I study human behavior, therefore I am a LibDem Fucktard

I am a student of human nature, from the amazing highs - like the altruism, compassion and heroism of the police and firefighters who rushed into the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 - to the despicable lows - like the serial killers who prey on peoples' bodies, and the ultra-selfish privilege seekers like Rush Limbaugh or former New York Mayor Rudy Guiliani, who prey upon peoples 'minds, hearts and souls - for example, by exploiting the legacy of 9/11 to sow mindless fear and hatred -  for themselves alone.

As a student of human nature, and human behavior, I have learned certain critical thinking skills, such as "Does that even fucking make sense?" And "How many persuasive weasel words are in that sentence, and was there any useful information despite the weasel words?"

Yes, I have a philosophical and political viewpoint, but I'm prepared to listen even to the lunatic fringe, because I can usually learn something, even if only "this person is a lunatic." (Although, usually I hope for something more, such as "We cherry-pick this one obscure Bible passage, because it has just the right words to validate our position, regardless of how this one passage might contradict several others, or if the meaning of the passage contradicts our use of the words themselves and by knowing this, you can crush our weak and foolish arguments.")

I don't think like normal people

I had to have someone actually say that to me, before it made sense.  It's true, though.

You can't pigeon hole me, because I think (at all), I don't think like you, and I certainly don't think like the people you might try to lump me in with.

Oh, I might agree with certain views, or positions, or just statements, but that's still not the same thing. Hell, I probably agree with several things you think, which I find usually just confuses people who try to argue with me.  Try to pigeon-hole me, and I'll point out at least three ways in which your assumptions are wrong, and bitch slap you for projecting your shit onto me, or dragging your own baggage into the conversation.

People piss me off.

I hate stupidity. I despise liars. I loathe selfish and evil people.

People fascinate me.

It is as a consequence of this observation that I end up, staunchly even, a particular political camp.

Of course, keep in mind that I'm also dissecting the shit out of everything they say, since jumping blindly away from one group is at least as dumb as jumping blindly into another group.

I'm a LibDem, and unashamed. 

Yes, yes, the LibDems definitely have shittards, and fuckwads, and dimwits, racists and doorbells, and assholes and even a$hole$, since such creatures are endemic to any group of people larger than a handful. 

But - and this is important - despite what Teaturds and Neo-Cons like to claim - there is not parity of swine between the two groups. There is not even parity of Stupidity between the two groups.

In the bipolar politics of the US, there are conservatives and liberals, and the truth of the matter is that the "conservative" team (really, the right-wing, since real conservatives are very nearly liberals these days, keep reading) has the far greater percentage of narrow-minded, pig-headed, selfish, bigoted, greedy, offensive and insulting, ignorant and petty, turds. (The right-wing leaders have actually cultivated this position, forcing the "faithful" to be ever more narrow-minded or be ostracized as "unfaithful" - this is how you get a 21st century political party that has sainted a former president whom today would be chucked from the party for being a closet liberal.)

Follow any thread with both right-wingers and left-wingers, and take yourself out of your own politics. Simply count the number of insults, the vitriol of those insults, and see which side has more. Count the number of sweeping statements without any effort at support and see who has more. Count the number of statements easily smashed by a simple Google search and see who has more. Count the number of "Yeah, well, I don't have to defend my position, because blah, blah, blah about your side" (called "deflection," or simply "smoke and mirrors"). Measure the sheer vapid and baseless arrogance of the insults.

Statistically speaking, over a thousand conversations, the right-wingers lose every time. More weasel words, more deflection, more - and uglier - insults, and almost invariably when a right-winger storms out of a conversation it looks something like a child's temper tantrum of "I'm taking my ball and going home!"

Note again, there are level-headed people who call themselves conservative, and most of these are really decent human beings. I really like having conversations with these people, because I can learn a lot from them. Often, we disagree, but that's part of being human. Only children feel a need to "win" every conversation. Dialogue and discourse - despite the screaming of Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh - is not about "winning," it's about information exchange.

Real adults try to avoid conflict while exchanging information in discussion, while children try to "win" every time, often picking fights that never need to happen. It's really quite stupid. (Let me repeat: the left-wingers have plenty of tantrum-throwers, too.)

(In contrast, Vice-President Cheney is fairly sane, but also a selfish sack of shit willing to throw Americans under the long-term terrorist bus for his own short-term benefit).

On the right - as a general rule - I see cognitive dissonance in "We want a small government, that does not interfere with our lives, does not tax nor regulate business, does not tax nor regulate the rich and powerful, but does provide us with safety, roads, drug-testing and imprisonment for the poor, and tells a woman what she can do with her body in-the-name-of-MY-god-you-sick-heathen-thankyouverymuch." I see "spend and spend, and who cares about income" neo-cons screaming and hand-waving about the "tax and spend" liberals (again, called "deflection").

On the left - as as general rule - I see recognition that the function of a representative government is to ensure that everyone has an equal chance to become filthy rich, that everyone has safe streets to live on, that rich and poor alike benefit from a well-educated populace, that taxes must be collected to pay for things, because a balanced checkbook is a good thing, people who understand an unregulated free market led to the Great Depression, and led to the post-Reagan recession, and to the post-Bush recession (both of them, actually).

So, yeah, I look at which group has a clue about how the puzzle pieces fit together, and which group throws tantrums when they don't.

I am a Liberal, because - as a statistical mass - Liberals have more compassion, and have their heads screwed on better. If this ever changes, then - like a good liberal - I will change, too.

Now, just in case you thought I was being unfair about the sad, pathetic, low-life, vitriolic, dirtbag, childish, slimy positions of "right-wingers," I'll let their own memes embarrass them.

#IAmIcarus