Young Republicans: Brilliant Political Innovators or Worthy of Pity?

[pennywisdom]

One might naturally assume that if you're intelligent enough to wind up in a position of punditry before the age of 20, you're a winning combination of smart and lucky, and definitely not worthy of pity.

Then I read an interesting piece by Ezra Klein on the lives of young, conservative radio pundits.

CLICK HERE (http://campusprogress.org/features/281/how-to-be-a-conservative-pundit-in-three-easy-traits)

That makes me feel really sorry for those kids. Not only do they seem deeply out of touch with the world, the article also portrays them as being manipulated by conservative media. Any time right-wring pundits want to prove that Republican ideology isn't under the sole proprietorship of middle-aged to elderly men, they trot out their junior mouthpieces to parrot their decisive party rhetoric. On top of that, those young guys seem really clueless.

Opinions?

[the4thpip]

Nobody likes a kid in a bow tie. :mad:

[pennywisdom]

Nobody likes a kid in a bow tie. :mad:
EDIT: Wait... what are you getting at?

[the4thpip]

Ah, just a joke.

But I think this thread might get ugly once people realize that the article puts emphasis on all those Stepford kids being home-schooled.

[Samurai]

I find Ezra's spin to be silly and pathetic. These are bright young guys (and girls) who happen to feel as strongly about conservatism as Ezra does about the "progressive" movement. Of course, such thinking is so strange and foreign to Ezra that he cannot fathom it, and so must attack and deride it. How "progressive" of him...

[pennywisdom]

Samurai - There's always the possibility that the articles negative tones weren't born out of derision and mocking, but out of genuine and legitimate disappointment that teenagers, (and teenagers that have never left the house at that) are purporting to tell people how to go about their business.

Not everything is necessarily an attack, there's a chance the author might simply be questioning the validity and expressing disappointment in conservative media for pandering, and in the process, using kids who don't really know a hell of a lot about what they speak.

Then again, interpret it how you will.

[Samurai]

Ben Fergussun, the 1st guy Ezra mentions, is 22 years old. Michelle Malkin, who he talks about later, is also not a teenager. In fact, since Ezra is writing for a UCLA paper, they are probably both older than he himself is. Of course, since he is "progressive" and they are conservative, he is correct and they must be brainwashed zombies used as the tools of corrupt old men to push their evil policies onto a new generation...

[Gail Simone]

It's an interesting piece, but I find I do better if I ignore the current crop of scumbag pundits no matter what their age.

Gail

[kingdom2000]

"Young Republicans: Brilliant Political Innovators"

Isn't that sentence an oxymoron? Republicans are their heart and soul are about maintaining the status quo or returning to some past ideal status quo (currently around 1955 or thereabouts it seems).

Innovators though try to trail new horizons and explore new ideas. The emphasis is on the word new. New tends to disrupt the status quo. New tended to create those anti-conservative and status quo ideas like end of slavery, equal rights, seperation of church and state and so on. New tends to lead to exploring, exploring leads to questioning, questioning leads to concern, concern lead to ideas, and all that tends to disrupt the status quo and overall control that conservatives desire.

[Samurai]

"Young Republicans: Brilliant Political Innovators"

Isn't that sentence an oxymoron? Republicans are their heart and soul are about maintaining the status quo or returning to some past ideal status quo (currently around 1955 or thereabouts it seems).

Innovators though try to trail new horizons and explore new ideas. The emphasis is on the word new. New tends to disrupt the status quo. New tended to create those anti-conservative and status quo ideas like end of slavery, equal rights, seperation of church and state and so on. New tends to lead to exploring, exploring leads to questioning, questioning leads to concern, concern lead to ideas, and all that tends to disrupt the status quo and overall control that conservatives desire.
I was going to let this pass, but I just couldn't... what a narrow-minded view of conservatism. You sound like someone who has never actually met a real conservative but only heard them described 2nd hand from others. Conservatives are NOT for entropy and stagnation, merely a careful, reasoned pace of change, rather than the willy-nilly "old is bad, change is good, let's scrap it all!" unbridled and reckless approach that too many "progressives" are eager to try. It was a conservative Republican that freed the slaves, and they supported equal rights in higher percentages than the left, who were the main opponents of civil rights.

[El Santo]

One might naturally assume that if you're intelligent enough to wind up in a position of punditry before the age of 20, you're a winning combination of smart and lucky, and definitely not worthy of pity.

Then I read an interesting piece by Ezra Klein on the lives of young, conservative radio pundits.

CLICK HERE (http://campusprogress.org/features/281/how-to-be-a-conservative-pundit-in-three-easy-traits)

That makes me feel really sorry for those kids. Not only do they seem deeply out of touch with the world, the article also portrays them as being manipulated by conservative media. Any time right-wring pundits want to prove that Republican ideology isn't under the sole proprietorship of middle-aged to elderly men, they trot out their junior mouthpieces to parrot their decisive party rhetoric. On top of that, those young guys seem really clueless.

Opinions?


They aren't brilliant, and they don't deserve pity. I stopped trying to understand them after it became clear to me in college that they had no interest in debate, no interest in the facts, and no capacity to absorb knowledge from a source that wasn't a white fascist. I have come to simply accept that they are wrong, and I am right. I have a moral center, and they have no inherent worth as human beings.

[El Santo]

I was going to let this pass, but I just couldn't... what a narrow-minded view of conservatism. You sound like someone who has never actually met a real conservative but only heard them described 2nd hand from others. Conservatives are NOT for entropy and stagnation, merely a careful, reasoned pace of change, rather than the willy-nilly "old is bad, change is good, let's scrap it all!" unbridled and reckless approach that too many "progressives" are eager to try. It was a conservative Republican that freed the slaves, and they supported equal rights in higher percentages than the left, who were the main opponents of civil rights.

Conservative Republicans were also in strong opposition to racial integration, they supported Jim Crow laws even longer than Democrats did, and they blocked the Equal Rights Amendment. They were against women gaining the vote, they are disproportionately represented among racist extremist groups, and they support the continual dismantling of the United States of America through legistlation that destroys the freedoms that they claim they want to protect.


To put it another way: You are wrong. You have always been wrong, and you always will be wrong. And there is nothing you can do about it, because in real life, people don't change.

[Adam Crocker]

Ben Fergussun, the 1st guy Ezra mentions, is 22 years old. Michelle Malkin, who he talks about later, is also not a teenager.

For god sake's Malkin wasn't even mentioned in the context of the being a teenaged right wing pundit. She was being compared to them as someone who supposedly She was compared to the three as someone that supposedly uses her demographic background as leverage for credibility. Your criticism is completely irrelevant in this respect.

And while I agree with you that Ferguson shouldn't have been included though you left out Ken Hamblin 13 and Kyle Williams 14. Ah dear Kyle. I remember reading your columns on WorldNet!

[Samurai]

For god sake's Malkin wasn't even mentioned in the context of the being a teenaged right wing pundit. She was being compared to them as someone who supposedly She was compared to the three as someone that supposedly uses her demographic background as leverage for credibility. Your criticism is completely irrelevant in this respect.

And while I agree with you that Ferguson shouldn't have been included though you left out Ken Hamblin 13 and Kyle Williams 14. Ah dear Kyle. I remember reading your columns on WorldNet!
The main thrust of the article seems to be that these guys are traitors to their demographic, a theme that the left (believers of group-based politics, not individuality) brings up over and over again. These kids are conservative young people, and thus traitors to their age group, the way he calls Ward Connerly a traitor to blacks or Phyllis Schlafly a traitor to women. You see Colin Powell and Condy Rice called "house N____" and more. Log Cabin Republicans are not applauded for their individuality but called traitors to their sexuality. On and on, anyone who does not agree with the leftist position when a large number of their demographic does is branded a traitor, and this is merely the latest incarnation of it.

[Ponda]

It seems really silly to me to turn a discussion of this article into "Republicanism: good or bad?"

That's not really the issue here, is it?

Republicanism sure has its flaws, but so does Liberalism.
It's unhealthy for either viewpoint to be brainwashed into the minds of youth.

What's better, despite its difficulty, is to give youngsters a balanced and unbiased presentation of all the facts and viewpoints currently out there. Then let them make their own decision.

[the4thpip]

The main thrust of the article seems to be that these guys are traitors to their demographic, a theme that the left (believers of group-based politics, not individuality) brings up over and over again. These kids are conservative young people, and thus traitors to their age group, the way he calls Ward Connerly a traitor to blacks or Phyllis Schlafly a traitor to women. You see Colin Powell and Condy Rice called "house N____" and more. Log Cabin Republicans are not applauded for their individuality but called traitors to their sexuality. On and on, anyone who does not agree with the leftist position when a large number of their demographic does is branded a traitor, and this is merely the latest incarnation of it.
Not traitors, but self loathing and in need of therapy.

[Pixies Chick]

I was going to let this pass, but I just couldn't... what a narrow-minded view of conservatism. You sound like someone who has never actually met a real conservative but only heard them described 2nd hand from others. Conservatives are NOT for entropy and stagnation, merely a careful, reasoned pace of change, rather than the willy-nilly "old is bad, change is good, let's scrap it all!" unbridled and reckless approach that too many "progressives" are eager to try. It was a conservative Republican that freed the slaves, and they supported equal rights in higher percentages than the left, who were the main opponents of civil rights.

Geez, what a pity there isn't a Bizarro font for this post. How ashamed you must be of the real past to come up with this fantasy.

[LtMarvel]

I was going to let this pass, but I just couldn't... what a narrow-minded view of conservatism. You sound like someone who has never actually met a real conservative but only heard them described 2nd hand from others. Conservatives are NOT for entropy and stagnation, merely a careful, reasoned pace of change, rather than the willy-nilly "old is bad, change is good, let's scrap it all!" unbridled and reckless approach that too many "progressives" are eager to try. It was a conservative Republican that freed the slaves, and they supported equal rights in higher percentages than the left, who were the main opponents of civil rights.
Lincoln, somewhere above, is laughing at being called "conservative."

[Sabrinaset]

They aren't brilliant, and they don't deserve pity... I have come to simply accept that they are wrong, and I am right. I have a moral center, and they have no inherent worth as human beings...To put it another way: You are wrong. You have always been wrong, and you always will be wrong. And there is nothing you can do about it, because in real life, people don't change.

Is this the famed Liberals Tolerance for Others Opinions that I keep hearing about exists? When Liberals talk about Diversity, somehow, I don't think they mean what you're saying. Or do they?

I stopped trying to understand them after it became clear to me in college that they had no interest in debate, no interest in the facts, and no capacity to absorb knowledge from a source that wasn't a white fascist.

See, now that's irony. You're painting with too broad a brush there, Santo.
Here, read about how Conservatives are treated on college campuses by some open-minded and fair Liberals who wish to debate and have an interest in the facts.
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ED081497a.cfm
http://uwmcu.blogspot.com/2005/04/this-weeks-ann-coulter-article.html
http://www.newsense.org/article.php?aid=64
Or perhaps this book might say it better than anyone else can (It was written by a Liberal and a Conservative, IIRC)
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=6F0zYJpC2r&isbn=0060977728&itm=1

[Adam Crocker]

The main thrust of the article seems to be that these guys are traitors to their demographic, a theme that the left (believers of group-based politics, not individuality) brings up over and over again. These kids are conservative young people, and thus traitors to their age group, the way he calls Ward Connerly a traitor to blacks or Phyllis Schlafly a traitor to women. You see Colin Powell and Condy Rice called "house N____" and more. Log Cabin Republicans are not applauded for their individuality but called traitors to their sexuality. On and on, anyone who does not agree with the leftist position when a large number of their demographic does is branded a traitor, and this is merely the latest incarnation of it.

Yes, but that wasn't what I was talking about. You criticized the inclusion of Malkin not on the basis of the article's premises about Republican pundits, but that she wasn't a teenaged Republican, when that wasn't why she was used.

[Loren]

Conservative Republicans were also in strong opposition to racial integration, they supported Jim Crow laws even longer than Democrats did, and they blocked the Equal Rights Amendment. They were against women gaining the vote, they are disproportionately represented among racist extremist groups, and they support the continual dismantling of the United States of America through legistlation that destroys the freedoms that they claim they want to protect.

Most of this is hard to quantify, but the one about women's suffrage can be broken down pretty easily by looking at the 19th Amendment. I tried to gather the stats myself, but the second commenter here (http://www.centristcoalition.com/cgi-bin/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=1684) covers pretty much all the aspects I could've:

But it wasn't the Democratic Party that got the 19th Amendment passed. It was the Republicans.

The Bull Moose Republicans under Teddy Roosevelt were the first party to adopt women's suffrage into their platform, in 1912. Partly due to that, Wilson beat the bleep out of Roosevelt. The Democrats led by Wilson fought suffrage, and the suffragettes in turn organized women to vote party-line against Democrats (in those states where they could) in the elections of 1914 and again in 1916--and the Democrats lost seats steadily to the Republicans. By 1918, Wilson had learned his lesson and switched to supporting the suffrage amendment, but the southern states utterly repudiated Wilson's position.

The Nineteenth passed Congress in 1919. At the time, the House was controlled by the Republicans, 240 to 192. The Republicans also now controlled the Senate, by a margin of 49 to 47. In both cases, they had just gained control from the Democrats with the most recent election in November 1918 after solid gains in 1914 and 1916 (see above). Payback time! The House vote for passage was 304 to 89. The Senate vote was 56 (R-36, D-20) to 25 (R-8, D-17). Please note that of the 15 absent Senators that day 2 out of 3 were Democrats, that the vote was almost even among the Democrats present, but overwhelmingly in favor on the Republican side. I couldn't track down the House roll call breakdown on a quick search, but suspect the divisions were much the same.

The states that ratified the Nineteenth Amendment in 1919 went overwhelmingly Republican in the 1920 Presidential election, the states that refused to ratify it went overwhelmingly Democrat. The Senators that offered the amendments to the bill trying to gut it were overwhelmingly Southern Democrats. Obviously, they failed.

Naturally, the Democratic Party immediately and since has done their best to take all the credit for passing the 19th Amendment. In fact, the Southern Democrats were the major obstacle and the major opposition, and Republicans the majority force in the vote.

I think the vote for the Civil Rights Act breaks down similarly. And the Republican Party had the Equal Rights Amendment as part of its party platform from the 1940s up through 1980; it even passed both houses of Congress in 1971 and 1972, but never got ratified by enough states.

[Adam Crocker]

And now an attempt to intelligently critique the article, or show Samurai how it's done.

Klein's points about the three pundits' backgrounds not at all being reflective of most people their age is essentially correct, though to what degree they are being asked to represent their age group would better be established by excerpts, links to said transcripts, or columns in which they chime on in such issues. Most relevant is whether they draw purely off their own experiences or manage to do so from the experiences of others when they discuss these issues.

I'm even more iffy about the claims it makes about the pubs using pundits of a peculiar demographic as leverage in discussing an issue. Except for one of the pundits mentioned, I am familiar with none of them or how they have expressed their opinions on these issues, which includes whether or not they have actually used their respective demographic status (black, latin, woman) to leverage credibility on these issues.

Nor does it really help that they trot out the whole opposing affirmative action equals treason to . I mean, fuck, it's been thrown out so regularly without any substantive discussion about regarding the merits of affirmative action that I can't take it seriously in the least. Nevermind that it's the same kind knee jerk imputing of base motives to one's political opponents that was at work whenever someone declared that the war's opponents were celebrating that two thousand American soldiers were dead.

(I know very little about Schafly so I'm staying out of that part for now.)

However, the one part the article is absolutely right on is Michelle Malkin. While not directed against all Asians, the Japanese internment in World War II was a culmination of longstanding racism against Asians in Canada and the United States. And that's leaving aside the fact that it was a gross violation of civil rights and a black mark on either country's record. This was also the woman who said [I]"The government has apologized and provided cash compensation to victims who were forced into camps. There is no denying that what happened to Japanese-American internees was abhorrent and wrong," back in 2000. (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/michelle/malkin052600.asp) So in addition to being an authoritarian apologist, she's a flaming hypocrite. And that's leaving aside that like Coulter she's nothing but a political troll, and a dishonest one at that.

[palaeomerus]

Oh look. Another "two minute hate".

[OzBat!]

To put it another way: You are wrong. You have always been wrong, and you always will be wrong. And there is nothing you can do about it, because in real life, people don't change.Either you're from the Rumbles forum and used to arguing forcibly, or you just like attacking people. Either way this is NOT the way to pursue a debate. Debate the topic, not the person. If you can't discuss it civilly, your options are to exercise some self restraint and not post when you realise that you're not going to be able to do so without personal attacks, OR, get yourself warned by the moderators and eventually banned from the forums.

Your choice.

[Nick Soapdish]

I was going to let this pass, but I just couldn't... what a narrow-minded view of conservatism. You sound like someone who has never actually met a real conservative but only heard them described 2nd hand from others. Conservatives are NOT for entropy and stagnation, merely a careful, reasoned pace of change, rather than the willy-nilly "old is bad, change is good, let's scrap it all!" unbridled and reckless approach that too many "progressives" are eager to try. It was a conservative Republican that freed the slaves, and they supported equal rights in higher percentages than the left, who were the main opponents of civil rights.

The Republicans weren't the conservative party when they first formed back in the 1850s. The Democrats were. During the term of Johnson, they grew more radical without the tempering influence of Lincoln. Johnson feuded with them long and hard over their desire to inflict punitive measures upon the South. (Take a look at what they wanted to do and tell me that's a "careful, reasoned pace of change".) During the terms of Ulysses S. Grant, they gradually moved conservative until by 1876 both parties were very conservative. The Democrats held a substantial advantage in the South, thanks to backlash over giving blacks the vote and their subsequent success at denying it.

In the 1900s, a liberal party began to emerge again as Teddy's star rose. This time, the Democrats followed suit ... eventually ... although I don't think Wilson could ever really be called liberal. During the 20s, both parties were fairly conservative again - partly in backlash over the progressive movements earlier in the century IIRC. The Democrats never really laid claim to being the liberal party until FDR.

So while both Teddy and Abe were Republicans, they were also liberal.

Having said that, I believe that both sides are important. Left unchecked, liberals probably would effect change faster than society can handle it. They have in the past. And conservatives would simply allow society to stagnate. The nation needs both.

Unfortunately, I am beginning to think we're at another sea change. The Republicans seem to be the ones charging in trying to make changes, but the Democrats don't seem to have caught on to what their new role should be.

[kingdom2000]

Ah history. An interesting beast. What do the various history lessons show above? That I need to be more accurate when ranting. Historically the republicans and democrats have done their own flip flipping, being liberal or conservative at various times through out history (solid example is fiscal spending, the parties have traded that issue in the last 25 years). It doesn't change my point though...if conservatives are against innovation, currently republicans are conservatives, therefore republicans are against innovation. Since new ideas are a form of innovation....

[Samurai]

Ah history. An interesting beast. What do the various history lessons show above? That I need to be more accurate when ranting. Historically the republicans and democrats have done their own flip flipping, being liberal or conservative at various times through out history (solid example is fiscal spending, the parties have traded that issue in the last 25 years). It doesn't change my point though...if conservatives are against innovation, currently republicans are conservatives, therefore republicans are against innovation. Since new ideas are a form of innovation....
Except, as I said, conservatives are not against innovation or new ideas, they just want to make them at a pace society can cope with. So your whole string falls apart right there...

[Nick Soapdish]

Except, as I said, conservatives are not against innovation or new ideas, they just want to make them at a pace society can cope with. So your whole string falls apart right there...

So when do you think the Republicans think that gay marriage should be legalized? It's pretty much been "protect the sanctity of marriage" not "protect the sanctity of marriage for the next fifty years".

Traditionally, the after-the-fact assertation is that they haven't been against change, just against change too fast. But while they fought it, they rarely don't offered up a more sedate pace, but simply blanket disapproval (except perhaps when the battle has virtually been lost, such as when the South began admitting that blacks might not enjoy slavery and offered freedom to blacks willing to enroll in the army - after nearly the entire South had fallen).

[Cam63]

I'd sooner vote for a drunk koala than the current administration.

[Lester C.]

I'd sooner vote for a drunk koala than the current administration.

I assume you are talking about the US administration and not its Australian counterpart.

[Cam63]

Mainly the Yank one.

[kingdom2000]

Except, as I said, conservatives are not against innovation or new ideas, they just want to make them at a pace society can cope with. So your whole string falls apart right there...

And who makes that determination because conservatives don't seem to think society can cope with many things. Goes back to that control thing I also mentioned way back a few pages. Conservatives love that control and innovation and new ideas tends to disrupt that control. I am still missing how current admin behavior disproves my overall generalities. Shoot even past republican administrations since about 1950 don't really disprove it.

[Sabrinaset]

I guess that explains why Republicans and Conservatives were for changing Social Sercurity to allow for private accounts, and Democrats/Liberals were for not touching it at all. Because Republicans are against change. Wait...

[Pepsigirl]

I guess that explains why Republicans and Conservatives were for changing Social Sercurity to allow for private accounts, and Democrats/Liberals were for not touching it at all. Because Republicans are against change. Wait...

"Change is only change when it leads to good things." - Me, just now

P.S. That was a joke

[taintedlunch]

One might naturally assume that if you're intelligent enough to wind up in a position of punditry before the age of 20, you're a winning combination of smart and lucky, and definitely not worthy of pity.

Then I read an interesting piece by Ezra Klein on the lives of young, conservative radio pundits.

CLICK HERE (http://campusprogress.org/features/281/how-to-be-a-conservative-pundit-in-three-easy-traits)

That makes me feel really sorry for those kids. Not only do they seem deeply out of touch with the world, the article also portrays them as being manipulated by conservative media. Any time right-wring pundits want to prove that Republican ideology isn't under the sole proprietorship of middle-aged to elderly men, they trot out their junior mouthpieces to parrot their decisive party rhetoric. On top of that, those young guys seem really clueless.

Opinions?

Hmm, well you asked...

I don't think they really want or need your pity, seeing as how they will probably be happier, make more money, and contribute more to society than you. You should respect, not pity, those who don't share the same worldview that you do.

[kingdom2000]

I guess that explains why Republicans and Conservatives were for changing Social Sercurity to allow for private accounts, and Democrats/Liberals were for not touching it at all. Because Republicans are against change. Wait...

Your right, a collary would be "unless change is good for business interests one is indebted to for re-election".

In the case of private accounts, the only ones really benefit no matter what are the business whose stock those private accounts buy into. Not only money but OMG the power they would have. If can suddenly claim that for the betterment of the retiring American that invests in their company they be able do to do such and such.... <shivers>. But thats a different discussion.

[Nick Soapdish]

I guess that explains why Republicans and Conservatives were for changing Social Security to allow for private accounts, and Democrats/Liberals were for not touching it at all. Because Republicans are against change. Wait...

Like I said, the sides seem to be flipping.

There is certainly an argument that the Republicans are trying to exert a great deal of change in what religion's role in government should be, although I wouldn't necessarily argue it as progressive.

They also seem to be taking a strong stance on privacy rights.

The invasion of Iraq is also very pro-active. Traditionally, it's been the liberals that have been busybodies and mucking about in other countries foreign affairs to show them how they should've been running their country and to make sure that they do it right. It's an area that I've gotten decidedly more conservative on because I don't think we can just make a nation into a democracy - particularly one that hasn't had any sort of democratic tradition and has been isolated from even the influences of democracy for the last decade. All we can do is help, not be the primary impetus.

Some of these issues represent rolling back the years, but others are decidedly moving away from any previously established mores.

[Adam Crocker]

The invasion of Iraq is also very pro-active. Traditionally, it's been the liberals that have been busybodies and mucking about in other countries foreign affairs to show them how they should've been running their country and to make sure that they do it right.

It has not traditionally been primary purview of liberals since the end of the WWII, especially not since Reagan was elected. Whomever was in power in Washington since 1945, would be pretty much guaranteed to be fucking with other country's affairs no matter if they leaned liberal or conservative.

[Pixies Chick]

It seems really silly to me to turn a discussion of this article into "Republicanism: good or bad?"

That's not really the issue here, is it?

Republicanism sure has its flaws, but so does Liberalism.
It's unhealthy for either viewpoint to be brainwashed into the minds of youth.

What's better, despite its difficulty, is to give youngsters a balanced and unbiased presentation of all the facts and viewpoints currently out there. Then let them make their own decision.

I agree with this almost completely, except 'brainwashing liberalism' is an oxymoron. You might mean left-wing politics. Liberalism endorses the idea of weighing different viewpoints and listening to the authentic interests of divergent groups. It's one reason why liberals take about six hours to order lunch. This difference of opinion between liberals and conservatives (the idea that the viewpoint of the opposition matters) is one of the major disagreements that we have with conservatives, especially the current administration, which believes that a 51% vote, or really, about a quarter of American voters, is enough to claim an aggressive mandate for change that doesn't include consultation with liberals, or anybody else for that matter.

It's highly amusing that they are now claiming that they've had liberal support -- now that their agenda is such a huge failure. But we remember that we were locked out of the room.

There really isn't a viable left-wing in the U.S. There are progressive groups, and no, they're not republican. Going back to the way it used to be is not "progressive" so returning to privately funded retirement is not a progressive idea. But it's not so much the idea as it is the forces that generated the idea that disprove that. There was no authentic groundswell of support for privatizing social security. It was a dream of money managers.

[El Santo]

Is this the famed Liberals Tolerance for Others Opinions that I keep hearing about exists? When Liberals talk about Diversity, somehow, I don't think they mean what you're saying. Or do they?



See, now that's irony. You're painting with too broad a brush there, Santo.
Here, read about how Conservatives are treated on college campuses by some open-minded and fair Liberals who wish to debate and have an interest in the facts.
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ED081497a.cfm
http://uwmcu.blogspot.com/2005/04/this-weeks-ann-coulter-article.html
http://www.newsense.org/article.php?aid=64
Or perhaps this book might say it better than anyone else can (It was written by a Liberal and a Conservative, IIRC)
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=6F0zYJpC2r&isbn=0060977728&itm=1


You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I somehow speak for all liberals, or even liberals in general. I speak for myself, period. We had young republicans on my campus, and they were quite happy bullying their way around campus politics, screaming at people on the street, posting up offensive pamphlets, and generally making asses out of themselves. The sheer gall of the right-wing to claim that it is a persecuted minority while holding majority power in all three branches of the federal government never ceases to amaze me.


What's next? Billionaires whining about being too poor?

[EdContradictory]

Is this the famed Liberals Tolerance for Others Opinions that I keep hearing about exists? When Liberals talk about Diversity, somehow, I don't think they mean what you're saying. Or do they?

We don't have to tolerate intolerance. Sorry. But you guys go ahead and keep adopting the language/framework of political correctness to make your arguments. The hypocrisy is delightful.

[Sabrinaset]

Oddly enough, the links I posted seem to indicate that some campus Liberals appear to be quite intolerant themselves. We're not talking about the Government level, we're talking about Conservatives being demeaned at the college level. It appears to me that these Campus Liberals have engaged themselves in a philosophy that could adequately be called..."Free Speech for me, but not for thee."

Unless these Liberals think that trashing a Conservatives newspapers constitutes Free Speech, in which case, I heartily approve of them continuing to do so, as it shows their particular ideology to be bankrupt. I actually like it when I hear about certain Campus Liberals acting in that manner. At least these guys are being honest about what they believe in when it comes to political discourse.

[El Santo]

Oddly enough, the links I posted seem to indicate that some campus Liberals appear to be quite intolerant themselves. We're not talking about the Government level, we're talking about Conservatives being demeaned at the college level. It appears to me that these Campus Liberals have engaged themselves in a philosophy that could adequately be called..."Free Speech for me, but not for thee."

Unless these Liberals think that trashing a Conservatives newspapers constitutes Free Speech, in which case, I heartily approve of them continuing to do so, as it shows their particular ideology to be bankrupt. I actually like it when I hear about certain Campus Liberals acting in that manner. At least these guys are being honest about what they believe in when it comes to political discourse.

So then, does Rush Limbaugh referring to Chelsea Clinton (an awkward teenager at the time) as "The White House dog" make conservativism a bankrupt philosophy? Or any of the numerous perjorative statements made about individuals, organizations, and newspapers by Anne Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, or the aforementioned Limbaugh? Your attempt at logic is folding in upon itself, friend.

[Noah Johnson]

Oddly enough, the links I posted seem to indicate that some campus Liberals appear to be quite intolerant themselves. We're not talking about the Government level, we're talking about Conservatives being demeaned at the college level. It appears to me that these Campus Liberals have engaged themselves in a philosophy that could adequately be called..."Free Speech for me, but not for thee."

Yeah, college liberals can be a pain. God knows they've gotten on my nerves more than a few times. I suspect it's that combination of the education that shows you that something badly needs to be done about the state of the world with the hormonal craziness that convinces you that massive overreaction and a Manichean worldview is the only way to do it.

Of course, conservatives display the same traits when they have television networks, radio shows, book deals, and high positions in government. Which liberals do not. So, little difference there.

[Sabrinaset]

So then, does Rush Limbaugh referring to Chelsea Clinton (an awkward teenager at the time) as "The White House dog" make conservativism a bankrupt philosophy? Or any of the numerous perjorative statements made about individuals, organizations, and newspapers by Anne Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, or the aforementioned Limbaugh? Your attempt at logic is folding in upon itself, friend.

Okay, so are we talking about campus conservatives, or conservatives in general? Because just quoting Howard Dean as a representative of Liberalism alone...:) I think I'll stick to the campus subject, but I'll take this on once, and head off to sleeeeep....

Rush apologized to Hillary for that very comment the next time he saw her.

Bill O'Reilly, a conservative? Please, he hates everyone.

I'll explain a secret about Ann to you: She deliberately goes over the top. She basically takes much of the hate speech liberals use about conservatives, and throws it back at them just as hard. She likes being a lightning rod. Most people don't get that about her, and don't want to, because that would mean taking a good long look at the invectives being thrown by their own side. She is essentially saying "Okay, Liberals get away with saying A, B, and C, let's see how they like it when I say X, Y, and Z"

[The Xenos]

These diehard republiican kids seem quite brainwashed. Then again I think the same thing about die hard democrats and left wing kids. I was hoping the article would be about more sensible moderate republicans. Than again, I think the same of the democrats.

[El Santo]

Okay, so are we talking about campus conservatives, or conservatives in general? Because just quoting Howard Dean as a representative of Liberalism alone...:) I think I'll stick to the campus subject, but I'll take this on once, and head off to sleeeeep....

Rush apologized to Hillary for that very comment the next time he saw her.

I'm not sure how much good that does, considering the insult was directed at Chelsea Clinton. And my point was that if you're going to claim that the use of perjorative terms by a few individuals renders an entire political philosophy bankrupt...well...you people have been in Chapter 11 for a very long time. Campus Republicans at my college were 100 times worse than Rush has ever been.

Bill O'Reilly, a conservative? Please, he hates everyone.

Sell that bag of crap to someone who's buying. It's blatantly obvious that he's a right-wing hack.

I'll explain a secret about Ann to you: She deliberately goes over the top. She basically takes much of the hate speech liberals use about conservatives, and throws it back at them just as hard. She likes being a lightning rod. Most people don't get that about her, and don't want to, because that would mean taking a good long look at the invectives being thrown by their own side. She is essentially saying "Okay, Liberals get away with saying A, B, and C, let's see how they like it when I say X, Y, and Z"

Wrong again. She wrote an entire book to "defend" the "honor" of Senator McCarthy by basically saying that those of us who prefer to live in an America that *isn't* in a state of constant witch hunt are "treasonous". She starts flinging the crap, then ducks out when it gets thrown back at her. Partisan rancor has always been initiated by the Right, who would rather appeal to the baser urges of humanity than anything logical, compassionate, or sane. I'm not saying that all left-wing pundits are any better, but at least Al Franken is kinda funny.

[Noah Johnson]

I'll explain a secret about Ann to you: She deliberately goes over the top. She basically takes much of the hate speech liberals use about conservatives, and throws it back at them just as hard.
Actually, that's objectively, provably untrue.

Would it affect your opinion at all if I were to show you the evidence?

[PatrickG]

I always thought of Rush Limbaugh as a standup comic until he compared prisoner abuse in Iraq to fraternity hazing.

[Phrozen]

We don't have to tolerate intolerance. Sorry. But you guys go ahead and keep adopting the language/framework of political correctness to make your arguments. The hypocrisy is delightful.

See, here we have a fundamental problem in the evolution of human thought when it comes to interpreting messages without physical body language. As you can see here, this speciman is unable to fathom sarcasm or satire. One would grimace at the mess he would make of a Jonathan Swift novel.

[Ian Boothby]

I'd sooner vote for a drunk koala than the current administration.


Bush is like a Koala, he's way more dangerous that he looked.

[kingdom2000]

Everyone knows Bush is just a puppet, its the unknown string pullers that scare me. To credit many of things that have occured to Bush would contribute a higher level of brain power then I really think he is capable of. But it is fun when he gets all "i can handle this", leaves the script and the flubs really start to fly.

[Pixies Chick]

Bush is like a Koala, he's way more dangerous that he looked.

But it's badgers you really need to look out for. Never corner a badger in it's own habitat. I'm telling ya.

[EdContradictory]

See, here we have a fundamental problem in the evolution of human thought when it comes to interpreting messages without physical body language. As you can see here, this speciman is unable to fathom sarcasm or satire. One would grimace at the mess he would make of a Jonathan Swift novel.
You think this was satire?

Is this the famed Liberals Tolerance for Others Opinions that I keep hearing about exists? When Liberals talk about Diversity, somehow, I don't think they mean what you're saying. Or do they?

Heh. That's hilarious. That's just level one, Coulter-esque liberal-bashing. (Unfunny and uninformed.)

[Pixies Chick]

Oddly enough, the links I posted seem to indicate that some campus Liberals appear to be quite intolerant themselves. We're not talking about the Government level, we're talking about Conservatives being demeaned at the college level. It appears to me that these Campus Liberals have engaged themselves in a philosophy that could adequately be called..."Free Speech for me, but not for thee."

Unless these Liberals think that trashing a Conservatives newspapers constitutes Free Speech, in which case, I heartily approve of them continuing to do so, as it shows their particular ideology to be bankrupt. I actually like it when I hear about certain Campus Liberals acting in that manner. At least these guys are being honest about what they believe in when it comes to political discourse.

Sorry about this reign of terror you are suffering under. It sounds like it's damn near intolerable. I don't know how you can bear this.

I don't know that you'll get a good understanding of liberalism by asking vandals. (That's why I don't think Ann Coulter is a good resource. She's a thug.) Please don't claim trashing newspapers is liberalism because it's not. If you'd like to learn about liberal thought, read Rousseau, or Paul Wellstone's books - they're great.

According to Wikipedia: Liberalism is an ideology, or current of political thought, which strives to maximize liberty. [1] Liberalism seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on the power of government and religion, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a free market economy that supports private enterprise, and a system of government that is transparent. This form of government favors liberal democracy with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law, and an equal opportunity to succeed. Liberalism rejected many foundational assumptions which dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the divine right of kings, hereditary status, and established religion. Fundamental human rights that all liberals support include the right to life, liberty, and property.

Based on this definition, you can see where liberals are at odds with the current administration. They have been less transparent than any other administration we have ever had. They believe in centralized power. They endorse the introduction of religion into politics. The family one is born into will have a more significant impact on one's life outcomes under their policies than under a liberal system.

Liberals believe that people are basically good and will do good if they've they've got the opportunity. To understand society's problems, you've got to talk to the people who are suffering because their experience is the key to the solutions. Conservative reliance on tradition leaves these people high and dry because it assumes that a system that worked for them must be the appropriate system for everybody, and life doesn't appear to work that way.
That's why democracy is the best form of government in the world. It's based on the consent of the governed, which means everybody gets a voice and protection from arbitrary authority.


Have a good day.

[EdContradictory]

But it's badgers you really need to look out for. Never corner a badger in it's own habitat. I'm telling ya.
Badgers! Badgers! Badgers! Badgers! Badgers! Badgers! Badgers! Badgers! Badgers! Badgers! Badgers! Badgers! Mushroom! Mushroom!

[Pixies Chick]

Badgers! Badgers! Badgers! Badgers! Badgers! Badgers! Badgers! Badgers! Badgers! Badgers! Badgers! Badgers! Mushroom! Mushroom!

Badger-mushroom, extra garlic, and no damn cheesesticks.

[The Xenos]

I gotta say, I too hate this mythical 'Liberals Tolerance for Others Opinions'. At least for die hard liberals. I've experience this first hand with friends and seen it with groups around campus. When I was younger I thought all these liberals were so open minded from all their talk. I was totally mislead by them. They can be just as bad as conservatives. Now by no means do I mean all liberals, but I find more and more in this polerizing country that they can be just as dangerous close minded as republicans.

I honestly do think that too many democrats swing too far left. I fear far left wingers and their threat to this coutnry's freedom as much as I fear Bush and his right wingers. Maybe that's one reason that they lost this last election. Though maybe it wasn't so much benig so left as being so wrapped up in their own political BS.

Then again I would have gone for someone even as liberal as Dean because I thought he was a decent (though seemingly kinda nutty) guy. Plus I think our country needs to swing the pendulum back from how right it has swung since Bush was in office. Lord knows I kinda welcomed Bush after 8 years of Clinton.

[EdContradictory]

I gotta say, I too hate this mythical 'Liberals Tolerance for Others Opinions'.
And I hate the bull that if a liberal is not tolerant of a racist he's being an intolerant hypocrite. Not that I'm calling you such, but that whole "you must tolerate the intolerant" nonsense is just that, nonsense.

[Nick Soapdish]

As liberal as Dean?

He's a lot more centrist than Kerry. He just looked more liberal because he had consistently opposed the war.

Clinton was a long ways from being really liberal as well. For the most part, he was fairly moderate. "Don't ask, don't tell" isn't exactly a ringing endorsement of homosexuality. It's not like he shifted the country to the left. He just slowed the shift to the right.

[EdContradictory]

As liberal as Dean?

He's a lot more centrist than Kerry. He just looked more liberal because he had consistently opposed the war.

And because he was painted as such by conservative pundits.

[Phrozen]

You think this was satire?



Heh. That's hilarious. That's just level one, Coulter-esque liberal-bashing. (Unfunny and uninformed.)

And here we come to another evolutionary adaptive problem. Cognitive dissonence happens when reality intercedes on the believed views of an individual. Since it is easier for an individual to keep his established views then to be challenged with new information and come up with new views, reality is filtered to fit those views. This leads to a seemingly irrational view of reality.

[the4thpip]

Somebody got a "big words" dictionary for Christmas. :o

[titanfan]

Not traitors, but self loathing and in need of therapy.

Oh give me a break. Most Log Cabin Republicans side with their gay brethren when it comes to gay rights. We didn't endorse Bush this election for a reason. If you think that one singular issue is enough to define your political party then that is totally narrow minded thinking. (And something that's wrong with a great deal of America) The Republican Party fits more of my worldview in general, thus I am a registerd Republican. Most log cabin Republicans in my area don't vote strictly among party lines and are extremely disgusted by Bush. Frankly, us moderate Republicans may be your best chance in preventing this country from being a pseudo-Christian theocracy.

[Noah Johnson]

Frankly, us moderate Republicans may be your best chance in preventing this country from being a pseudo-Christian theocracy.
I take your point, but it really does seem, to me at least, like the organized Republican party is past the point of no return. I for one would love to have some principled, moderate conservatives to debate public policy with. The current GOP, however, is taking the stance that separation of church and state shouldn't exist and that the president has the authority to disobey any laws he finds inconvenient. These are not minor policy quibbles.

Maybe the moderate, principled, or patriotic conservatives should form their own party, because at this point supporting the Republicans means you have allied yourself with the enemies of everything this country stands for, and I can't believe that's really what you want to do.

[EdContradictory]

And here we come to another evolutionary adaptive problem. Cognitive dissonence happens when reality intercedes on the believed views of an individual. Since it is easier for an individual to keep his established views then to be challenged with new information and come up with new views, reality is filtered to fit those views. This leads to a seemingly irrational view of reality.
Jesus Christ. I hope I didn't sound this pompous and out of touch with real people when I was in academia.

Deconstruct this: you sound like a jackass.

[EdContradictory]

Frankly, us moderate Republicans may be your best chance in preventing this country from being a pseudo-Christian theocracy.
Only if you actually speak up and take back your party at some point.

[titanfan]

I take your point, but it really does seem, to me at least, like the organized Republican party is past the point of no return. I for one would love to have some principled, moderate conservatives to debate public policy with. The current GOP, however, is taking the stance that separation of church and state shouldn't exist and that the president has the authority to disobey any laws he finds inconvenient. These are not minor policy quibbles.


I agree that has been extremely difficult after this past election. It's certainly possible. The thought of the far right gaining control of this country is extremely terrifying. Many of us are looking at the 2008 Primaries as extremely important. It will be the first primary since the Conservative Christian groups discovered their voting power and we'll have to see if they show up to vote in the primaries as well.

In 2000, things were actually quite promising. It's not well known, but Bush was the first Republican Presidential Candidate in over than 20 years to meet with the Log Cabin Republicans. He openly courted the gay Republican vote and sought their endorsement. I still think that if the 2000 election had been "less close", the Republican Party wouldn't be where it is today. As it is, it made a strategic choice to abandon to cut loose it's moderates and
go far right. (Thus gaining the support of groups who normally wouldn't otherwise be bothered to vote)

[the4thpip]

I'm sorry, I can't consider a gay man who votes for the party of Nixon, Bush and Reagan a well-balanced individual. There is something about being treated as less than a man that should trump all other policies.

[titanfan]

There is something about being treated as less than a man that should trump all other policies.

Even Baby Killing? (Yes, there are a lot of people who consider a fetus as a human being, I don't wish to debate it right now, but simply explaining how people can feel A, then B)

What exactly did Reagan and Nixon do to infringe upon gay rights to make you hate them? As far as I know, both were a supporter of states rights. I was young and wasn't into politics as much during then, so educate me.

[Nick Soapdish]

And here we come to another evolutionary adaptive problem. Cognitive dissonence happens when reality intercedes on the believed views of an individual. Since it is easier for an individual to keep his established views then to be challenged with new information and come up with new views, reality is filtered to fit those views. This leads to a seemingly irrational view of reality.

Nice putdown (although you misspelled "dissonance" - not usually a flaw on message boards, but it undercuts the scholarly tone).

Remarkably lacking in substance, however, and just as inane as what you quoted. More so, even since more egregrious insults of Coulter's have been posted, thus backing up Ed's "Level One" assertation.

I must admit that your post does help inform as to the general populace's frustration at the "academic elite". Listening to people use big words to mask the fact that they don't have anything other to say than "you're wrong" can be annoying. It's not so much the condescension as the idea that the condescension is coming from somebody that doesn't seem to know anything more than you.

Obviously, it's a technique that I have been known to employ myself. I know it's juvenile, but hey, I'm human. But I appreciate the reminder to only use such techniques on someone that I truly feel worthy of that condescension and whom I have no expectation of reaching with "reason". Once one insults the other side, it's much less likely that they'll listen to one's arguments, no matter how well phrased they may be. I place reason in quotes since I'm not always right and have been swayed by intelligent debate on the other side in the past - ergo I am not always the one on the side of reason.

[Noah Johnson]

I agree that has been extremely difficult after this past election. It's certainly possible. The thought of the far right gaining control of this country is extremely terrifying.
I share your concern, but the fact of the matter is that the current GOP is, proudly and deliberately, the party of the far right. And they HAVE control of this country and are working to increase it.

What are your actual political differences with the Democratic party? The REAL Democratic party, not the Fox News cartoon version. That version's a lie, as I'm sure you're aware. And are those differences more important than maintaining constitutional democracy in this country? Because that's what the GOP is working on eliminating.

[Sabrinaset]

Sorry about this reign of terror you are suffering under. It sounds like it's damn near intolerable. I don't know how you can bear this.


I don't appear to have suffered much, as I find their efforts amusing. A good sense of humor can overcome darn near anything. Besides, I know I'll be making more than they will in ten years :)


Liberals believe that people are basically good and will do good if they've they've got the opportunity...That's why democracy is the best form of government in the world. It's based on the consent of the governed, which means everybody gets a voice and protection from arbitrary authority.

I know many conservatives who believe the same thing. See, where I draw the line is that I percieve, (and I guess I better seperate the term "liberal" and "conservative" from "Republican" and "Democrat")... liberals as willing to create more and more laws and government agencies to regulate said opportunities, whereas conservatives would rather let the individual handle their own opportunities. Essentially speaking, as I see it, a classical liberal thinks government is the solution, and a classical conservative thinks government is the problem, a classical liberal thinks the government needs to raise taxes because then the government can help you more and more, while a classical conservative would believe that by lowering taxes, the individual can spend his or her own money better than the government can, a classical liberal believes in a subjective moral relativity, while a classical conservative believes in moral absolutes of right and wrong. Personally, I choose the conservative side on these affairs. Hey, you can choose whatever you want, but when someone appears to approve of hauling someone elses newspapers off and destroying them simply because their ideas are in conflict with thir own, then you have what Phrozen was describing: Campus Liberals who tolerate intolerance and not appearing to understand the disconnect, or cognitive dissonance between their professed belief in tolerance and diversity, and the debate of concepts in the arena of ideas.

I know it's been awhile since my last American History class, but I do vaguely recall the framers, and I'm thinking Thomas Jefferson here, although again I may be misremembering, in discussing the First Amendment, saying something to the effect that Free Speech was meant to protect not just ideas you agreed with, but ideas you didn't, in fact, even offensive ideas. Ann Coulter goes on campus and speaks. The campus liberals reaction: Not to debate her, but to throw a pie at her. I have to say, personally, I'm not impressed.
It used to be "I may disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it!" Now, we have "And I hate the bull that if a liberal is not tolerant of a racist he's being an intolerant hypocrite... That whole "you must tolerate the intolerant" nonsense is just that, nonsense."

Here's an idea. It's wierd, but might actually work. Try to hear exactly what the conservatives are actually saying. You might hate them a lot less, or at least reduce the possible stress on your heart when you occasionally hear them.

Have a good day.

Always do.

[The Xenos]

As liberal as Dean?

He's a lot more centrist than Kerry. He just looked more liberal because he had consistently opposed the war.

Clinton was a long ways from being really liberal as well. For the most part, he was fairly moderate. "Don't ask, don't tell" isn't exactly a ringing endorsement of homosexuality. It's not like he shifted the country to the left. He just slowed the shift to the right.

Yeah. True, I really just made that comment because of the comments about Dean. I honestly didn't see that as a problem myself nor did I really see him as too liberal. A bit loud and nutty though.

-Very- interesting observation about Clinton there too.

[Pixies Chick]

Even Baby Killing? (Yes, there are a lot of people who consider a fetus as a human being, I don't wish to debate it right now, but simply explaining how people can feel A, then B)

What exactly did Reagan and Nixon do to infringe upon gay rights to make you hate them? As far as I know, both were a supporter of states rights. I was young and wasn't into politics as much during then, so educate me.

Circumstances vary over time, so specific legislation can only tell you so much.

For me, the way I choose who I endorse depends on how problems are defined. I don't find much richness in the conservative interpretation of how the universe functions. For example:

Very high gay/lesbian suicide rate and high rate of self-destructive behaviors. Conservative solution: don't be gay. Liberal solution: decrease discrimination against gays/lesbians and recognition of their long-term stable relationships as marriages.

Very high incarceration rate in America: Conservatives - don't violate the law. For conservatives incarceration isn't a problem; it's a solution. Liberals see high incarceration rate as a sign of societal dysfunction, and seeks rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

High teen pregnancy and abortion rate: Conservatives - criminalize abortion and it will go away. Don't teach doctors how to perform abortions. Liberal - educate on sex and contraceptives, address societal factors that promote early pregnancy and high risk sexual behavior. When we better understand the factors that lead to unprotected sex and the decision to have an abortion, we can strive for alterations in society that will lower the rate of abortion. The big disconnect for me is that conservatives, based on their policies, don't appear to believe in "spontaneous abortions" (i.e., miscarriages) either, since conservative policies, like cutting nutrition programs, access to prenatal care and immunization, not to mention weakening pollution standards will cause a lot of abortions, but those souls don't trouble conservatives for a second. Why is a planned abortion a crime, but abortions/miscarriages that result from conservatives' gross neglect of needy and urban populations perfectly acceptable?

Low voter turnout: Conservatives - great, concentration of power means the establishment (i.e., conservatives) win. Liberal - facilitate voter registration.

Multilingual population: Conservative - endorse one language and limit participation in civil society in any language other than the established one. Liberal - make services available in multiple languages. (This one is particularly onerous, I think, since it seems that conservatives want a monolingual society. The world's most repressive regimes never achieved that, so I'm concerned about the depth of their commitment to this goal.)

I know you didn't ask for my opinion, but this is why I'm a liberal. I just think the world is more complicated than setting up the 10 commandments, limiting services to English, tying kids' legs together, and putting "God" on the currency. Plus, I crave variety. The vision of America I hear conservatives talk about is too uniform and bland for my tastes. I'd love to hear conservatives explain what motivates them. If they feel my characterization of conservativism is unfair, I'd be happy to hear about it.

[jimmything2681]

Only if you actually speak up and take back your party at some point.
Which I'm all in favor of.

[Pixies Chick]

I don't appear to have suffered much, as I find their efforts amusing. A good sense of humor can overcome darn near anything. Besides, I know I'll be making more than they will in ten years :)




I know many conservatives who believe the same thing. See, where I draw the line is that I percieve, (and I guess I better seperate the term "liberal" and "conservative" from "Republican" and "Democrat")... liberals as willing to create more and more laws and government agencies to regulate said opportunities, whereas conservatives would rather let the individual handle their own opportunities. Essentially speaking, as I see it, a classical liberal thinks government is the solution, and a classical conservative thinks government is the problem, a classical liberal thinks the government needs to raise taxes because then the government can help you more and more, while a classical conservative would believe that by lowering taxes, the individual can spend his or her own money better than the government can, a classical liberal believes in a subjective moral relativity, while a classical conservative believes in moral absolutes of right and wrong. Personally, I choose the conservative side on these affairs. Hey, you can choose whatever you want, but when someone appears to approve of hauling someone elses newspapers off and destroying them simply because their ideas are in conflict with thir own, then you have what Phrozen was describing: Campus Liberals who tolerate intolerance and not appearing to understand the disconnect, or cognitive dissonance between their professed belief in tolerance and diversity, and the debate of concepts in the arena of ideas.

I know it's been awhile since my last American History class, but I do vaguely recall the framers, and I'm thinking Thomas Jefferson here, although again I may be misremembering, in discussing the First Amendment, saying something to the effect that Free Speech was meant to protect not just ideas you agreed with, but ideas you didn't, in fact, even offensive ideas. Ann Coulter goes on campus and speaks. The campus liberals reaction: Not to debate her, but to throw a pie at her. I have to say, personally, I'm not impressed.
It used to be "I may disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it!" Now, we have "And I hate the bull that if a liberal is not tolerant of a racist he's being an intolerant hypocrite... That whole "you must tolerate the intolerant" nonsense is just that, nonsense."

Here's an idea. It's wierd, but might actually work. Try to hear exactly what the conservatives are actually saying. You might hate them a lot less, or at least reduce the possible stress on your heart when you occasionally hear them.



Always do.

Kinda wish I'd seen this before the above post, since it's pretty much what I was looking for. I agree. Liberals believe that government has a role in society and can play a positive role in people's lives, in particular the lives of the underclass. Liberals believe that those who have benefited from the bounty of our society have an obligation to fund the programs that benefit society. Say I can't afford a house, but I'm paying taxes for the police that protect someone else's mansion, that person can pay taxes to support my kid's education. That's the social contract, and yep, guilty, I've never voted against a tax increase, even the ones that kinda hit me hard. My husband works for the state, so I know that government workers aren't succubi, they're members of society, ones that get the check from the government instead of a private owner, and I'm willing to pay 'em what their worth, and not force them to work under the guidance of a religion that they don't believe in.

I think that there's two sides to Free Speech, and your post raises both of them. There is both the right to say what you will, but there's also the support of those who say things you don't like. When Ann Coulter says that liberals should be addressed with bats, she violates the second pillar. Those who want Free Speech then have an obligation to call her on it. Not shut her up. She can continue to be a jackass about it, but she should be called on it everytime she does it.

I've asked conservatives for their opinion because I am genuinely interested. Frankly, I wouldn't raise the issue here if I didn't want to get a conservative slant because the site is a lot more conservative than anywhere else I frequent. The current direction of the country concerns me. If I need to look at things in a different way, I'd like to know that. Unfortunately, what I often find people use "free speech" for is to spin lies and demonize. That's something I personally believe to be unpatriotic.

[titanfan]

What are your actual political differences with the Democratic party? The REAL Democratic party, not the Fox News cartoon version. That version's a lie, as I'm sure you're aware. And are those differences more important than maintaining constitutional democracy in this country? Because that's what the GOP is working on eliminating.

Hmm...what would you say is the "real" Democratic Party? Ideally, I find the Democrat and Republican parties great, but when you break things down issue by issue, there seem to be inconsistencies along each party line. Generally, I find myself siding with Democrats on most social issues, but with Republicans on most national issues.
I agree with the idea earlier that both parties have changed a lot. The Republican Party we have today isn't the one I grew up with.

I can't speak for every other moderate, but I certainly will not continue to support the Republican Party if it continues on this path. I certainly did not vote Republican in the last Presidential election. (And if you believe polls, a shocking 17-23% of gay voters voted for Bush) But at the same time, there is a refusal to compromise. The best way I know to enact change is to take back my party and make
it right. I could join the Libertarian or Constitution party, as a handful of moderates I know have been doing, but I'm not ready to go down that path yet.

The far right wants to elimination Constitutional Democracy, but the far left has a totally different version of Constitutional Democracy than I do, that it may as well be eliminated if they triumph as well.

[Sabrinaset]

Okay, I'll try this, although the last time I posted on what made me a conservative, I was flamed six ways to Sunday. Might be good for a laugh.

Very high gay/lesbian suicide rate and high rate of self-destructive behaviors. Conservative solution: don't be gay. Liberal solution: decrease discrimination against gays/lesbians and recognition of their long-term stable relationships as marriages.

Or: Conservative solution: Your sexuality is your own business, and not that of society at large. So long as said behavior does not violate other peoples safety or welfare, nor constitutes a crime, should best be left to the individual or family, which knows said individual. Marriage is a rite which has long been defined as one man/one woman, and changing the nature of the contract between man, woman, and God changes the essence of the contract itself, thus rendering it something else other than "marriage".

Very high incarceration rate in America: Conservatives - don't violate the law. For conservatives incarceration isn't a problem; it's a solution. Liberals see high incarceration rate as a sign of societal dysfunction, and seeks rehabilitation and reintegration into society.
Conservatives see crime as an attack upon individual and public rights. Incarceration is a solution in that the criminal is no longer free to continue said attacks. Conservatives, although dissapointed that said individuals choose to violate the law and commit crime, see a high incarceration rate as a sign that the police are doing their job, and that the rule of law works. See next for possible way to alleviate societies problems.

High teen pregnancy and abortion rate: Conservatives - criminalize abortion and it will go away. Don't teach doctors how to perform abortions. Liberal - educate on sex and contraceptives, address societal factors that promote early pregnancy and high risk sexual behavior. When we better understand the factors that lead to unprotected sex and the decision to have an abortion, we can strive for alterations in society that will lower the rate of abortion.
Conservatives believe that by stressing the need for abstinance (which works every time) not only will teen pregnancy rates drop, but so will the spread of STD's, single-parent families in which many rely on support from taxpayer dollars instead of the families which should be the main support system for a child, and an incidental lowering of the poverty rate, and many single-parent families not only have a high risk ofliving under the povery line, but their children have a higher risk of staying there, as well as having less of a financial support system that two parents would bring. Conservatives believe that abortions should be rare, if not illegal, because of the sanctity of life and the value we place upon it, and because the decision to engage in the act that creates a baby entails with it the responsibity to said child, which should come first every time... which is why conservatives believe in abstinance and self-responsibility. We believe that children are not simply a pack of minxes that engage in sex at every opportunity, but can be taught to be responsible for themselves and their actions, by being taught that actions have consequences. In short, conservatives believe that if we educate children to achieve their potential as responsible citizens, both as regards society and their own bodies, they will live up to their expectations. Liberal solution: assume children will have sex at every opportunity, pass out free condoms at school, endorse sexual relations between children who are clearly not ready for it, and then accept the natural consequence of these lessons learned...more children born to parents who are not emotionally or financially ready for the responsibility.

Low voter turnout: Conservatives - great, concentration of power means the establishment (i.e., conservatives) win. Liberal - facilitate voter registration.
Conservative solution: Educate the population of the value of being an American Citizen, which includes the responsibility to vote. This of course necessatates the need to teach children that the US is a country worth living in, that it is in fact the greatest country on Earth, and that we should take pride in living here, as opposed to France. Liberal Solution: Have Paris Hilton co-sponsor "Vote or Die" and then watch as she fails to even register. :)

Multilingual population: Conservative - endorse one language and limit participation in civil society in any language other than the established one. Liberal - make services available in multiple languages. (This one is particularly onerous, I think, since it seems that conservatives want a monolingual society. The world's most repressive regimes never achieved that, so I'm concerned about the depth of their commitment to this goal.)
Conservative view - what made the US great is the fact that many peoples from many nations came together under one banner in pursuit of better conditions for themselves and their posterity, due to a weak federal government that, unlike other governments on Europe, tended to leave them alone. The unifying bonds between these peoples were the Constitution, the Declaration of Independance, and a common language whith which to communicate, seen as a rite of passage to become a citizen in a country in which it did not matter who you were, or what you were, rather how hard were you willing to work to achieve your goals. Being a United States Citizen means certain responsibilities and duties devolve upon you, one of which is knowing the unifying language.


I know you didn't ask for my opinion, but this is why I'm a liberal. I just think the world is more complicated than setting up the 10 commandments, limiting services to English, tying kids' legs together, and putting "God" on the currency. Plus, I crave variety. The vision of America I hear conservatives talk about is too uniform and bland for my tastes. I'd love to hear conservatives explain what motivates them. If they feel my characterization of conservativism is unfair, I'd be happy to hear about it.

Conservatives think that Liberals overcomplicate things, and see shades of grey where they should not exist, or do not need to exist. Conservatives also see Liberals as seeing humanity as a group of individuals who need no checks on their baser selves and who have free-floating standards based on differing circumstances without a moral compass. Conservatives believe certain things in life are simple, because they are. Where liberals see conformity, uniformity and blandness, Conservatives see devotion to ideals of right and wrong, of faith in God and a belief in a higher power as well as ultimate justice, and in clear set roles in terms of personal responsibility, self-reliance, the inportance of family, and a belief in the law as a means of judging and correcting fallible human responses.

Let the flaming begin in three...two...one...*bang*

[Noah Johnson]

Conservatives believe that by stressing the need for abstinance (which works every time) not only will teen pregnancy rates drop, but so will the spread of STD's...
I could do this with a lot of your post, but I'm going to pick this one point as symptomatic of a larger problem. Abstinence, yes, works. "Stressing the need" for it, which is a polite way of misrepresenting the actual conservative policy of eliminating any other information, does not work. Pregnancy and STD rates actually rise. Multiple studies have been done, all proving beyond any shadow of a doubt that the policy you advocate does NOT produce the results you say you want. There is no room for debate on that point. It's been tried, it's been checked, it failed. Utterly.

Why would you hold a belief that has already been disproven, and don't you think that setting real-world policy based on that belief might not be a good idea?

I'm not trying to flame you, I'm just pointing out, as politely as I can, a very basic problem with your position, that I think you would feel better if you addressed.

[Sabrinaset]

Thet depends on where these kids are getting their information from. To that extent, why was it that illegitamecy rates started to skyrocket a few decades ago? I would posit that the "If it feels good, do it" philosophy that started more-or-less in the 60's might have had something to do with it. The problem is at this time, teachers and parents stressing this message have to compete against music, TV, magazines, etc which continue to tell impressionable teenagers that they can do whatever they want, whenever they want, dress and act however they want, and damn the consequences. If you're a teenager, who are you going to listen to? The authority figure telling you to do the right thing, or MTV saying the opposite? The problem is the mixed messages these kids are getting, something those studies (I've just read my notes on the Development and Unique Medical Needs of Adolescents) don't often take into account, and I'm fairly sure that if society as a whole didn't approve of some of the outright dreck I see in music and TV, there would be a lot less problems here.

Should information on sexuality be taught? Sure, I didn't say it shouldn't, I just didn't address it (that was a long post for me, you know!) but the problem is is that it is taught as a viable alternative to abstinence, instead of something that leads to certain inevitable conclusions, and these conclusions are real and life-altering. These kids are being taught about the power of sex, but the education seems pretty weak on the responsibility side, as I see it. To me, what's happenning now is similar to a school teaching a drug-ed class, and saying that if you don't use drugs, that's better, but if you do use drugs, here, have a bong. By passing out free condoms in schools, the public education system is firmly letting kids know that their sexual behavior is not only tolerated, but even expected and rewarded. Personally, I don't think this is what we should be doing. Geez, I'm just waiting for the lawsuit some kid starts when the condom they use is defective and a baby results. Might be interesting to see the school getting sued over this :)

I think we can do better than that by our kids by standing for something we can be proud of.

[Noah Johnson]

To me, what's happenning now is similar to a school teaching a drug-ed class, and saying that if you don't use drugs, that's better, but if you do use drugs, here, have a bong. By passing out free condoms in schools, the public education system is firmly letting kids know that their sexual behavior is not only tolerated, but even expected and rewarded. Personally, I don't think this is what we should be doing.
Your personal feelings about what message is sent are, I'm sorry, completely irrelevant. We have the data. The program you don't like works better. Now, if you ACTUALLY want lower pregnancy and STD rates, then you say "Okay, guess I can't have everything I want" bite the bullet and support the program that works in the real world. However, if what you really want is to be, in your mind, morally right, then you have to accept that the consequences of the policy you support are higher pregnancy and STD rates.

But you can't have it both ways. The world doesn't work like that. You need to decide whether you want to support the policy you believe in, or the policy that objective reality believes in. But accept the consequences either way.

[Adam Crocker]

Haven't been keeping up with this thread, but a few things stuck out at from the usual partisan sniping and false dichotomies that get tossed out here...at least enough for me to comment on.


Liberal solution: assume children will have sex at every opportunity, pass out free condoms at school, endorse sexual relations between children who are clearly not ready for it, and then accept the natural consequence of these lessons learned...more children born to parents who are not emotionally or financially ready for the responsibility.

Wait, wait...where did you get this "endorse sexual relations between children who are clearly not ready for it" from? Pixies' comment is addressed at the failed abstinence only sex-ed programs that the Bush administration and the Republican so keen on.

(However, I've also seen it lambasted by many conservatives who realize, it is a complete crock of shit.)


Low voter turnout: Conservatives - great, concentration of power means the establishment (i.e., conservatives) win. Liberal - facilitate voter registration.


Now here's a false dichotomy if I've ever seen one. Apparently, all conservatives think that low voter turnout is good for purposes of increasing their power. Right, I'll be sure to tell the board's Republicans, former Republicans, and libertarians that and they'll all have a good laugh.


Conservative solution: Educate the population of the value of being an American Citizen, which includes the responsibility to vote. This of course necessatates the need to teach children that the US is a country worth living in, that it is in fact the greatest country on Earth, and that we should take pride in living here, as opposed to France. Liberal Solution: Have Paris Hilton co-sponsor "Vote or Die" and then watch as she fails to even register.

Not that this is equally flawed. Where is this great push from conservatives to instill public pride to votes? And in any case you still have to give credit to those liberals who did work to push for more voter registration in 2004, even if it was just to vote Kerry.

In any case you're both missing the real problem: low voter turnout isn't favoured by conservatives. It's favoured by the Republican and Democratic Parties because it increases their power because they just have to focus on appealing to the same small base of voters. Same reason they rig things to ensure their monopoly on the electoral process through gerrymandering and excluding third party candidates from debates. (Which is the real reason that people don't vote, because they feel they can't change anything through lack of acceptable major choices.)

[Adam Crocker]

The problem is the mixed messages these kids are getting...

What mixed messages?

...but the education seems pretty weak on the responsibility side, as I see it.

Can you substantiate this claim?

By passing out free condoms in schools, the public education system is firmly letting kids know that their sexual behavior is not only tolerated, but even expected and rewarded.

Which schools have been passing out condoms? Does it similarly apply if they don't pass out condoms, but teach people how to use them?

[Sabrinaset]

See, at this point, I'm a little unclear on what exactly the program is that you are for, so I'm not entirely sure how to respond. I'm getting a number of mixed messages about this when I search. The general trend seems to be that a number of factors are responsible for the declining pregnancy rate. This report appears to be the best...
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/or_teen_preg_decline.html
Note this part:
It appears that increased abstinence among women accounted for approximately one-quarter of the drop in the U.S. teenage pregnancy rate between 1988 and 1995.
I'd call that somewhat signifigant. Then again, I'm sure there are quotes in there that you would find favorable to your position as well.
My notes are telling me something different than what you're saying. Links, please?

God, I love this quote from my notes on Adolescent Medical Norms...
Using an adults psychological baseline as the norm, many teenagers can be classified as insane
They must have interviewed my lil bratty brother!

[Adam Crocker]

See, at this point, I'm a little unclear on what exactly the program is that you are for, so I'm not entirely sure how to respond.

I'm in favour of comprehensive sex education. That means teaching kids not only all the mechanics involved, potential risks, and how to avoid them. That includes going over all the forms of contraception if you should choose to have sex, as well as that abstinence is the best way to avoid all this -- which is exactly what I got in high school up hear in Canada.

As for myself, I'm unclear as to what program you are for or against for that matter. You allude to liberals supposedly outright encouraging sex among teens and not stressing abstinence enough, but I have no idea what these claims are based on in regards to real world examples. Pixies at least has the endorsement of abstinence only education by Bush and the Republicans (as well as members of the religious right) to back up her claim, though I think that it is ridiculously simplistic and reductive to apply this all conservatives.

Moreover, while I am not sure if this is the view you hold, your portrayal of the situation does give the impression that you regard teaching dichotomy abstinence and contraception as mutually exclusive. Hence my question if the logic of handing out condoms applies to teaching them how to use them.

[Sabrinaset]

My personal stance is: Probably should have Sex Ed, but stress Abstinance as the only way to completely eliminate the risk of unwanted pregnancies, STD's and the like (which it does) Beyond that, sure, teach the basics and function of sex, and go into its biological/psychological results, but I would also include in the program a moral, ethical, and legal...definitely legal... guideline of what is right and wrong in approaching the subject. This idea that conservatives want absolutely no sex ed in the classroom...nope. I know too many that do, but what they want in the program is a guideline informing kids that they are simply not ready for it, as well as knowing when they will be. This time usually coinciding with the moment they are able to psychologically, financially, and emotionally support a child.

[Pixies Chick]

Okay, I'll try this, ...*

That was really well-done. I'd go along with about 90%.

Small points: Liberals aren't opposed to abstinence. It's a legitimate choice. But abstinence is a faulty solution to preventing pregnancy because almost everybody is going to have sex - eventually. Personally, I didn't have sex because of sex ed. I had sex because of biology. The importance of teaching sex ed in high school is that you'll never have a better opportunity to round up the majority of soon-to-be adults to give them all accurate information. I'd prefer that the person my kid - eventually - has sex with isn't ignorant about sexual hygiene. And yes, I chose that word because the only way to get through that sentence is with a clinical view.

But otherwise, I think you've presented a good summary of what defines the parties.

[Pixies Chick]

...Now here's a false dichotomy if I've ever seen one. Apparently, all conservatives think that low voter turnout is good for purposes of increasing their power. Right, I'll be sure to tell the board's Republicans, former Republicans, and libertarians that and they'll all have a good laugh. ...

Um ... that's practically a quote. Prominent republicans frequently deride voter registration drives by saying that they encourage the "uninformed" to vote. Republicans have also said that if you don't know enough about the issues, stay home. The Republican Party has not been aggressive about voter registration and has generally favored highly restrictive voter registration legislation. For example, there's a state that is about to require photo IDs, which has never been required in the past. Check out the charges against the republican party for interfering with voting. In general, it has been the case that the republican party relies on a lower voter turnout because traditionally more people have defined themselves as democrats, so if all the democrats showed up, they'd lose a lot more often.

Now, do republicans want to increase the percentage of voters who support them? Yes, they do. But this is different from increasing the pool of voters.

[Nick Soapdish]

Liberal Solution: Have Paris Hilton co-sponsor "Vote or Die" and then watch as she fails to even register. :)


Heck, we'd even be selling popcorn.

And we could make it a really democratic experience by letting people vote on how Paris Hilton should die. :D

[Nick Soapdish]

Okay, I'll try this, although the last time I posted on what made me a conservative, I was flamed six ways to Sunday. Might be good for a laugh.

I think part of the reason for that was your characterization of what liberals believe - such as environmentalists hate capitalism. I was ready to flame you for that (but since I came in late on the thread I didn't want to dredge it back up). If you're still interested in a liberal manifesto along the lines of what you posted, I could start one.

I could make a similarly facile claim about what conservatives believe, based on listening to Rush's show, and it would probably be about as accurate. You seem to be doing it again (based on why liberals are against abstinence only). I know a ton of people that vote Democrat, but apparently I don't know any liberals at all. :p

Part of it was because you broke it down to bumper sticker bullets which may make great soundbytes (OK, so I'm too digital), but generally don't work so well in the world. You did explain them a bit better later, but they were still a bit brief.

But mostly, I figure it was because we like to make fun of conservatives. :D

[Sabrinaset]

No, I was referring to another thread where I was totally flamed when I wrote what, as a conservative, I believe in. It sort of indirectly led to a number of people getting banned when they went haywire over it.

Paul McEnery made that point about breaking it down into bumper stickers as well. My response was, okay, I could make it more detailed, but I seriously doubt CBR is ready for a 20-page post.

So long as liberals get made fun of as well, suits me.

[Adam Crocker]

But abstinence is a faulty solution to preventing pregnancy because almost everybody is going to have sex - eventually.

I think a better way of putting it is that even teaching abstinence will not fully prevent the risks of sex since many teenagers choose to follow their biological urges, and they are strong, and have sex anyways.

(Which is exactly where abstinence only education fails since while it does delay the onset of pregnancy it was found that kids subjected to abstinence only frequently end up following other sexual practices instead, mostly without protection which will increased STD transmission rates.)

Um ... that's practically a quote. Prominent republicans frequently deride voter registration drives by saying that they encourage the "uninformed" to vote. Republicans have also said that if you don't know enough about the issues, stay home.

Okay, this has me interested. Could you name a few or quote a few?

Check out the charges against the republican party for interfering with voting.

I'm well aware of those.

In general, it has been the case that the republican party relies on a lower voter turnout because traditionally more people have defined themselves as democrats, so if all the democrats showed up, they'd lose a lot more often.

On the other hand I was objecting to the characterization of conservatives as anti-voting, not all of which are Republican. (And I've seen an increasing number just on this board becoming disgusted with the party.)

[Samurai]

Um ... that's practically a quote. Prominent republicans frequently deride voter registration drives by saying that they encourage the "uninformed" to vote. Republicans have also said that if you don't know enough about the issues, stay home. The Republican Party has not been aggressive about voter registration and has generally favored highly restrictive voter registration legislation. For example, there's a state that is about to require photo IDs, which has never been required in the past. Check out the charges against the republican party for interfering with voting. In general, it has been the case that the republican party relies on a lower voter turnout because traditionally more people have defined themselves as democrats, so if all the democrats showed up, they'd lose a lot more often.

Now, do republicans want to increase the percentage of voters who support them? Yes, they do. But this is different from increasing the pool of voters.
I'm opposed to registering illegal aliens to vote (http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10187) and similar stupid stunts that Dems pull because they think it'll increase their voting pool. I'm all for legal American citizens voting though, and I vote every time.

[Noah Johnson]

On the other hand I was objecting to the characterization of conservatives as anti-voting, not all of which are Republican. (And I've seen an increasing number just on this board becoming disgusted with the party.)
A fair distinction. I mean, low turnout has traditionally been a Republican advantage, which has led to decades of jokes about Republicans sitting around on election day going "Rain, dammit, rain!"

Of course, when people are posting flyers in minority neighborhoods with false information designed to keep people from voting, that's beyond a joke. Mind you, that was never proven to have been the Republican party. Could've been some other group that benefits from low voter turnout in minority neighborhoods. Such as... um... maybe it was alien zombie robots from the future. You can't prove it wasn't.

Low turnout, high turnout... as long as people are playing by the rules and everyone has good public policy at heart, these are just cute political differences. When one party decides that the rule of law is optional... problem.

[Nick Soapdish]

No, I was referring to another thread where I was totally flamed when I wrote what, as a conservative, I believe in. It sort of indirectly led to a number of people getting banned when they went haywire over it.

Paul McEnery made that point about breaking it down into bumper stickers as well. My response was, okay, I could make it more detailed, but I seriously doubt CBR is ready for a 20-page post.

So long as liberals get made fun of as well, suits me.

Isn't that the same thread and even post that you claimed environmentalists hated capitalism in? The one on Bush and domestic spying?

Or did this happen twice?

[kingdom2000]

I'm opposed to registering illegal aliens to vote (http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10187) and similar stupid stunts that Dems pull because they think it'll increase their voting pool. I'm all for legal American citizens voting though, and I vote every time.

Crap...I hate having to agree with Sam but it happens every now and then. Its like i said before...why become a citizen if get to have all the benefits and even drop some of the drawbacks (taxes).

[Samurai]

A fair distinction. I mean, low turnout has traditionally been a Republican advantage, which has led to decades of jokes about Republicans sitting around on election day going "Rain, dammit, rain!"

Of course, when people are posting flyers in minority neighborhoods with false information designed to keep people from voting, that's beyond a joke. Mind you, that was never proven to have been the Republican party. Could've been some other group that benefits from low voter turnout in minority neighborhoods. Such as... um... maybe it was alien zombie robots from the future. You can't prove it wasn't.

Low turnout, high turnout... as long as people are playing by the rules and everyone has good public policy at heart, these are just cute political differences. When one party decides that the rule of law is optional... problem.
You do know that in the last election, even though the Dems increased the number of their voters, the Reps increased theirs even more. There was massive voter turnout in the conservative and battleground states, and that is why Bush won. Grassroots rallying of voters, helping people get to their polling places, reminding everyone to vote... conservatives do this as much as Dems because we know the silent majority is with us.

[the4thpip]

You do know that in the last election, even though the Dems increased the number of their voters, the Reps increased theirs even more. There was massive voter turnout in the conservative and battleground states, and that is why Bush won. Grassroots rallying of voters, helping people get to their polling places, reminding everyone to vote... conservatives do this as much as Dems because we know the silent majority is with us.
And all they had to do was scare religious folks of gay people.

[Pixies Chick]

I think a better way of putting it is that even teaching abstinence will not fully prevent the risks of sex since many teenagers choose to follow their biological urges, and they are strong, and have sex anyways.

(Which is exactly where abstinence only education fails since while it does delay the onset of pregnancy it was found that kids subjected to abstinence only frequently end up following other sexual practices instead, mostly without protection which will increased STD transmission rates.)
That's another reason, sure.

Okay, this has me interested. Could you name a few or quote a few?
Wish I had the time today. George Will has said it many times, and I bet you could find it online.

On the other hand I was objecting to the characterization of conservatives as anti-voting, not all of which are Republican. (And I've seen an increasing number just on this board becoming disgusted with the party.)

I said "anti-voting"? 'Fraid not.

But you tell me how you can get a desire to increase the vote out of restricting the vote to people who speak English only and make it harder to become a citizen. How do you increase voting when you increase criminal penalties to the degree that we have the highest incarceration rate of any democracy - which takes a large number of adults out of the voting pool - and support legislation and procedures that prevent people who have served their time from voting? How does opposing "motor-voter" and same-day registration fit with a conservative desire to increase voting?

Like I said, it's not that their against voting, they just prefer that people like them to vote in high numbers, and would prefer that people significantly different from them lose their right to vote.

Object if you want, but jeez, bring an argument or you just sound argumentative.

[Gail Simone]

Okay, so are we talking about campus conservatives, or conservatives in general? Because just quoting Howard Dean as a representative of Liberalism alone...:) I think I'll stick to the campus subject, but I'll take this on once, and head off to sleeeeep....

Rush apologized to Hillary for that very comment the next time he saw her.

Bill O'Reilly, a conservative? Please, he hates everyone.

I'll explain a secret about Ann to you: She deliberately goes over the top. She basically takes much of the hate speech liberals use about conservatives, and throws it back at them just as hard. She likes being a lightning rod. Most people don't get that about her, and don't want to, because that would mean taking a good long look at the invectives being thrown by their own side. She is essentially saying "Okay, Liberals get away with saying A, B, and C, let's see how they like it when I say X, Y, and Z"

What a crock of shit.

Ann Coulter is a nasty, vile, lying creep, and I'm sorry, but you guys don't get to blame US for HER. She's yours, you made her a goddess, like you made lying scumbag Rush into a national force for change. I don't blame James Carville or Mike Malloy on Conservatives...they're assholes in their own right.

Ridiculous.

When, oh, when, is the Republican platform going to stop revolving around the idea that you're all being picked on? It's embarrassing. The whole fricking pundit nation is so in love with the idea that you guys are constantly being given the shaft by we powerful and scary wary liberals...it's unseemly. More importantly, it's insulting to genuine Conservative values.

The current crop of pandering nitwit scumbags that make up the general tv punditry aren't popular because they're honest, they're popular because they are professional validators. Don't like your gay neighbor? Michael Weiner Savage will tell you it's okay. Don't want to hear the truth about George Bush? Rush Limbaugh will tell you, for three hours a day, why the truth isn't the truth. Want to believe in fake patriotism so that anyone who questions the administration is a traitor, even if they've got medals for valor in military service, why, here comes Ann Coulter to call them Anti-American.

Please, it's a grown-up world, and my fondest wish is that these idiots have to move out of the way so the adults can talk.

Gail

[Earthling]

Don't like your gay neighbor? Michael Weiner Savage will tell you it's okay.

Speaking of Michael Savage, the Secret Weiner --

Am I the only one who wonders if he might be a 100-percent performance artist? I mean, his background is so bizarre in the context of his chosen path today. Could the real Michael Weiner actually be such a demented, self-loathing freak that he'd create the character of "Michael Savage" not because he believes in a single word he says, but because it's just a hell of an act?

[Adam Crocker]

I'll explain a secret about Ann to you: She deliberately goes over the top. She basically takes much of the hate speech liberals use about conservatives, and throws it back at them just as hard.

Examples of which would be...?

Mike Smash! went over this with you on the community board, asking for examples of liberal pundits that go the lengths that Coulter goes to namely trashing all conservatives for holding views contrary to their own or calling them traitors for criticizing their favoured Presidents. Unless you can find some I still find this point highly unconvincing.

Most people don't get that about her, and don't want to, because that would mean taking a good long look at the invectives being thrown by their own side. She is essentially saying "Okay, Liberals get away with saying A, B, and C, let's see how they like it when I say X, Y, and Z"

Or maybe most people actually do think she's raving hate-monger because the level of political debate in the United States has sunk to the point where dishonesty and fanaticsm are ways to build a career as a political pundit. I.E.; Coulter, Malkin, Limbaugh, O'Rielly, Hannity, Horowitz, etc., etc.


Am I the only one who wonders if he might be a 100-percent performance artist?

Funny you should mention that. There are some people who believe that Fred Phelps in engaged in a highly elaborate form of performance art.

[Adam Crocker]

Of course, when people are posting flyers in minority neighborhoods with false information designed to keep people from voting, that's beyond a joke.

I'd be interested in hearing the details on this. That's one dirty trick in regards to recent electoral politics that I haven't heard about.


I said "anti-voting"? 'Fraid not.

Then let's go back to your original quote:


Low voter turnout: Conservatives - great, concentration of power means the establishment (i.e., conservatives) win. Liberal - facilitate voter registration.

How does opposing "motor-voter" and same-day registration fit with a conservative desire to increase voting?

I wasn't pointing to any particular desire on the part of conservatives to increase voting. I was objecting to the characterization that all conservatives favour low voter turnout for the sake of the concentration of power. You seem to be talking entirely about the Republican party in this case, especially considering your response to my original post dealt entirely with Republican attitudes towards the issue. This basically conflates an entire political tendency with an American political party, which despite being the dominant ones in the United States, still does not represent all conservative viewpoints within the country.

Even then it's debatable if the actions of the party higher ups entirely reflect. I'm seeing an increasing number of Republicans becoming disgusted with the way the party is run.

It's also why I question your logic in bringing up these examples, half of which I haven't heard of. I regards to making it harder to get citizenship, I know that comes from Republican politicians, namely based on the Southeastern U.S. Increasing criminal penalties however isn't that convincing since raising criminal penalties involves a broad number of crimes for which penalties are raised. And that begs the question: which ones are raised by Republicans, which by Democrats, and which by both? I don't know. What I do know is that good number of libertarian minded conservatives have nothing but disgust for recent draconian sentencing in regards to drug possession, not to mention drug laws in general. So there is at least one hole in the argument.

Mind you my attitude is also shaped by having put up with so many years of various Republican pundits adopting the same nonsensical attiude in regards to casting liberals (or anyone to the left of the party) in a homogenous light that I can't stand for it being applied to conservatives either.

Object if you want, but jeez, bring an argument or you just sound argumentative.

I did bring an argument. You seemed to have missed my p