This is hilarious…some Conservative pundit shows the stupidity and indoctrination of our nation’s college kids and future elitists… College Kids Sign Card Thanking IRS For Targeting Conservatives
Well that just ain’t right.
Stupidity reigns. What’s LEFT to be said?
My college county voted for Romney by 10% (it voted for Obama in 2008 by 4% so big swing to the right) so I’m glad I don’t have to deal with lefty nuts like that.
Oh, god help us.
I’m not sure what’s more concerning, the fact that some signed it because they were asked and didn’t think about what they were signing or that some knew and still signed it.
The kids probably thought they were signing up for jello shots
[quote=“samspade, post:7, topic:39667”]
The kids probably thought they were signing up for jello shots
[/quote]C’mon Sam. They’re in college. They are smarter than us. They’d never do something this stupid.
[quote=“Tiny1, post:8, topic:39667”]
C’mon Sam. They’re in college. They are smarter than us. They’d never do something this stupid.
It’s funny because most of the people that signed it did it because they refused to accept the premise of the sign.
I might just not tell people I’m a Conservative when I go to college.
Well. if you stay true to your principles, they’ll find out soon enough.
This. Most people realized I was a republican very fast at WVU. Depending on who I talk too I say im either a Republican, Tea Party, Libertarian, or Constitution.
And hopefully most won’t care, one shouldn’t hate another for something a silly as political belief.
Agreed Robert. A lot of my friends in NC are Democrats ( like 55% or so), including my best friend. Though it’s more 50/50 split with my college friends.
Did you watch the same video as everyone else? I’m completely mystified (if you’re serious about what you just posted) as to why one might believe that these students were actually even considering beyond their weekend binge parties the implications of what they were signing. Seriously. These students showed not even an ounce of common sense or hesitancy at the fact that they might be being duped into signing something objectionable to clear-thinking individuals. LOL You give these particular kids waaaay too much credit.
He saw the same video. Remember, to a progressive, “The truth is incorrect.”
This person is walking around with a card asking people to sign it thanking the IRS for targeting conservative organizations. The question has a premise: that the IRS was targeting conservative organizations, and several of these students that sign the card audibly say they reject that premise, with one saying he thinks it’s a “false controversy,” or something to that effect. The falacie comes from assuming that signing the card means that people like the IRS targeting conservative organizations, when in fact the main reason most signed it is because they don’t think that at all, but think the IRS was in the right to target groups trying to take advantage of the newly changed 501©(3) status in the law, including many Tea Party groups and, as Caudi has shown, liberal groups as well. As I’ve shown in another thread, and have yet to have a response, supporting or denouncing specific candidates is grounds for removal of 501©(3) status. Do you really think that the Tea Party groups were not supporting or denouncing candidates?
As an example, what if a liberal was going around with a card thanking a conservative governor for taking away a woman’s rights (banning abortion). Now, if you are pro-life, do you think a lot of pro-lifers would sign that card as an act of protest? I think, given that you like what the governor did, you would indeed sign the card. That doesn’t mean you’re against women’s rights.
Combining a loaded question with street interviews makes for a funny video for conservatives, but it doesn’t honestly portray the people signing the card. To think that college kids would actively support targeting groups is ludicrous. More likely than not they think these groups don’t deserve 501©(3) status under the law, which is arguably true. I’ve expressed my opinions before about street interviews—they’re entertainment. They are not an accurate portrayal of people or their views, though.
And regardless of what the IRS did or didn’t do, or who is right in this scandal, one thing is certain—one side is not obviously correct, and these kids obviously do not agree with the position that the IRS targetted anyone. So arguing that they do agree with that position is stupid. They don’t. They think the IRS was correct, and properly denied 501©(3) status to organizations that didn’t deserve it.
And I guess to you, loaded questions and street interviews are truth. :plain:
tl;dr: would a bunch of liberal college students think the IRS targeted conservative groups? No. So why sign the card? Because they reject the premise and think the IRS was right and didn’t target conservatives.
If the sign had instead said, “Thank you, IRS, for denying groups 501©(3) status,” there’d be no question why those kids signed it. That’s not what it said, though, because loading a premise into a question is a sure fire dishonest way to make your opponent say something stupid.
Watch Thank You for Smoking. In this scene, from the question, “Is chocolate or vanilla better,” Nick rejects the premise that any one of them is better, and instead makes the question about choice. These college students reject the premise that the IRS did anything wrong and instead make the question about whether they did anything wrong at all.
Trekky, Trekky, Trekky…
Once again we see that people just see what they want to. I re-watched the video and made notes. Only five students out of the dozens who were asked to sign this card, actually made a comment about what the IRS was doing. In all but one of them, when pushed to explain the position further, was the girl somewhat siding with a fence-sitter’s position. The first one thought that it was a fake scandal for something that the IRS was actually doing right. The second said that it was “rad” that they were doing this. The third (the girl) first stated that the IRS did the right thing by targeting the Conservatives, but followed up by saying that it was also the wrong thing. The fourth said something to the effect that it was perfectly fine that the IRS was finally “doing its job” and the last was obviously a prompted statement “Thank you, IRS, for targeting the Tea Party and Conservatives.”
You attempted to start up a dialogue about how this was not what was pictured, when you had not one shred of evidence to such effect. You take a contrary position to whatever is posted when it doesn’t agree with your bolted-down ideology instead of merely taking the facts of the matter and using those to win your argument. I get it. Libs have been doing this forever. They see something that is being challenged that is near and dear to their hearts and, instead of taking the facts and using them to display their point, they radically begin flailing about with excuses, feelings, circle-logic, and random meanderings of thought. That way, the normal casual observer gets lost in the desert and never revisits the subject again.
Look, if you had said that this is an unfair assessment based on the fact that there were only five students out of the myriad who actually stated an opinion, then I would have been right on-board. But you didn’t. You took the oft-used route of diversion and deflection and misdirection.
Call it what it is. You and I both know how radicalized the Universities are and it would be disingenuous to state otherwise. If you don’t buy that, I will gladly dig up statistics for you that make my point about how many Liberal professors are kept on staff versus how many Conservatives. You made this statement above: “The falacie comes from assuming that signing the card means that people like the IRS targeting conservative organizations, when in fact the main reason most signed it is because they don’t think that at all, but think the IRS was in the right to target groups trying to take advantage of the newly changed 501©(3) status in the law…”
That line alone is not worth the words that are put into it simply because you admitted a couple of lines earlier that only “several” students audibly said anything regarding the controversy. The fact that none of them really supported your assertion notwithstanding, you then sum up by saying it’s a fallacy because “most signed it…because they don’t think that at all”. That’s a flat-out misdirection.
Not a single one of these dozens (from the card’s surface, back and front) made a statement to support your theory. If I were you, I’d stick to the facts from now on and not just your opinions. I’m a person who looks at things both on the surface and into-between-the-lines, but your reach to excuse these no-nothing four or five is seriously short of the mark.