OT Stereotypes of "liberals" vs "conservatives"
Curious Man
people who interrupt TV viewing only to go to soup lines, or smoke
harmful substances, whereas "conservatives" are hard working, self
reliant people who are very well off due to their own perseverance and
work ethic.
And yet, the few self proclaimed or suspected liberals and Obama
supporters of this newsgroup, seem to be very well off, accomplished
people, whereas many conservatives, while intelligent and interesting
people on many levels, are not exactly above that kind of level of
attainment.
If that is the case, is that perhaps the time to reconsider our
stereotypes?
Curious Man
Wes
>There seems to be a stereotype that "liberals" are the lazy sorts of
>people who interrupt TV viewing only to go to soup lines, or smoke
>harmful substances, whereas "conservatives" are hard working, self
>reliant people who are very well off due to their own perseverance and
>work ethic.
Well as to the latter, most of us do work hard. Many liberals work as hard or harder than
some conservatives. What they can't get into their heads is that many they coddle are
disadvantaged due to that persons personal failure and no program is going to help and
most programs help them eek out an existence going no where which barely sustains them and
keeps them trapped in a cycle of poverty.
>
>And yet, the few self proclaimed or suspected liberals and Obama
>supporters of this newsgroup, seem to be very well off, accomplished
>people, whereas many conservatives, while intelligent and interesting
>people on many levels, are not exactly above that kind of level of
>attainment.
I hate to break your bubble but some prosperous conservatives actually share the wealth.
My brother in law works for a very conservative, like to the right of me family, that
takes damn good care of their employees. Being conservative, they share their wealth, not
yours. The difference is they share the wealth with those that create it.
>
>If that is the case, is that perhaps the time to reconsider our
>stereotypes?
Liberals don't understand tough love, cause and effects, they want a good world, bless
their hearts, but they don't understand that we are barely civilized. Conservatives have
a more realistic view of the situation at hand. Enlightened self interest is a way of
describing conservatism.
>
>Curious Man
I hope I helped you understand the different lines of thought,
Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller
SonomaProducts.com
I thunk us conserbitives were da beer drinking, flag wavi'n, blindly
patriotic neanderthals and the liburuls were da smart edjumakated ones
who knows whats really best fur us.
Ed Huntress
"Curious Man" <parc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:2s66dd....@news.alt.net...
If you want some interesting thoughts, you might want to ask conservatives
what they think a conservative is, and liberals what a liberal is. That
should be much more interesting than asking either group to consider what
the opposing ideology is.
To the degree that they're in opposition, their answers probably will have
nothing to do with the historical meanings of either idea, but it would be a
refreshing change from listening to them demonize each other. They might
even be surprised to learn that neither idea has much to do with the other,
or to opposing each other, but that's a lot to ask.
--
Ed Huntress
krw
<parc...@aol.com> wrote:
>There seems to be a stereotype that "liberals" are the lazy sorts of
>people who interrupt TV viewing only to go to soup lines, or smoke
>harmful substances, whereas "conservatives" are hard working, self
>reliant people who are very well off due to their own perseverance and
>work ethic.
>
>And yet, the few self proclaimed or suspected liberals and Obama
>supporters of this newsgroup, seem to be very well off, accomplished
>people, whereas many conservatives, while intelligent and interesting
>people on many levels, are not exactly above that kind of level of
>attainment.
Show us your data. IOW, you're talking out your a$$.
>If that is the case, is that perhaps the time to reconsider our
>stereotypes?
Perhaps you should reconsider yours.
cavelamb
i think what he is saying is that your stereotypes should be the
same as his...
Ed Huntress
"cavelamb" <cave...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:x4ydnW6fafgCxLXX...@earthlink.com...
More likely what he would have said, had he not been so polite, is that the
people who identify themselves at either end of the spectrum are out of
their minds. And, of course, he would be correct. d8-)
--
Ed Huntress
R T Smith
"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:4a286104$0$22526$607e...@cv.net...
Correct. There are many examples of stupidity and brilliance from both
sides.
However, grouped together there are possibly more stupidity than brilliance
committed throughout history of mankind.
krw
wrote:
Ah, yes. That is the leftist's way.
wmbjk...@citlink.net
> Many liberals work as hard or harder than
>some conservatives. What they can't get into their heads
"They, they, they"..... Never mind what group you're supposedly in, or
what group you think others are in. If *you* are willing to promote
stereotypes, and make up self-serving attributes for them, then *you*
are ignorant. Now, prove my point by explaining how my statement could
only come from a libtard or whatever. <sigh>
Wayne
cavelamb
I'm glad you are back at it, Ed.
It's always refreshing to get your read on this stuff.
Hawke
> >>> There seems to be a stereotype that "liberals" are the lazy sorts of
> >>> people who interrupt TV viewing only to go to soup lines, or smoke
> >>> harmful substances, whereas "conservatives" are hard working, self
> >>> reliant people who are very well off due to their own perseverance and
> >>> work ethic.
> >>>
> >>> And yet, the few self proclaimed or suspected liberals and Obama
> >>> supporters of this newsgroup, seem to be very well off, accomplished
> >>> people, whereas many conservatives, while intelligent and interesting
> >>> people on many levels, are not exactly above that kind of level of
> >>> attainment.
> >>
> >> Show us your data. IOW, you're talking out your a$$.
> >>
> >>> If that is the case, is that perhaps the time to reconsider our
> >>> stereotypes?
> >>
> >> Perhaps you should reconsider yours.
> >
> >i think what he is saying is that your stereotypes should be the
> >same as his...
>
> Ah, yes. That is the leftist's way.
At least that is what you think the leftist's way is. What people are
forgetting is that there are stereotypes, which do have some truth to them,
and then there is reality. There are concrete things that actually make
someone a liberal or a conservative. They each have their own ways and
beliefs. The problem is when one side makes claims about the other side
which are not true, which is usually the case. In this group, which is
filled with right wingers and republicans denigration of "liberals" are
posted constantly. That's because the "wingers" detest anyone who has views
that are different from theirs (a conservative trait). Proof of this is the
unending stream of criticism and invectives directed at liberals by them.
Take one trait that is common among liberals; tolerance. This same trait is
not shared or highly regarded by conservatives. A trait they like a lot more
is authority or hierarchy. Each group has it's own group of attributes and
they are not shared much by the other group. Both groups have a low opinion
of the other group. But if you want to know the facts about one group or the
other you don't ask the other side because most of what they think is wrong.
Anyone can find the truth about liberals or conservatives if they want but
for most people it's a lot easier to simply call the other group names and
say nasty things about them. On this group, most of the people doing that
are conservatives. That's is not an opinion. It's a fact.
Hawke
William Wixon
i more or less recently became acquainted with a 71 y.o. man (i'm 49), he
served in the air force during korea, i'd consider him "conservative" or
"ultra conservative". he's catholic. i collaborated with him on three
projects. first was volunteer labor cleaning up a hillbilly shanty town
(that's what i called it) mess at a girl scout camp here. the live-in
caretaker allowed a 10~15 year accumulation of junk to collect. he and i,
then mostly i, cleaned it up. second collaboration was picking up the
litter, junk, garbage along a local country road here. third was a year
later continuation of that same litter/garbage pick up effort. thing that
amazes me is he and i couldn't be more diametrically opposed in our
political beliefs but yet he and i can peacefully cooperate on projects
that, i believe, are to the betterment of our community. i'm absolutely
amazed i can remain in his presence for more than 10 seconds considering
his, what for me are RADICAL right wing opinions. it continues to amaze me.
my blood turns to ice the second he starts in on his political views,
thankfully i've been able to avoid having to endure listening to them very
often or for very long. i have a continuous fear that somewhere along the
line he's going to go off on obama or liberals or "socialists" and i
absolutely will not be able to tolerate it and my relationship with him will
come to a screeching halt. that would be a pity. i do enjoy hanging out
with him, bullshitting with him, working on those projects together with
him. thing i find surprising is there are areas of overlap between
"liberals" and conservatives. "caring for the planet", bettering our
community, respecting nature and local history, preserving open
space/farmland. he's pretty much the driving force behind a local movement
to stop a housing development that's slated to go on historic farmland here,
that's the part where much to my surprise, liberal and conservative overlap.
i'd assume you wouldn't ordinarily think conservatives would oppose a
housing development, but this is open historic farmland. i'd think
conservatives would be staunch "landowner's rights" proponents. he's very
active in the community, on the library board, member of the historical
society, constantly doing volunteer work for the community. an inspiration
to this "liberal" "socialist".
i was thinking the volume is turned up here on usenet discussion groups.
probably out there in the world "liberals" and conservatives cooperate on
all sorts of worthy projects, projects that get little or no press. i'd
like to hope so at least.
b.w.
NuWave Dave
: "cavelamb" <cave...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
I thought he was just being a conservative.
Dave in Houston
Too_Many_Tools
FYI....
TMT
Conservatives Are More Easily Disgusted
Robert Roy Britt
LiveScience.com robert Roy Britt
People who squirm at the sight of bugs or are grossed out by blood and
guts are more likely to be politically conservative, new studies find.
In particular, the squeamish are more apt to have conservative
attitudes about gays and lesbians.
Lots of other research has tied politics to biology and behavior. Some
quick background:
* A study last year found that when people feel physically clean,
they are less judgmental.
* Another study found that political conservatives tend to be
tidy, with organized offices, but liberals favor colorful, more
stylish but cluttered spaces.
* Political views are driven by religion, culture and even
biology, other research has shown.
* A large, global study in 2007 concluded that political
preference is 50 percent genetic.
The new studies
In one of the new studies, Cornell University psychology professor
David Pizarro and colleagues surveyed 181 U.S. adults from politically
mixed swing states. They used a Disgust Sensitivity Scale (DSS), which
offers various scenarios to assess disgust sensitivity, as well as a
political ideology scale. They found a correlation between being more
easily disgusted and political conservatism.
Then they surveyed 91 Cornell undergraduates with the DSS, as well as
with questions about their positions on issues including gay marriage,
abortion, gun control, labor unions, tax cuts and affirmative action.
Participants who rated higher in disgust sensitivity were more likely
to oppose gay marriage and abortion, issues that are related to
notions of morality or purity.
The results are detailed in the journal Cognition & Emotion.
In a separate study in the current issue of the journal Emotion,
Pizarro and colleagues found a link between higher disgust sensitivity
and disapproval of gays and lesbians. In this research, they used
implicit measures, which assess attitudes people may be unwilling to
report explicitly or that they may not even know they possess. The
studies were funded by the university.
Morals and disgust
Morals and disgust are intertwined. Research earlier this year found
that people react similarly to disgusting photographs by curling the
upper lip and wrinkling the nose. When judging behavior, our disgust
can actually make us feel physically sick.
Pizarro explains that disgust is evolution's way of protecting us from
disease. Unfortunately, in his view, disgust is now used to make moral
judgments.
Liberals and conservatives disagree about whether disgust has a valid
place in making moral judgments, Pizarro argues. Some conservatives
think there is inherent wisdom in repugnance, that feeling disgusted
about something - gay sex between consenting adults, for example - is
cause enough to judge it wrong or immoral, even lacking a concrete
reason, Pizarro explains. Liberals tend to disagree, and are more
likely to base judgments on whether an action or a thing causes actual
harm, he said.
Studying the link between disgust and moral judgment could help
explain the strong differences in people's moral opinions, Pizarro
figures. And it could offer strategies for persuading some to change
their views.
"People have pointed out for a long time that a lot of our moral
values seem driven by emotion, and in particular, disgust appears to
be one of those emotions that seems to be recruited for moral
judgments," Pizarro said.
An interesting related aside to chew on: Research published in 2007 in
the Journal of Applied Psychology found that people who think of
themselves as having high moral standards often become the worst
cheats because they pursue what they believe to be a moral end at all
cost.
Too_Many_Tools
> "Curious Man" <parc_...@aol.com> wrote in message
First of all let me thank you for walking the talk in relation to
community support...most people can only talk and suddenly disappear
when the work needs to be done.
Most conservatives will back business unless it negatively affects
their pocketbook. In respect to the historic farmland, is it military
related..which with his military experience he would now attach an
emotional significance.
From the description of the community, it may be that this person is
leading the charge in community activies for the social position that
it gives him in the community versus doing because it should be done.
The real question is "Does he get his hands dirty?" versus spending
hours on committees and meetings where he is the center of attention.
And a piece of advice...if you spend much time around him the opposing
political views will surface and clash sooner or later...and with his
visibility in the community, he may likely use it to negatively
influence others around you about you. Plan for it and be prepared
before it happens.
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
Well said.
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
Morris Dovey
I've always thought that "conservative" meant "not in favor of changing
some established norm"; and that "liberal" indicated a willingness to
try new approaches...
I had a seventh grade teacher who gave my class some interesting
guidance: "I don't want you to have closed minds, nor do I want you to
have open minds," he said, "I want you to have /openable/ minds - to
hold to what you know to be true, and to be prepared to replace the old
ideas when you gave good reason to /decide/ that something is more true
or works better."
Does that make one a conservative liberal or a liberal conservative? :)
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
wmbjk...@citlink.net
I know the feeling. In my neck of the woods, I pretty much couldn't
have any local friends at all unless I'm willing to tolerate rabid
conservatives. Each has their individual volume level, so I treat them
accordingly. Some are good friends, and we either avoid topics of
disagreement or banter in good humor. Some become more acquaintances
than friends because needing to work around their issues devalues
their friendship. And some get cut loose entirely because they can't
contain themselves. Two of those got their emails blocked because they
refused to stop sending political BS despite being asked politely. I
find that those who promote nonsense such as BA being sworn in on the
Koran are just plain ignorant, a trait that carries over well beyond
politics. In the end though, things wouldn't be much different overall
even if I lived in a more liberal area. I can certainly imagine
blocking email from rabid left-wing neighbors (if I had any) for
example. Heck, even people I really like sometimes have to be told to
stop sending so many jokes, videos, etc. I think that the effect of
opposing political ideology is often overblown. People seem to have a
natural tendency to divide themselves into opposing camps, and if
there's no obvious reason to do so then they'll find one before long.
Anybody who's ever attended a homeowner's association meeting will
know what I'm talking about. :-)
Wayne
Doug Winterburn
outcome.
Ed Huntress
"Doug Winterburn" <dlwint...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0GbWl.1905$Dr4...@newsfe24.iad...
As should be clear from the last half-century of debates about human rights,
that's a false dichotomy. It's another 18th-century Enlightenment conceit
that sounds good in theory, and that helps maintain the logic of (classical)
liberal thought, but it falls apart in practice.
I liked the analogy made by someone back when affirmative action was first
being discussed, around 1970 or so. He said that breaking down legal
barriers to employment opportunity was like telling someone who had been
chained up for 20 years that, now that his chains were removed, he is
expected to compete in a 100-yard dash on an equal basis. "Now, go run, and
no more complaints from you," it says.
--
Ed Huntress
Drew Lawson
Morris Dovey <mrd...@iedu.com> writes:
>
>Does that make one a conservative liberal or a liberal conservative? :)
>
I've long prefered the phrase from a comic strip (maybe B.C.) that
was reprinted in one of my textbooks:
a radical middle-of-the-roader
--
Drew Lawson | Broke my mind
| Had no spare
|
Ed Huntress
"Drew Lawson" <dr...@furrfu.invalid> wrote in message
news:h0bhrs$1mgb$1...@raid.furrfu.com...
> In article <4a294143$0$89386$815e...@news.qwest.net>
> Morris Dovey <mrd...@iedu.com> writes:
>>
>>Does that make one a conservative liberal or a liberal conservative? :)
>>
>
> I've long prefered the phrase from a comic strip (maybe B.C.) that
> was reprinted in one of my textbooks:
> a radical middle-of-the-roader
"Radical centrist" and the "radical middle" are developing political ideas
that show up in all sorts of contexts. It's part of the "Third Way" group of
political philosophies but it largely rejects the idea of the center as a
compromise position. It works more as a synthesis than a compromise, to the
degree that it does work.
Some people would consider Clinton to be a Third Way politician who
triangulates conflicts to arrive at a balance that mollifies conflict. By
that light Obama is more of a radical centrist, a pragmatist who is focused
more on what should work rather than what will satisfy conflicts, which is
why he pisses off the left almost as often as he pisses off the right. He's
trying to glue it all together by means of rhetorical skill and sharp
political maneuvering.
--
Ed Huntress
Steve Turner
I beg to differ; I thought what he said was a load of shit.
--
Any given amount of traffic flow, no matter how
sparse, will expand to fill all available lanes.
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/
Steve Turner
Whatever it is, I'm one of 'em. :-)
Robatoy
Yup. Me too. From a business perspective I'm a conservative. Small
government, low taxes, yadda, yadda. I'm anti abortion, but pro-
choice. I defend the right to own weapons. I think there should be a
central health-care system open to all, but more open to those who can
afford it, as long as it doesn't displace somebody from a list who
needs care. Cancer treatment is one thing, cancer treatment at a
country-club should be an option if you have the money.
I saw what you Americans can do when my sister needed the best of
care, and my hat is off to you for that kind of quality.
I am also aware of the bankruptcies caused by basic old-age care in
your fine country.
So I guess I'm a pinko-commie-librul when it comes to taking care of
those old people who built the countries we get to enjoy.
I was originally taken in by Bush's rhetoric on 'compassionate
conservatives' just to find out he was lying warmongering megalomaniac
who had an inferiority complex to the point that all he wanted to do
was please his daddy...how sick was that?
Bush did more to set back the concept conservatism than anybody I can
think of.
Put me in the middle, but don't call me a moderate-anything, because
that pisses me off. I'm quite vehement about those things I think are
right. I try to advance the technology in work-surface products and
now teach the skills at a local college to those who also think this
can be a real business. Now... here comes the funny part. The college
wanted to pay me. I passed. Not because I was feeling particularly
benevolent, but I would have to spend more money for somebody to fill
out the paperwork for the current government than I stood to make from
the whole project. WHICH makes me a non-liberal.
Ha!!
Drew Lawson
"Hawke" <desmi...@dslextreme.com> writes:
>
>Take one trait that is common among liberals; tolerance. This same trait is
>not shared or highly regarded by conservatives. A trait they like a lot more
I must call bullshit on that one.
I find tolerance to be about equally practiced by liberals and
conservatives, though you may find it preached more frequently by
(political) liberals.
It is a trait I rarely see displayed by pundits of either side.
--
|Drew Lawson | Of all the things I've lost |
| | I miss my mind the most |
RB
(Usual BS generalisms follow)
Sheesh. William writes a thoughtful commentary on the common ground
between liberals and conservatives, and you launch into questioning the
motives on everything the conservative does.
Your post was the diametric opposite of Williams and the very reason
people like you wind up in the Trollheap - you have no reasoning to
bring to any real discussion.
What a frickin' loser
Too_Many_Tools
LOL...conservatives are so funny...and they get POed when someone tags
them for what they are.
Sounds like my comments touched a bit too close to home...did they
remind you of your true motives?
My response was meant to be thoughtful and helpful.
William has already noted that he is having to keep his distance from
this conservative...and I admire him for being politically astute.
The conservative in question may be harmless...but from the info I
have to work with indicates one should take a defensive posture until
more info indicates otherwise.
Personally I hope William and this conservative become the best of
friends so each can learn from the other's views of life....both
liberal and conservative...they both have something to teach.
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
Good post.
FYI...it was recently noted that 60% of the personal bankruptcies are
due to medical costs.
TMT
Steve Turner
> In article <tX0Wl.1703$Dr4...@newsfe24.iad>
> "Hawke" <desmi...@dslextreme.com> writes:
>> Take one trait that is common among liberals; tolerance. This same trait is
>> not shared or highly regarded by conservatives. A trait they like a lot more
>
> I must call bullshit on that one.
> I find tolerance to be about equally practiced by liberals and
> conservatives, though you may find it preached more frequently by
> (political) liberals.
>
> It is a trait I rarely see displayed by pundits of either side.
That's one of the reasons I said Hawke's post was a load of shit. Most
of the most vehemently intolerant people I know are liberals. Of
course, that depends on what your definition of "intolerant" is... If
it's aimed in the right direction, it's somehow "justified".
--
See Nad. See Nad go. Go Nad!
HeyBub
> There seems to be a stereotype that "liberals" are the lazy sorts of
> people who interrupt TV viewing only to go to soup lines, or smoke
> harmful substances, whereas "conservatives" are hard working, self
> reliant people who are very well off due to their own perseverance and
> work ethic.
>
> And yet, the few self proclaimed or suspected liberals and Obama
> supporters of this newsgroup, seem to be very well off, accomplished
> people, whereas many conservatives, while intelligent and interesting
> people on many levels, are not exactly above that kind of level of
> attainment.
>
> If that is the case, is that perhaps the time to reconsider our
> stereotypes?
>
Liberals tend to provide for the common welfare through the treasury;
Conservative tend to promote the general welfare through the economy.
Your observations have some merit. But the people who post here, who
genuinely want to help others, yet express "liberal" tendencies, are merely
proto-conservatives. As they age and accumulate wisdom, they'll change.
Wes
>Liberals tend to provide for the common welfare through the treasury;
>Conservative tend to promote the general welfare through the economy.
That is an interesting take on this.
I tend to think Conservative is someone that recognizes the founding fathers, that likely
were Liberals got it mostly right other than things like slavery and women's suffrage, and
don't really want to depart from the original blueprint other than for the modifications
for the aforementioned errors.
Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller
Robatoy
Into what?
Too_Many_Tools
I think there are "intolerant" people of both political persuasions.
In my experience the conservatives are the ones who win the SOB Award.
But the OP noted...and I agree...that many of the postings we see here
are from conservatives ranting and stamping their feet about the
latest "injustice".
Read the responses to this discussion...and note that the
conservatives are the ones bitching.
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
LOL...I used to be a conservative but as I get older I find myself
becoming much more liberal.
That liberalism comes from acquiring wisdom.
And if you haven't noticed, the Country just slapped the conservative
movement into the next decade after enjoying its "benefits" under
Bush.
As those voters who voted for Obama age, they will be liberal leaning
for decades.
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
LOL
The Founding Fathers were very liberal.
You need to revisit history.
It was the Tories who were the conservatives of their day...and we
know how that worked out.
A lot like the last Presidential election.
TMT
guil...@gis.net
> "Doug Winterburn" <dlwinterb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
If you believe in "reverse racism", then you believe in racism.
Ed Pawlowski
<guil...@gis.net> wrote in message
> If you believe in "reverse racism", then you believe in racism.
Both exist
Ed Pawlowski
"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> I liked the analogy made by someone back when affirmative action was first
> being discussed, around 1970 or so. He said that breaking down legal
> barriers to employment opportunity was like telling someone who had been
> chained up for 20 years that, now that his chains were removed, he is
> expected to compete in a 100-yard dash on an equal basis. "Now, go run,
> and no more complaints from you," it says.
IMO, the proper approach it to allow that person to compete and, if he
fails, to help him so that he can do better in the future. You don't tell
the other competitors to slow down, nor do you ignore the fact that they did
the best of their ability. .
Ed Pawlowski
"Too_Many_Tools" <too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
LOL...I used to be a conservative but as I get older I find myself
becoming much more liberal.
That liberalism comes from acquiring wisdom.
And if you haven't noticed, the Country just slapped the conservative
movement into the next decade after enjoying its "benefits" under
Bush.
As those voters who voted for Obama age, they will be liberal leaning
for decades.
******************************************************************
Acquiring wisdom means you see the faults of both. The radicals on either
end are plain crazy .
As a registered "non partisan" voter, I've had people tell me I'm wrong and
should make a commitment. Fact is,neither of our two major parties deserve
my commitment and support. I wish the Libertarians could get their stuff
together because in principle, I agree with them. Less government is better
government
J. Clarke
> In article <4a294143$0$89386$815e...@news.qwest.net>
> Morris Dovey <mrd...@iedu.com> writes:
>>
>> Does that make one a conservative liberal or a liberal conservative?
>> :)
>>
>
> I've long prefered the phrase from a comic strip (maybe B.C.) that
> was reprinted in one of my textbooks:
> a radical middle-of-the-roader
FWIW, Mack Reynolds wrote a story in 1967 entitled "Radical Center". I
can't remember anything about it other than the title, but the title was
memorable enough.
Steve Turner
> On Jun 5, 4:04 pm, Steve Turner <bbqbo...@swtacobell.net> wrote:
>> Drew Lawson wrote:
>>> In article <tX0Wl.1703$Dr4....@newsfe24.iad>
>>> "Hawke" <desmith...@dslextreme.com> writes:
>>>> Take one trait that is common among liberals; tolerance. This same trait is
>>>> not shared or highly regarded by conservatives. A trait they like a lot more
>>> I must call bullshit on that one.
>>> I find tolerance to be about equally practiced by liberals and
>>> conservatives, though you may find it preached more frequently by
>>> (political) liberals.
>>> It is a trait I rarely see displayed by pundits of either side.
>> That's one of the reasons I said Hawke's post was a load of shit. Most
>> of the most vehemently intolerant people I know are liberals. Of
>> course, that depends on what your definition of "intolerant" is... If
>> it's aimed in the right direction, it's somehow "justified".
>
I wouldn't disagree with that.
> In my experience the conservatives are the ones who win the SOB Award.
You sound intolerant of conservatives.
> But the OP noted...and I agree...that many of the postings we see here
> are from conservatives ranting and stamping their feet about the
> latest "injustice".
I normally steer completely clear of political discussions, and I try to
stay as neutral and open as possible, but every once in a while a
bullshit statement like that just gets my goat. I've been in and out of
here (rec.woodworking, that is) many times over the last eight to ten
years, but for the past six months or so it's been regular enough to
form a fairly solid opinion of the current overall "climate". My
10-second summary from a 50-foot view? Both sides get a big charge out
of stirring up shit, but as soon as a debate starts up it's the liberals
who are so quick to shout insults and foam at the mouth, and that just
rubs me wrong (in a totally non-partisan way). I don't know *what*
forum you're referring to when you say it's the conservatives who are
"ranting and stamping their feet", but it's not the same one I'm
reading. Trust me, I'm just about the most impartial observer one could
hope to find, but if I was going to hand out a "calm and collected"
award it would go the conservatives, hands down.
> Read the responses to this discussion...
I have, several times.
> and note that the conservatives are the ones bitching.
I drew no such conclusion.
--
If it ain't perfect, improve it...
But don't break it while you're fixin' it!
Doug Winterburn
As my dear old departed mum told me almost 50 years ago - "When you're
young, you're idealistic and liberal, then you got to work and start
paying taxes and become a conservative, then you get old and start
looking for help because you didn't plan ahead and you become liberal
again".
Larry Jaques
On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 16:41:32 +0000 (UTC), the infamous
dr...@furrfu.invalid (Drew Lawson) scrawled the following:
>In article <4a294143$0$89386$815e...@news.qwest.net>
> Morris Dovey <mrd...@iedu.com> writes:
>>
>>Does that make one a conservative liberal or a liberal conservative? :)
>>
>
>I've long prefered the phrase from a comic strip (maybe B.C.) that
>was reprinted in one of my textbooks:
> a radical middle-of-the-roader
I used to describe myself as a liberally moderate conservative. Now,
to Ed's chagrin (or just grin), I'm registered as a Libertarian.
---
So far Mr. Obama has used his personally exciting presidency for initiatives
that are spending public money on a scale not seen since ancient Egypt.
-- Daniel Henninger
WSJ Online, 4 June 2009
"Obama's America: Too Fat to Fail
The age of the induced industrial coma."
Too_Many_Tools
You need to get out more...rec.woodworking is one of the more
civilized groups.
Cruise some of the other groups and you will see conservatives doing
as I said.
Try googling "Gunner" and be prepared for a year's worth of ranting.
There are many more.
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
LOL...tell me...what will the millions of Americans do in the next few
years for retirement when their 401Ks are worth nothing, their houses
are worth much, much less and with millions living off what savings
they might have?
Or the damning fact that 60% of bankruptcies are medical related...and
you incur most of your medical costs after retirement.
And you do realize that this deep, deep recession has a long way to go
yet. Best estimates that the economy MAY bottom out late next year. So
how deep of pockets do you have..especially if government payments are
cut?
The truth in life is that you can do everything right and still arrive
at retirement penniless.
TMT
guil...@gis.net
> <guill...@gis.net> wrote in message
> > If you believe in "reverse racism", then you believe in racism.
>
> Both exist
I should have been more clear. Neither should. They are both based
on the same principle -- racial collectivism -- treating groups based
upon race or ethnicity. People who believe that affirmative action is
a redress for the racism of the past only justify it in principle.
But pragmatists don't believe in principles, only results -- the ends
justify the means. In practice, they end up creating more racism by
practicing a version of their own. Pragmatist mix good and bad
principles indifferently. The bad ones always end up being more
expedient and take over the show.
Pragmatism vs. ideology:
A guy carries a briefcase into a bar, walks up to the prettiest girl,
opens the briefcase to reveal one million dollars, and asks the girl
if she will sleep with him for the million dollars. She thnks,
"Hmmm...For a million dollars? O.k.!". He then closes the briefcase
and pulls out a one dollar bill and says, "Will you sleep with me for
one dollar?" The girl immediately slaps him in the face and asks,
"What kind of girl do you think I am?" and he says, "We've figured out
what you are, now we're just negotiating the price!"
Mark F
>>>>> There seems to be a stereotype that "liberals" are the lazy sorts of
>>>>> people who interrupt TV viewing only to go to soup lines, or smoke
>>>>> harmful substances, whereas "conservatives" are hard working, self
>>>>> reliant people who are very well off due to their own perseverance and
>>>>> work ethic.
>>>>>
>>>>> And yet, the few self proclaimed or suspected liberals and Obama
>>>>> supporters of this newsgroup, seem to be very well off, accomplished
>>>>> people, whereas many conservatives, while intelligent and interesting
>>>>> people on many levels, are not exactly above that kind of level of
>>>>> attainment.
>>>>
>>>>> stereotypes?
>>> i think what he is saying is that your stereotypes should be the
>>> same as his...
>> Ah, yes. That is the leftist's way.
>
> At least that is what you think the leftist's way is. What people are
> forgetting is that there are stereotypes, which do have some truth to them,
> and then there is reality. There are concrete things that actually make
> someone a liberal or a conservative. They each have their own ways and
> beliefs. The problem is when one side makes claims about the other side
> which are not true, which is usually the case. In this group, which is
> filled with right wingers and republicans denigration of "liberals" are
> posted constantly. That's because the "wingers" detest anyone who has views
> that are different from theirs (a conservative trait). Proof of this is the
> unending stream of criticism and invectives directed at liberals by them.
>
> not shared or highly regarded by conservatives. A trait they like a lot more
> they are not shared much by the other group. Both groups have a low opinion
> of the other group. But if you want to know the facts about one group or the
> other you don't ask the other side because most of what they think is wrong.
> Anyone can find the truth about liberals or conservatives if they want but
> for most people it's a lot easier to simply call the other group names and
> say nasty things about them. On this group, most of the people doing that
> are conservatives. That's is not an opinion. It's a fact.
>
> Hawke
>
>
Joseph Gwinn
<302b3f99-2802-4e74...@g1g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
guil...@gis.net wrote:
>
> Pragmatism vs. ideology:
> A guy carries a briefcase into a bar, walks up to the prettiest girl,
> opens the briefcase to reveal one million dollars, and asks the girl
> if she will sleep with him for the million dollars. She thnks,
> "Hmmm...For a million dollars? O.k.!". He then closes the briefcase
> and pulls out a one dollar bill and says, "Will you sleep with me for
> one dollar?" The girl immediately slaps him in the face and asks,
> "What kind of girl do you think I am?" and he says, "We've figured out
> what you are, now we're just negotiating the price!"
The basic storyline was originally from or at least attributed to George
Bernard Shaw, reportedly from a real encounter with a woman sitting next
to him at a dinner party:
"Madame, would you sleep with me for a million dollars?"
"A million dollars, yeah, I guess I would."
"Well then, would you sleep with me for ten dollars?"
"Sir, what kind of woman do you take me for?"
"Madame, what kind of woman you are has already been established; what
remains is just to agree on a price."
This story is too good to check.
Joe Gwinn
Lew Hodgett
> The basic storyline was originally from or at least attributed to
> George
> Bernard Shaw, reportedly from a real encounter with a woman sitting
> next
> to him at a dinner party:
There is also a version that attributes the story to Disreali and the
Queen.
Lew
Robatoy
My favourite Disraeli:
Mr Disraeli, you will probably die by the hangman's noose or of a vile
disease.
- Gladstone
Sir, that depends upon whether I embrace your principles or your
mistress.
- Disraeli.
Hawke
"Steve Turner" <bbqb...@swtacobell.net> wrote in message
news:MldWl.18436$%54....@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
> Too_Many_Tools wrote:
>
> I beg to differ; I thought what he said was a load of shit.
That's only because you're a right winger. You guys always dislike the
truth. Especially when it's said about you. I'm sure we could confirm that
by asking your wives or girlfriends.
Hawke
Hawke
> >Take one trait that is common among liberals; tolerance. This same trait
is
> >not shared or highly regarded by conservatives. A trait they like a lot
more
>
> I must call bullshit on that one.
> I find tolerance to be about equally practiced by liberals and
> conservatives, though you may find it preached more frequently by
> (political) liberals.
>
> It is a trait I rarely see displayed by pundits of either side.
The point is this, is the word tolerant one that is frequently used when
describing a conservative? There is just no denying the fact that tolerance
of other views, ideas, or lifestyles is not something that is commonly
associated with conservatives. You can deny that all you want but liberals
are always more associated with being tolerant than conservatives are.
That's just a fact.
Hawke
Ned Simmons
I've always associated the story with Oscar Wilde, but that may have
more to do with my impression of him than the actual source.
One about Truman Capote that is probably also to good to be true.
At the height of his fame, a lady spotted him in a restaurant, rushed
over and asked him to autograph her breast. Capote did so. Her
husband, incensed, strode over, took out his penis and suggested
Capote might like to autograph that too.
�Well,� responded Capote, �perhaps I could initial it...�
--
Ned Simmons
Hawke
...
>
> >>> There seems to be a stereotype that "liberals" are the lazy sorts of
> >>> people who interrupt TV viewing only to go to soup lines, or smoke
> >>> harmful substances, whereas "conservatives" are hard working, self
> >>> reliant people who are very well off due to their own perseverance and
> >>> work ethic.
> >>> And yet, the few self proclaimed or suspected liberals and Obama
> >>> supporters of this newsgroup, seem to be very well off, accomplished
> >>> people, whereas many conservatives, while intelligent and interesting
> >>> people on many levels, are not exactly above that kind of level of
> >>> attainment.
> >>> stereotypes?
> >> i more or less recently became acquainted with a 71 y.o. man (i'm 49),
he
> >> served in the air force during korea, i'd consider him "conservative"
or
> >> "ultra conservative". he's catholic. i collaborated with him on three
> >> projects. first was volunteer labor cleaning up a hillbilly shanty town
> >> (that's what i called it) mess at a girl scout camp here. the live-in
> >> caretaker allowed a 10~15 year accumulation of junk to collect. he and
i,
> >> then mostly i, cleaned it up. second collaboration was picking up the
> >> litter, junk, garbage along a local country road here. third was a year
> >> later continuation of that same litter/garbage pick up effort. thing
that
> >> amazes me is he and i couldn't be more diametrically opposed in our
> >> political beliefs but yet he and i can peacefully cooperate on projects
> >> that, i believe, are to the betterment of our community. i'm absolutely
> >> amazed i can remain in his presence for more than 10 seconds
considering
> >> his, what for me are RADICAL right wing opinions. it continues to amaze
me.
> >> my blood turns to ice the second he starts in on his political views,
> >> thankfully i've been able to avoid having to endure listening to them
very
> >> often or for very long. i have a continuous fear that somewhere along
the
> >> line he's going to go off on obama or liberals or "socialists" and i
> >> absolutely will not be able to tolerate it and my relationship with him
will
> >> come to a screeching halt. that would be a pity. i do enjoy hanging out
> >> with him, bullshitting with him, working on those projects together
with
> >> him. thing i find surprising is there are areas of overlap between
> >> "liberals" and conservatives. "caring for the planet", bettering our
> >> community, respecting nature and local history, preserving open
> >> space/farmland. he's pretty much the driving force behind a local
movement
> >> to stop a housing development that's slated to go on historic farmland
here,
> >> that's the part where much to my surprise, liberal and conservative
overlap.
> >> i'd assume you wouldn't ordinarily think conservatives would oppose a
> >> housing development, but this is open historic farmland. i'd think
> >> conservatives would be staunch "landowner's rights" proponents. he's
very
> >> active in the community, on the library board, member of the historical
> >> society, constantly doing volunteer work for the community. an
inspiration
> >> to this "liberal" "socialist".
> >> i was thinking the volume is turned up here on usenet discussion
groups.
> >> probably out there in the world "liberals" and conservatives cooperate
on
> >> all sorts of worthy projects, projects that get little or no press. i'd
> >> like to hope so at least.
>
> >> b.w.
>
> > First of all let me thank you for walking the talk in relation to
> > community support...most people can only talk and suddenly disappear
> > when the work needs to be done.
>
> > Most conservatives
>
> (Usual BS generalisms follow)
>
> Sheesh. William writes a thoughtful commentary on the common ground
> between liberals and conservatives, and you launch into questioning the
> motives on everything the conservative does.
> Your post was the diametric opposite of Williams and the very reason
> people like you wind up in the Trollheap - you have no reasoning to
> bring to any real discussion.
>
> What a frickin' loser
LOL...conservatives are so funny...and they get POed when someone tags
them for what they are.
Sounds like my comments touched a bit too close to home...did they
remind you of your true motives?
My response was meant to be thoughtful and helpful.
William has already noted that he is having to keep his distance from
this conservative...and I admire him for being politically astute.
The conservative in question may be harmless...but from the info I
have to work with indicates one should take a defensive posture until
more info indicates otherwise.
Personally I hope William and this conservative become the best of
friends so each can learn from the other's views of life....both
liberal and conservative...they both have something to teach.
TMT
I don't know if it's just me, but I've noticed a change over the years in
how conservatives act. It seems that in the past they were not that
forthcoming about their political views or about anything private or of a
sexual nature. They kept quiet about a lot of things and didn't go around
blabbing to everyone what they thought. Now it's completely different. As
William pointed out in his experience with the conservative, even though
they had a lot of things in common the conservative just couldn't keep his
political views to himself. I'm finding this happening all the time now.
Conservative just can't keep their mouths shut when it comes to political
issues. First off, they are angry about so much you can't believe it; and
second they have to tell everyone just how pissed off they are, and how
messed up the country is getting. Funny thing, back when I said the country
was going to hell the conservatives called me, guess what, unpatriotic. Now,
the things they say about this country are not only unpatriotic but they're
bordering on treasonous. When the shoe is on the other foot it seems it's a
whole different ball game for the conservatives. So have others noticed that
conservatives are no longer the "strong silent types" but are now loud,
overly emotional, and feel they have to "share" their views with anyone who
is within earshot? One last thing, even though they want to tell everyone
how they "feel" rarely can they back up what they say with facts and sound
arguments.
Hawke
Hawke
<guil...@gis.net> wrote in message
news:ebd83aa8-c2eb-4f57...@g19g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
Irrational. Correcting an injustice caused by actual racists against a
particular class by providing that class an advantage or some kind of
benefit to mitigate the harm done is not "reverse racism". Which, by the
way, simply doesn't exist. There is either racism or there is not.
Hawke
Hawke
> >Liberals tend to provide for the common welfare through the treasury;
> >Conservative tend to promote the general welfare through the economy.
>
> That is an interesting take on this.
>
> I tend to think Conservative is someone that recognizes the founding
fathers, that likely
> were Liberals got it mostly right other than things like slavery and
women's suffrage, and
> don't really want to depart from the original blueprint other than for the
modifications
> for the aforementioned errors.
I think it's more like this; conservatives are people who want to do one or
the other of two things in life. They either want to stand pat or else they
want to go back to some time in the past that they think was better than it
is now. Liberals, on the other hand, are people who want to do things
differently and see change as good. It's liberals who force conservatives to
move into the future and without them conservatives would be like African
tribesmen, living in huts and standing pat just like they have done for
thousands of years.
Hawke
rjd
> There seems to be a stereotype that "liberals" are the lazy sorts of
> people who interrupt TV viewing only to go to soup lines, or smoke
> harmful substances, whereas "conservatives" are hard working, self
> reliant people who are very well off due to their own perseverance and
> work ethic.
>
> And yet, the few self proclaimed or suspected liberals and Obama
> supporters of this newsgroup, seem to be very well off, accomplished
> people, whereas many conservatives, while intelligent and interesting
> people on many levels, are not exactly above that kind of level of
> attainment.
>
> If that is the case, is that perhaps the time to reconsider our
> stereotypes?
>
If I liberally apply a protective finish to one of my wood projects to
conserve it, what does that make me?
John R. Carroll
"rjd" <rjda...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:dc11d4dc-077a-494c...@x3g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
Prudent and wise.
LOL
JC
guil...@gis.net
>
> - Show quoted text -
OT^2 ???
Steve Turner
> truth. Especially when it's said about you. I'm sure we could confirm that
> by asking your wives or girlfriends.
>
> Hawke
Bullshit.
R T Smith
| >
| > That's only because you're a right winger. You guys always dislike the
| > truth. Especially when it's said about you. I'm sure we could confirm
that
| > by asking your wives or girlfriends.
| >
| > Hawke
|
Political Correctness is a way to hide and misrepresent the truth.
Is that a Conservative or a Liberal concept?
Buerste
"Hawke" <desmi...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
news:KfBWl.1237$wY3...@newsfe05.iad...
I think that in what you have said that a neutral person could reverse the
words "Conservative" and "Liberal" and it would ring true either way.
I believe your opinions of conservatives are based on a collage of the worst
traits of the far fringe right, as is true with some opinions of liberals by
some of the conservatives.
In reality, I think most people are somewhere closer to the center. In some
views, I have more liberal opinions than you and most liberals and you
probably have the reverse.
Michael A. Terrell
A woodworker.
--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!
guil...@gis.net
> > >>> There seems to be a stereotype that "liberals" are the lazy sorts of
> > >>> people who interrupt TV viewing only to go to soup lines, or smoke
> > >>> harmful substances, whereas "conservatives" are hard working, self
> > >>> reliant people who are very well off due to their own perseverance and
> > >>> work ethic.
>
> > >>> And yet, the few self proclaimed or suspected liberals and Obama
> > >>> supporters of this newsgroup, seem to be very well off, accomplished
> > >>> people, whereas many conservatives, while intelligent and interesting
> > >>> people on many levels, are not exactly above that kind of level of
> > >>> attainment.
>
>
> > >>> stereotypes?
>
>
> > >i think what he is saying is that your stereotypes should be the
> > >same as his...
>
> > Ah, yes. That is the leftist's way.
>
> At least that is what you think the leftist's way is. What people are
> forgetting is that there are stereotypes, which do have some truth to them,
> and then there is reality. There are concrete things that actually make
> someone a liberal or a conservative. They each have their own ways and
> beliefs. The problem is when one side makes claims about the other side
> which are not true, which is usually the case. In this group, which is
> filled with right wingers and republicans denigration of "liberals" are
> posted constantly. That's because the "wingers" detest anyone who has views
> that are different from theirs (a conservative trait). Proof of this is the
> unending stream of criticism and invectives directed at liberals by them.
>
> not shared or highly regarded by conservatives. A trait they like a lot more
> they are not shared much by the other group. Both groups have a low opinion
> of the other group. But if you want to know the facts about one group or the
> other you don't ask the other side because most of what they think is wrong.
> Anyone can find the truth about liberals or conservatives if they want but
> for most people it's a lot easier to simply call the other group names and
> say nasty things about them. On this group, most of the people doing that
> are conservatives. That's is not an opinion. It's a fact.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
I have always noticed that people will never laugh at anything that is
not based on truth.
- Will Rogers
Larry Jaques
On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 11:24:28 -0400, the infamous Joseph Gwinn
<joeg...@comcast.net> scrawled the following:
Here's another take on a similar story:
Family Life in the '90s
A son approached his father one evening at home and asked about the
difference between theory and reality. The father, wanting to help
his son understand the subtleties of the issue, decided to
demonstrate the difference by an example.
"Well, son," said the father, "here's what you do. Go into the
kitchen and ask your mother if she would sleep with any man for $1
million."
"OK," said the son, and left for the kitchen, where he posed the
question to his mother. "Oh no," said the mother, "I have always
been faithful to your father; I could never do such a thing, not
for any amount of money." Then she looked pensive for a moment and
added, "but then on the other hand, I could do a lot with that much
money. I could put you kids through college, fix up the house, help
the poor ... well, I guess on second thought, I'd have to say
'yes.'"
"Thanks," said the son, and returned to his father. He told his
father that his mother had agreed she would sleep with any man for
$1 million. "OK," said the father, then here's what you do next. Go
into her bedroom and ask your sister the same question. But she's a
lot fussier, and she's younger and better looking, so make it $2
million for her." "OK," replied the son, and left for his sister's
bedroom.
He found his sister in her bedroom and posed the question to her.
"My goodness, no," replied his sister. "I could never do such a
thing. I've been saving myself for the man of my dreams. It
wouldn't be right." But then she stopped for a moment as in
mid-thought. Finally she added, "on the other had, if I had $2
million I would never have to worry about money, I could give the
money to the church and help a lot of people ... I guess I'd have
to go ahead and say 'yes.'" "Thanks," said her brother and left the
bedroom.
He returned to his father and told him that his sister had agreed
that she would sleep with any man for $2 million. "OK, son," said
the father, "now here's the difference between theory and reality.
In theory, we're sitting on $3 million here. In reality we're broke
and living with a couple of sluts.
bungalo...@yahoo.com
> There seems to be a stereotype that "liberals" are the lazy sorts of
> people who interrupt TV viewing only to go to soup lines, or smoke
> harmful substances, whereas "conservatives" are hard working, self
> reliant people who are very well off due to their own perseverance and
> work ethic.
>
> And yet, the few self proclaimed or suspected liberals and Obama
> supporters of this newsgroup, seem to be very well off, accomplished
> people, whereas many conservatives, while intelligent and interesting
> people on many levels, are not exactly above that kind of level of
> attainment.
>
> stereotypes?
>
Why not just make one sterotype for both, they are just different
sides of the same coin. Saying you are liberal or conservative means
you giving up on the thought process and rely on faith to guide your
life. It's an easy way to live your life though, imagine trying to
think about questions before answering them, instead of just
regurgitating the party line.
Robatoy
<bungalow_st...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>, imagine trying to
> think about questions before answering them, instead of just
> regurgitating the party line.
Now.. WHO in this crowd would belong to this group?.
evodawg
This is such bullshit! It's the Left Wingers that are always pissed off
about something. They're never happy about anything. That's all I'm going
to say about this subject. Not going to drag me into this bullshit.
--
"You can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK"
Running Mandriva release 2008.0 free-i586 using KDE on i586
Website Address http://rentmyhusband.biz/
J. Clarke
Liberals are just as intolerant as conservatives, what's different is the
things they find intolerable.
Michael A. Terrell
"J. Clarke" wrote:
>
> Liberals are just as intolerant as conservatives, what's different is the
> things they find intolerable.
Especially the ability to think for yourself.
RogerN
"Curious Man" <parc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:2s66dd....@news.alt.net...
> There seems to be a stereotype that "liberals" are the lazy sorts of
> people who interrupt TV viewing only to go to soup lines, or smoke
> harmful substances, whereas "conservatives" are hard working, self
> reliant people who are very well off due to their own perseverance and
> work ethic.
>
> And yet, the few self proclaimed or suspected liberals and Obama
> supporters of this newsgroup, seem to be very well off, accomplished
> people, whereas many conservatives, while intelligent and interesting
> people on many levels, are not exactly above that kind of level of
> attainment.
>
> stereotypes?
>
Some 35 years ago or so I read some stuff in the Bible that was to happen in
the end times that I never thought I'd see the day such things would happen.
One of these is that people would call good evil and call evil good, today
this is called modern liberalism. Another is that the Bible says that God
would turn men and women over to homosexuality, you'd have to stick your
head in the sand to not see that being fulfilled. And then the Bible also
says in the last days God would send a great delusion that would cause many
to turn from faith in God, and even the elect if that were possible. Now we
have great "scientific" evidence that people anxiously interpret to believe
all things came into existence without a creator. Richard Dawkins even
titled his book "The God Delusion", perhaps believing Richard Dawkins is the
delusion sent by God told about in the Bible.
But anyway, I found the following searching for those who call good evil and
evil good.
"Ann Coulter took some heavy artillery from the left this past week. Her new
book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism, has ignited the outrage of
liberals. You go girl! The media particularly has overreacted to such an
extent it is almost comical. When NBC, as only one example, reported the
release of her book on June 6, 2006, (666) they painted her with the same
colors that a rational person would paint Adolf Hitler, Osama bin Ladin, or
Jeffrey Dahmer. If I had not known what I was watching I might have guessed
that I was watching a Saturday Night Live skit.
This type of reaction is actually normal for liberals. When Ann Coulter in
the spirit of a Toto pulls back the curtain and exposes the real wizard they
know the game is up. They cannot stand being seen for who they are. They
cannot tolerate having opposing viewpoints and they are terrified of truth
when it doesn't line up with their worldview.[1] Trust me, truth has no
place in the liberal worldview. If you don't believe me then just watch the
liberal of your choice over time. Match up what they say with what they do.
You'll be convinced sooner rather than later.
Liberals have adopted some of the same tactics that communists have used for
years. They don't have a pure philosophy of law. Right and wrong are not the
focus of concern. It is only what advances their cause that counts. This is
why when the popular votes goes against them on an issue they often
circumvent the will of the people and get a liberal judge to rule in their
favor. Californians are well aware of this practice in their state.
I stated in my headline that liberals are evil, wrong, and nuts. Let me
address these charges one by one. My points are aimed at radical liberals
who, by the way, dominate the leadership of all the major institutions in
this nation. Their influence reaches far beyond the political sphere where
we seem to focus most of our attention. We need to look in the bushes too.
Liberals dominate the media. They rule the schools. Liberals stack the
leadership of the American Medical Association and the American Bar
Association. They control most of the major foundations and they manage some
of the most influential companies in America. Liberals line the ranks of the
environmental groups, animal rights groups, and anti-war organizations. And
don't forget Hollywood which cannot turn out a movie, it seems, without an
anti-war message, a gratuitous homosexual theme, or an end-of �the world
scenario caused by global warming.
We must remember that liberalism is not just a system of bad ideas. It is a
religion with its priests, creeds, confessions, and dogmas. Liberals worship
the system, their church. They gladly sacrifice themselves and anyone else,
friend or foe, who gets in the way of the cause. They are more religious
than most Christians. They are more dedicated than most Christians. I'm
sorry, it's just a fact and I'll bet 99% of pastors will agree with me.
I truly believe with all my heart that liberals are our enemies. They are
enemies of what is good. They are God's enemies. Now before anyone starts
judging me let me finish building my case. My standard is going to be
Scripture and hopefully you will agree with my reasoning.
Can we agree up front that if God calls something evil, then it is? Can we
agree that if God says don't do something, then we shouldn't do it? And
finally, if God says we should do something then there is no other option?
If we can agree on these basics, let's see if my charges are valid.
My first charge is that liberals are evil. Isaiah 5:20 says: Woe to those
who call evil good, and good evil, who put darkness for light, and light for
darkness. Scripture also says we can judge a tree (or a person) by their
fruit. A good tree bears good fruit and a bad tree bad fruit. This is simple
enough.
Since we don't use the word "evil" much anymore I want to submit a
definition for my purposes here. This comes from Webster's 1828 Dictionary.
E'VIL, n. Evil is natural or moral. Natural evil is any thing which produces
pain, distress, loss or calamity, or which in any way disturbs the peace,
impairs the happiness, or destroys the perfection of natural beings. Moral
evil is any deviation of a moral agent from the rules of conduct prescribed
to him by God, or by legitimate human authority; or it is any violation of
the plain principles of justice and rectitude. There are also evils called
civil, which affect injuriously the peace or prosperity of a city or state;
and political evils, which injure a nation, in its public capacity.
Modern liberalism in America qualifies as evil under every part of the above
definition. It is disturbing that we don't see it as such.
God says murder is evil. The essence of murder is striking out at the image
of God found in man. It is the worst of human crimes. In fact, God thinks
murder so heinous He determined that the only satisfaction for the crime is
the death of the perpetrator.[2] Liberals believe in abortion and abortion
is the cold-blooded murder of babies, the most innocent among us.[3] You
tell me, are liberals evil? Call it what you will, terminating a pregnancy,
dilation and evacuation, or premature delivery. It's still murder. A wig by
any other name is still a wig.
By the way liberals disagree with God's use of the death penalty. They
routinely support murderers and ignore their victims. Regardless of the
crime or the number of dead bodies, liberals side with the criminal.
God says stealing is wrong. The eighth commandment says, "You shall not
steal." No interpretation needed here. Therefore, stealing is wrong, evil.
Liberals believe in stealing. Theft is the very foundation of their corrupt
socialistic worldview. They take (steal) from the rich and give to the poor.
The more one makes, the more liberals want to take and redistribute.
Liberals fight any attempt at tax relief. They are still crying over the
Bush tax cuts. They continue to claim it only benefits the rich. I got my
tax cut and I'm not rich. Did you ever think the time would come, as it has,
when the President of the United States would have to tour the nation in
order to convince Americans that they should keep their money? He actually
had to sell us on a tax cut. What is wrong with us?
Liberal thinking is so far gone on this that they actually promised tax
increases as part of their platform in the last two presidential elections.
You would think they would at least take the lead from Bill Clinton and lie.
He promised a middle-class tax cut and then reneged a few days after he was
elected. Thank God they lost.
In the name of compassion,[4] liberals steal the quality and dignity of life
from the poorest among us. They do this by hooking them on the welfare
system and then writing rules which make it nearly impossible for them to
escape.
Liberals rob employers of the benefit of offering apprenticeships and young
workers from learning a valuable skill. This is done through the minimum
wage laws and employment rules. They also cause more unemployment. Minimum
wage laws force employers to pay some workers more than they are worth. They
must make up the difference by eliminating workers, reducing hours, or
raising prices. People are robbed on all levels.
In the First Commandment, God says, "You shall have no other gods before
Me." Liberals like any god but the true on. Those in the liberal
establishment, especially those in organizations like the ACLU and
American's United for the Separation of Church and State, have worked
feverishly to eject God permanently out of public consciousness. They are
succeeding.
Who was it that got Bible reading in government schools halted? Who was it
that had prayer in government schools banished? Thanks to liberal efforts,
every god known to man is now welcomed into our children's classrooms. The
devil himself has been given a hall pass and our God is shamelessly declared
persona non grata. Are liberals evil? You tell me.
Liberals support evil people too. Jimmy Carter went to Havana to dine with
Fidel Castro. Rush Limbaugh said some years ago that there wasn't a dictator
that Jimmy Carter didn't like. Hillary Clinton commended Saddam Hussein on
his treatment of women while condemning the U.S. for the Iraq war. Bill
Clinton helped restore Haiti dictator Jean-Bertrand Aristide to power. Those
who wield brutal power apparently fascinate Liberals.
Col. Oliver North reports on his website, www.freedomalliance.org:
"Castro was one of the few tyrants who failed to grace William Jefferson
Blythe Clinton's social calendar, though Mr. Clinton made it a habit to meet
regularly with the Dictator-of-the-Month while in office. Yasser Arafat
visited 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue no less than eleven times. Be it Fidel
Castro, Yasser Arafat or former Soviet dictator Mikhail Gorbachev, it seems
American liberals crave the affection of brutal authoritarians whose regimes
have brought nothing but agony and cruelty to their people."
Are you with me so far?
Part II, coming soon�.
Ralph C. Barker"
http://www.worldviewtimes.com/article.php/articleid-795
HeyBub
>
> As a registered "non partisan" voter, I've had people tell me I'm
> wrong and should make a commitment. Fact is,neither of our two major
> parties deserve my commitment and support. I wish the Libertarians
> could get their stuff together because in principle, I agree with
> them. Less government is better government
Heh! The "independent" voter is actually the most dependent of all. At
election time, he gets to choose between only two candidates. He had no say
in who the candidates were, no influence in the platforms, policies, or
preferences of the party, and virtually no influence with the ultimate
elected official. He can claim no pride, no power, and no profit.
The best course is to pick a party that most closely conforms to your ideals
and work from within the system. Knock on doors, raise money, attend
political meetings.
As for Libertarians, they closely resemble the Celtic warriors hired by the
English kings of old to augment the armies. Fierce, unafraid, and fearless.
You just wouldn't want them to actually, you know, run things.
HeyBub
>
> As my dear old departed mum told me almost 50 years ago - "When you're
> young, you're idealistic and liberal, then you got to work and start
> paying taxes and become a conservative, then you get old and start
> looking for help because you didn't plan ahead and you become liberal
> again".
Or "a conservative is a former liberal who's been robbed."
One maxim that floated around New York during the Guiliana years:
"A Republican is a Democrat who suddenly realizes he hasn't been mugged
lately."
HeyBub
>
> LOL...tell me...what will the millions of Americans do in the next few
> years for retirement when their 401Ks are worth nothing, their houses
> are worth much, much less and with millions living off what savings
> they might have?
Get a job?
>
> Or the damning fact that 60% of bankruptcies are medical related...and
> you incur most of your medical costs after retirement.
No biggie. Bankruptcies have to be caused by something, else there wouldn't
be any.
>
> And you do realize that this deep, deep recession has a long way to go
> yet. Best estimates that the economy MAY bottom out late next year. So
> how deep of pockets do you have..especially if government payments are
> cut?
You're right. One will just have to cut back on expenses.
>
> The truth in life is that you can do everything right and still arrive
> at retirement penniless.
>
Yep.
HeyBub
>
> If I liberally apply a protective finish to one of my wood projects to
> conserve it, what does that make me?
A politician?
Andrew Barss
A fine example of intolerance -- well done! Who is the
loony you quoted?
-- Andy Barss
J. Clarke
> "J. Clarke" wrote:
>>
>> Liberals are just as intolerant as conservatives, what's different
>> is the things they find intolerable.
>
>
> Especially the ability to think for yourself.
Uh, both sides are intolerable of such and have their shining lights of
idiocy.
J. Clarke
> Too_Many_Tools wrote:
>>
>> LOL...tell me...what will the millions of Americans do in the next
>> few years for retirement when their 401Ks are worth nothing, their
>> houses are worth much, much less and with millions living off what
>> savings they might have?
>
> Get a job?
So what kind of job does someone in his eighties who has been retired for
twenty years get?
Hint--there's not enough work to go around right now. A common problem
throughout history. Those big pointy things in the Egyptian desert are
monuments to the Egyptian WPA as much as they are to the pharaohs who were
buried in them.
>> Or the damning fact that 60% of bankruptcies are medical
>> related...and you incur most of your medical costs after retirement.
>
> No biggie. Bankruptcies have to be caused by something, else there
> wouldn't be any.
>
>>
>> And you do realize that this deep, deep recession has a long way to
>> go yet. Best estimates that the economy MAY bottom out late next
>> year. So how deep of pockets do you have..especially if government
>> payments are cut?
>
> You're right. One will just have to cut back on expenses.
And when one doesn't have enough income to pay for food?
Lew Hodgett
<snip an obvious troll>
Lew
Too_Many_Tools
> "Steve Turner" <bbqbo...@swtacobell.net> wrote in message
>
> news:MldWl.18436$%54....@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
>
>
> > Too_Many_Tools wrote:
> > > On Jun 4, 11:13 pm, "Hawke" <desmith...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> of
> > >>>>>> people who interrupt TV viewing only to go to soup lines, or smoke
> > >>>>>> harmful substances, whereas "conservatives" are hard working, self
> > >>>>>> reliant people who are very well off due to their own perseverance
> and
> > >>>>>> work ethic.
> > >>>>>> And yet, the few self proclaimed or suspected liberals and Obama
> > >>>>>> supporters of this newsgroup, seem to be very well off,
> accomplished
> > >>>>>> people, whereas many conservatives, while intelligent and
> interesting
> > >>>>>> people on many levels, are not exactly above that kind of level of
> > >>>>>> attainment.
> > >>>>>> stereotypes?
> > >>>> i think what he is saying is that your stereotypes should be the
> > >>>> same as his...
> > >>> Ah, yes. That is the leftist's way.
> > >> At least that is what you think the leftist's way is. What people are
> > >> forgetting is that there are stereotypes, which do have some truth to
> them,
> > >> and then there is reality. There are concrete things that actually make
> > >> someone a liberal or a conservative. They each have their own ways and
> > >> beliefs. The problem is when one side makes claims about the other side
> > >> which are not true, which is usually the case. In this group, which is
> > >> filled with right wingers and republicans denigration of "liberals" are
> > >> posted constantly. That's because the "wingers" detest anyone who has
> views
> > >> that are different from theirs (a conservative trait). Proof of this is
> the
> > >> unending stream of criticism and invectives directed at liberals by
> them.
>
> trait is
> > >> not shared or highly regarded by conservatives. A trait they like a lot
> more
> and
> > >> they are not shared much by the other group. Both groups have a low
> opinion
> > >> of the other group. But if you want to know the facts about one group
> or the
> > >> other you don't ask the other side because most of what they think is
> wrong.
> > >> Anyone can find the truth about liberals or conservatives if they want
> but
> > >> for most people it's a lot easier to simply call the other group names
> and
> > >> say nasty things about them. On this group, most of the people doing
> that
> > >> are conservatives. That's is not an opinion. It's a fact.
>
> > >> Hawke
>
> > > Well said.
>
> > I beg to differ; I thought what he said was a load of shit.
>
> That's only because you're a right winger. You guys always dislike the
> truth. Especially when it's said about you. I'm sure we could confirm that
> by asking your wives or girlfriends.
>
> Hawke
And their boyfriends.
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
Now you have done it...you are confusing a conservative with reality.
They would gain more respect from me if they would clean up their own
messes.
The truth is that this Country and its people will be fixing the
damage done by the conservatives for decades to come.
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
So what does that make the Republicans that just robbed this Country
of TRILLIONS?
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
Yeah...I thought you might know.
Wingers only know how to make a mess.
TMT
HeyBub
>>
>> Get a job?
>
> So what kind of job does someone in his eighties who has been retired
> for twenty years get?
* Medical experimentation?
* Not much skill required to panhandle.
* Here's one that's a hoot. I read about a guy who picked up a large trash
bag full of crap from a retail store's parking lot. Took about an hour. He
then took the bag to the manager and offered to sell him the bag of trash
for $20. If the manager was not inclined to go for the deal, the man said
he'd be glad to put the trash back where he found it.
HeyBub
Uh, no. Every single Republican in the Congress voted AGAINST the
multi-trillion dollar bailouts. The thing the Republicans supported - in the
last administration - was less than a trillion ($837 billion if I recall
correctly).
Robatoy
>. The thing the Republicans supported - in the
> last administration - was less than a trillion ($837 billion if I recall
> correctly).
...and made most of it disappear.
Hawke
"Andrew Barss" <ba...@basil.u.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:h0goq6$74c$1...@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
> <snip of hysterical rant about the coming end times>
>
> A fine example of intolerance -- well done! Who is the
> loony you quoted?
That's a good question. Obviously he's nobody anyone ever heard of. But I
have to feel sorry for the Roger though. Here it is in the 21st century and
he's still reading the fairy tale called the Bible and believes it like it
really came from a supernatural being when it was obviously written and
printed by other men. That puts him in the same boat as the Taliban loonies
and other Muslims who think the same think about the Koran. They all fall
for the same line of bull. Believe this book and don't believe what science
or reason says. Heaven is up in the sky. Guys like him still believe that
even when we all know there is nothing in the heavens but outer space. It
can't help but make you wonder how anyone with even an average IQ believe
such nonsense. But damn, they sure do and by the millions. Lucky for us the
trend is for people to drop those ancient beliefs more and more as time
passes. In another 20 years people like him will be rare as hen's teeth.
Hawke
Tim Daneliuk
So much unlike the nearly $4T Our Dear Leader at present a flushed in
less than 6 months.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk tun...@tundraware.com
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Tim Daneliuk
Yes conservatives are guilty of often clinging to rules for their own
sake, even when they don't make sense. Liberals - as the term is
currently constituted - tolerate almost everything including evil,
stupidity, lack of judgment, lack of personal accountability, and lack
of moral courage. As a group, today's liberals live in a world driven
by their ambitions not by any recognizable reality. They are always
astonished when their fairyland ideas fail spectacularly. The liberals
are either the authors of accelerators of almost every single failed
policy in the West but have become masters of blaming everyone else
for their own misdeeds - not unlike their voting base does on a
day-to-day basis.
The one thing that liberals *cannot* seem to tolerate is anyone with
whom they disagree. As William F. Buckley aptly noted:
�Liberals do a great deal of talking about hearing other points of
view, but it sometimes shocks them to learn that there are other
points of view.�
The only thing breathing any life into liberal ideology today is the
intellectual, moral, and ideological bankruptcy among conservatives
who - as a political movement at least - have traded electability for
principle.
Vote libertarian ...
Tim Daneliuk
False dichotomy. Science does not speak to teleology, nor can it by
its very methods. It must be mute on question of first cause and/or
the questions of a creating deity. Reason has real limits - see Godel
for the proofs. Real science conducted honestly cannot possibly speak
to questions of purpose or ultimate cause (or the lack thereof). More
specifically, anyone well acquainted with science who is honest in
their practice of the discipline would *never* appeal to science as a
disproof of faith. That itself would require a spectacular leap of
faith far beyond that of the most religious person on the planet.
It is interesting to note that a few very loud atheist scientists
are attempting to do this in our time and they demonstrate themselves
regularly to be intellectually incoherent with an argumentation
style that resembles a 3 year old's temper tantrum far more than
it does rational discourse.
Sneering at people of faith and substituting some hand waving
reference to science and "reason" as the alternative is the sign of
understanding neither faith nor science (nor reason for that matter).
Equating such people with the Taliban is an ad hominem argument that
further signifies the lack of any real argument on your part. I happen
to be personally acquainted with literally hundreds of people deeply
devout in a number of major religious traditions. Not a single one of
them has taken up arms against innocents, oppressed their women,
invaded their neighbors, and murdered wantonly. These people of faith
- many of whom with which I disagree thoroughly - manage to
demonstrate considerably better manners than you - they can conduct a
debate without attacking rationalists for being their intellectual
inferiors.
In short, you don't understand faith, science, or the limits of
reason.
Tim Daneliuk
You and yours love to parade your "tolerance" around like
a Boy Scout merit badge. Oddly all that tolerance
disappears when someone like this poster shows up whereupon
your sneering and condemnation proceeds immediately.
Does the irony of this not strike you at all?
How very intolerant of you.
John Husvar
"HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
#3: Good one!
You gotta be careful about that some places. That trash is valuable! Ya
can get arrested for stealing it! :)
Some locales support the idea that anything on property belongs to the
property owner and can only be legally collected by his permission. It's
applied to dumpster-diving, so it's not unthinkable it might be applied
to collecting trash.
Scrap metal is just about always treated so.
Besides, you'd be putting some poor illegal immigrant outta work.
Upscale
"Tim Daneliuk" <tun...@tundraware.com> wrote in message
> > ...and made most of it disappear.
>
> So much unlike the nearly $4T Our Dear Leader at present a flushed in
> less than 6 months.
And how *exactly* do you now it's flushed away. As usual, you make all sorts
of wild claims before any type of final result is in. If you had any iota of
common sense, you'd know that it takes years for final results to be
tallied.
Not so for Tim Daneliuk, your mind is made up now. You're just full of all
kinds of criticism about your current government, but the truth is that
people like you are the least able to judge it. You didn't vote for either
incumbent, you contributed nothing, gave nothing and whine all day about how
much it's going to cost you. The fact is that all you do is talk. And, that
talk is based on nothing more than lack of experience, lack of action and
lack of any kind of involvement.
You're a "nothing" Tim and that's the worst kind of citizen.
J. Clarke
Or in 20 years there will have been a resurgence of religious zeal and they
will be burning people like you at the stake. Don't assume that any given
social trend will continue. But 20 years is far too short a time frame for
either to happen.
By they way, your post is a fine example of intolerance in itself. If you
don't believe in a deity that is your privilege. But when you argue that
anyone who does is a gullible, insane fool you throw away the high ground.
evodawg
These arguments have been made for eons and I wonder if they've ever solved
anything? I'm staying out of them but they are fun to read! Although I have
always thought the Government is the Problem not the Solution. So now you
know my politics. Liberal or Conservative?
--
"You can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK"
Running Mandriva release 2008.0 free-i586 using KDE on i586
Website Address http://rentmyhusband.biz/
HeyBub
I refer you to Jane's Law: The party in power is arrogant, the party out of
power is insane.
HeyBub
> "Tim Daneliuk" <tun...@tundraware.com> wrote in message
>>> ...and made most of it disappear.
>>
>> So much unlike the nearly $4T Our Dear Leader at present a flushed in
>> less than 6 months.
>
> And how *exactly* do you now it's flushed away. As usual, you make
> all sorts of wild claims before any type of final result is in. If
> you had any iota of common sense, you'd know that it takes years for
> final results to be tallied.
>
Good question. Aside from the observation that "stimulus" spending never has
worked*, there are three possible outcomes:
1. That extra spending means extra taxes which means the whole thing is a
wash. (Government spending having some "multiplier" effect unknown to
consumer or business spending is a big, fat lie.) [Just today the
administration floated the idea of extra taxes on the more affluent to pay
for health-care reform]
2. That extra spending means extra debt, which drives up interest rates,
which chokes off growth.
3. That extra spending means extra money being printed, which means
inflation which means any growth is illusory.
http://pajamasmedia.com/vodkapundit/2009/06/07/the-grand-unification-theory-of-sucking/
One of the biggest problems, in my view, is uncertainty. As long as the
government keeps tinkering with the system, those who make decisions will
postpone them. If an employer is confounded by what will happen six months
out regarding taxes, inflation, and the like, he'll most likely put off
hiring, borrowing, expansion, or any other business decision.
Even worse, the Obama administration is muttering about a complete overhaul
of the nation's health-care system. This potential upheaval is driving
employers nuts. Will their expenses go down? Or will they double? Who knows?
Best to just hunker down and take no chances, place no bets.
---------
* In an analysis by researches at UCLA, the conclusion that FDR's tinkering
with all manner of government programs actually delayed recovery from the
depression by seven years!
"We found that a relapse [into a depression] isn't likely unless lawmakers
gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies."
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx