If the Administration acts reasonably with good results, the reps win again and probably yet again.

Don't discredit yourselves with a lying push to ake fascists of people who uphold Constitutional government.

Obama and HillRy would have done worse if they had effective management skills in pushing their Constitution-shredding ideologies.

Progressives have shown themselves u fit to govern this country, and the failure of your media to discover that fact has discredited your.partyli e howlers.
Click to expand...

Serious question, what do you think of the emoluments clause in regard to Trump upholding constitutional government?
 
babe said:
Saying that you're citing prejudiced or biased sources from an essentially unified propaganda front is not the same thing as claiming you're delusional or crying fire in a crowded theater.

your post here is at a most basic perspective actually "religious", as in something you devoutly believe and want to preach, with the presumption that everyone needs to see this. "Wake up people" is pretty much what the John Birch Society preaches from their Catholic pulpit. Authoritarians abound on Left and Right.

The POTUS is nowhere near the most powerful office on the planet, it a sort of bully pulpit for the collective interests that hold sway politically for a few years. Anyone in the Oval Office making decisions will have people looking over his shoulder every step of the way. Pres. Obama made Trump President, by being such an egocentric sociopath waving a pen and using a phone to get things done outside the bounds of Constitutional principles. Obama was the most dangerous man we have ever had in the Oval Office, and much more dangerous than Trump will be.

Trump recognizes the existence and relevance of the US Constitution, and he got to the Oval Office by realizing that ordinary people do matter.
Click to expand...

Look, it's quite simple. Trump ran by appealing to the baser instincts in his audience. In a nation as divided as ours, that was a reprehensible choice. And some of the consequences have been the number of incidents since, committed against those whom he helped demonize. Or are you unaware of the number of incidents in schools across this nation? Is that a good thing for our children? Or do you think the fears expressed by those demonized by Trump are just so much foolishness? He took a divided nation, and did his very best to make it far worse by using the tools of the demagogue and appealing to the worst instincts in people. You call that a victory against progressivism and its failings. I call it fascism raising its ugly head in America.
 
In my experience, Trump supporters do not recognize prejudice and fear as baser instincts. Their race/gender/sexual orientation/religion makes them rightfully better than others, and so they insist that everyone else should conform. Security is more important than people. When these are your beliefs, it is incomprehensible how you could vote otherwise. And it is why they will never understand the "liberal agenda."

Liberals have their core belief problems as well, mostly that the government has to fix all problems - and of course the belief that they are smarter and kinder and better than conservatives.

There is a middle ground somewhere, but it feels further and further out of reach as each side clings ever more fiercely to their core beliefs. And that is what is frightening about the future.

Sent from my HTC6535LVW using JazzFanz mobile app
 
This is from a couple of years ago, and obviously has a liberal bias, but there are nuggets of truth (and humor).

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/gala...diff_b_6135184.html?ncid=engmodushpmg00000006
Your crazy old divorced uncle is a Conservative. Your crazy young divorced aunt is a Liberal.

Liberals are concerned about economic inequality. Conservatives are confident that one day they’ll be rich.

Conservatives vote. Liberals don’t vote, but they urge their fellow like-minded liberals to get involved.

Liberals are honest about the complex issue of race. Conservatives “don’t see color.”

Conservatives don’t want to hear liberal Hollywood celebrities talk about politics. Liberals also don’t want to hear liberal Hollywood celebrities talk about politics.

Conservatives are enamored with conservative Hollywood celebrities who talk about politics. Liberals don’t know who those celebrities are. “You know- Nick Searcy. You’ve seen him. He’s on that show Justified. You know- Justified. It’s on FX. Well, I’m sure you’d know him if you saw him.”

Liberals are pro-choice. Conservatives had an abortion years ago, but now they’ve seen the light and don’t think other people should be allowed to have one.

Conservatives celebrate Christianity. Liberals celebrate Christmas.

Conservatives vote against their own self-interest. Liberals vote in the interest of their own self-loathing.

Liberals support good teachers. Conservatives support eliminating bad teachers.

Conservatives oppose violent Islamic extremism and the homophobic, misogynistic, oppressive ideals that it represents. Liberals oppose Israel.

Liberals, for the most part, support the Democratic Party platform of fair taxation, equal rights, and job creation. Conservatives, for the most part, support the Democratic Party platform of fair taxation, equal rights, and job creation.

Conservatives support free speech. Liberals support free speech unless it’s politically incorrect.

Conservatives watch FOX News for their news. Liberals watch FOX News for laughs. Both Conservatives and Liberals think that CNN is horrible. Nobody watches MSNBC.

Conservatives hate soccer. Liberals love soccer once every four years.

Liberals benefit from Obamacare and are disappointed with it. Conservatives benefit from Obamacare and want to get rid of it.

Conservatives watch race car driving for the crashes. Liberals would watch race car driving if there were more crashes.

Conservatives have lost interest in Sarah Palin. Liberals are still obsessed with her.

Liberals love having sex. Conservatives hate when other people have sex.

Conservatives try to get their Liberal Facebook friends to see the light. Liberals try to find out which of their Facebook friends is Conservative so that they can de-friend them.

Conservatives are disappointed with President Obama because he’s too liberal. Liberals are disappointed with President Obama because he’s not liberal enough. Moderates are disappointed with President Obama, though they can’t put their finger on why exactly.

Liberals believe in global warming because of the scientific data. Conservatives don’t believe in global warming because it felt a little nippy this morning.

Conservatives believe that we can stop global crimes against humanity though the use of military force. Liberals believe that we can stop global crimes against humanity by tweeting #StopGlobalCrimesAgainstHumanity.

Conservatives think that corporations create jobs. Liberals think that corporations create jobs in China.

Liberals think it takes a village to raise a child. Conservatives think it takes a family to raise a child. Children are actually being raised by TV, video games, and the Internet.

Conservatives think that unemployed people are responsible for the nation’s problems. Liberals think that unemployment is a result of the nation’s problems.

Conservatives support old-fashioned, traditional values. Liberals are into being edgy. Conservatives think that being edgy is lame... which it is.

Liberals oppose police brutality. Conservatives oppose police brutality unless the unarmed suspect appears “thuggish.”

Conservatives listen to new country music on the radio. Liberals listen to real country music — like Johnny Cash and Willie Nelson — on their iPhones.

Conservatives think schools should teach abstinence in high school health class. Liberals think schools should hand out free condoms in elementary school.

Liberals are funny. Conservatives are corny.

Conservatives are organized, reliable and polite. Liberals think that being disorganized, unreliable, and rude is part of their “charm.”

Liberals have a black friend. Conservatives know a black guy.

Liberals support people in menial jobs. Conservatives applaud people in menial jobs. People in menial jobs just want to be respected.

Conservatives don’t think they are homophobic because they started supporting gay marriage in 2012. Liberals know they’re not homophobic because they started supporting gay marriage in 2007.

Conservatives believe in God. Liberals believe that God created evolution.

Conservatives can’t name three judges on the Supreme Court. Liberals can’t name three judges on the Supreme Court. Both Conservatives and Liberals can name three cast members from Jersey Shore.

Liberals have a weak stance on immigration. Conservatives have a strong stance on immigration... but it’s evolving.

Conservatives are proudly uninformed. Liberals are proud to be informed about issues that nobody cares about.

Liberals are involved in sex scandals that ruin their career. Conservatives are involved in sex scandals that they get away with.

Conservatives support issues that help their families. Liberals support issues that help families.

Liberals love that the world of college academia is a place to share ideas. Conservatives hate that the world of college academia is a place where they can’t share their ideas. College students love that the world of college academia is a place where they can drink and have sex.

Conservatives support the troops by saying that they support the troops. Liberals say that saying you support the troops is not really supporting the troops.

Conservatives like movies with action, violence and lots of explosions. Liberals like movies with action, violence lots of explosions, and characters we can care about.

Liberals believe in some elements of socialism. Conservatives hate socialism and they only believe in some elements of it.

Conservatives have a problem with women. Liberals have a problem with Conservative women.

Conservatives are friendlier than Liberals. Liberals are nicer than Conservatives.

Conservatives don’t want to be blamed for Ted Nugent. Liberals don’t want to be blamed for Rosie O’Donnell. Nobody wants to be blamed for the Kardashians.

Conservatives believe in the death penalty for all the people on death row. Liberals are opposed to the death penalty because they believe all the people on death row are poor.

Conservatives are more physically attractive than Liberals, but Liberals are sexier.

Liberals have a better personality than Conservatives, but they’re condescending about it... which is an ugly personality trait.

Liberals don’t trust the media unless it’s “alternative” media because if it’s “alternative,” it must be trustworthy. Conservatives don’t trust the media because the media they watch and listen to tells them not to trust the media.

Liberal billionaires use their money to support worthy causes. Conservative billionaires use their money to support Conservative causes.

Liberals show their compassion by helping others. Conservatives think they are showing compassion by not helping others.

Conservatives are afraid of not having guns. Liberals are afraid of Conservatives with guns.

Conservatives love the past but fear the future. Liberals hate the past but fear the future.

Liberals are full of crap because they don’t really believe what they say. Conservatives are full of crap because they truly believe what they say.

There are good Liberals and bad Liberals. There are good Conservatives and bad Conservatives. Serial killers are apolitical.

Liberals like to have fun. Conservatives like to have fun. Liberals and Conservatives like to have fun with each other... unless they’re talking about politics... or especially when they’re talking about politics.
Click to expand...


Sent from my HTC6535LVW using JazzFanz mobile app
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top