Top ten reasons why liberals are better than conservatives
Several weeks ago I read an excellent article that made the argument that conservatives had successfully made a bad word out of the term “liberal” over the course of the past thirty-plus years–despite the fact that liberalism was responsible for many of our societal advances in the mid-20th century. The article argued that it was time to fight back against that perception and to show the world just what a bad word conservatism can be. Unfortunately I did not bookmark the article and have not been able to find it despite my best effort to Google for it–if anyone knows the article I’m talking about then please reference it in a comment.
While some of my politics are centrist, I identify far more with the Left than the Right. In keeping with the spirit of taking back the word “liberal” as a good thing, I present the top ten reasons why liberals are better than conservatives:
10) Liberals prefer to be sensitive to the issues of various groups of people, while conservatives deride sensitivity as “political correctness.” (”Macaca,” anyone?)
9) Conservatives prefer cutting taxes on the wealthy even if it creates deficits. Liberals believe in paying for what you spend.
Conservatives prefer to thumb their noses at the rest of the world. Liberals remember that America is the leader of a community of nations.
7) Conservatives prefer to shoot first and ask questions later. Liberals prefer to ponder the long-term consequences of their actions before using force.
6) Conservatism cares most about what is best for the individual, and is therefore inherently a selfish philosophy. Liberalism cares most about what’s best for society and the environment as a whole.
5) Conservatives prefer to prey on the environment for the sake of industry. Liberals understand that without a healthy planet and environment there can BE no industry.
4) Conservatives want to legislate morality to other people who may not share their views. Liberals prefer to live and let live.
3) Conservatives believe that majority rules. Liberals understand that the Bill of Rights was crafted to protect minorities from the predations of majorities.
2) For conservatives, religion and politics are like bread and butter. For liberals, they are like oil and water.
And the top reason in my mind why conservatism is backwards and Luddite:
1) Conservatives prefer looking to the past for guidance on solving today’s problems. Liberals understand that times change and often require new approaches to problems not envisioned by our forefathers.
I also can’t help but toss in one last one for the sake of humor:
0.5) Have you ever known anyone “hip” who was a conservative? 
lizzie:
great post!
August 29, 2006, 11:25 amFellowLefty:
Hahaha! I totally agree with all of these. It comes down to having a bleeding heart versus no heart at all. And could Conservatives ever come up with something as funny as these: http://www.suckscards.com
August 29, 2006, 12:22 pmcenterblue:
lol I love those cards!
August 29, 2006, 1:46 pmJohn Kusters:
Probably no surprise, but I agree with each of these.
(And am going to link to this entry from my journal, so be prepared for some dissonance.)
JOhn.
August 29, 2006, 2:59 pmDavid:
I think you’ve done a very fine job of laying out why I find liberalism to be almost always preferable to conservatism. I might express a variation on a couple of your points with the assertion that while conservatives believe in government off the backs of business and intrusion in the personal choices of individuals, liberals believe that business (especially corporations) have power aplenty thanks to their wealth and require the kind of oversight and accountability that are not appropriate for the individual.
But I’m especially on the same page with you about conservatism being, at its heart, a selfish philosophy. I think John Kenneth Galbraith said it best:
“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.”
August 29, 2006, 4:59 pmcenterblue:
That’s a great quote.
August 29, 2006, 5:44 pmAdam:
I’d agree with this, but I know people who won’t, because they are old-style Goldwater conservatives and, frankly, are pissed as hell that neocons have co-opted their title.
The modern conservative is about as nonconservative as you can get, really – he just moved in a direction orthagonal to the political spectrum line.
Thank you for writing this; I found it both pithy and amusing.
August 30, 2006, 1:04 pmcenterblue:
Thank you…and I agree that today’s modern conservative is anything but.
August 31, 2006, 5:31 pmmark:
fyi – if you say “hip”, you aren’t
ps. i love your site.
September 12, 2006, 3:47 amcenterblue:
I’ve never thought myself particularly hip…I just know people who are.
Thanks for the compliment, I appreciate you reading!
September 12, 2006, 1:01 pmanonymous:
We conservatives oppose political correctness because it is unfair. Why do blacks get to be called African Americans, but we whites are just called white people? Why aren’t we called European-Americans? Is it because liberalism tends to contradict itself?
October 20, 2006, 1:03 pmanonymous:
Since you liberals don’t look to the past, you are condemned to repeat it. Look at the crises in Iran, if you would compare Hitler to the president of Iran, they are pretty much the same. You liberals are like Chamberland. You liberals appease the enemy. Look where it has gotten us so far. Look at North Korea, Bill Clinton and George Bush have appeased them. Now they have a nuclear arsenal because you libs apeased him.
October 20, 2006, 1:13 pmanonymous:
You say liberals prefer to live and let live. Again you condradict yourself. What about abortion? Do you let the fetus live and let live?
October 20, 2006, 1:22 pmanonymous:
You say conservatives prefer cutting taxes for the wealthy. Has a person poorer than you ever given you a job? The more money, the more investment in the economy, the more wealth to go around. If I spend $1000000 for a house, I just employed some carpenters to build it. Now they have money in their pocket becuase I was richer than them. Now they have money to buy food,clothes, and can pay any other expenses they need to. The money he spends on food goes to the grocery store. Then the grocery store gets more money so it can pay their amployees. All because I spent $1000000.
October 20, 2006, 1:31 pmJohn Kusters:
Poor anonymous… Not man/woman enough to sign his or her own name to their polemics. And you had to wait till the proprietor of this joint is on vacation to do it as well, didn’t you? What, can’t face being told how wrong you are?
“Trickle Down” economics is great on paper. But it never seems to work in the “real world” (you know the one with the strong liberal bias *laugh*). People with lots of money tend to look for tax shelters or foreign investments to increase their wealth. It’s not getting into the poor urban neighborhoods where it is most desperately needed. If it is spent anywhere, it’s spent in suburban neighborhoods giving the already privileged even more privilege, thus widening the gulf between the “haves” and the “have nots.”
JOhn.
October 20, 2006, 2:19 pmcenterblue:
You sound like an insecure white person, frankly. Who cares what you or anyone else gets called? Deal with it.
October 23, 2006, 10:03 pmcenterblue:
Irrelevant. This question assumes we both agree that life begins at conception, and we do not in fact agree on that.
October 23, 2006, 10:04 pmcenterblue:
I didn’t realize George Bush was a liberal.
Bear in mind that NK exploded its nuke on the conservatives’ watch, not the liberals’.
You sure seem like an angry conservative..does this have anything to do with the fact that (neo) conservatism as a viable philosophy is going down in the flames of Iraq? Does it have anything to do with the coming liberal ascendancy in this country that will fill the vacuum of ethics and leadership left by the conservative fiasco of the last six years?
I understand..i’d be pretty mad too if I were you. But it doesn’t change a thing.
And please..like John said below..if you’re going to post here, at least have the cojones to print your name and URL.
October 23, 2006, 10:09 pmcenterblue:
If you can afford $1,000,000 for a house and all those carpenters, I’m sure you can afford to pay your fair share of tax! You don’t need the tax cut, you’ll spend the money anyway.
You’re right, more wealth to go around is a good thing. But whereas you prefer that the rich keep more of what they already have in plenty, I prefer that the carpenters in your example keep more of their take home pay and increase wealth that way, where it’s REALLY needed–as opposed to you parking that extra money in some investment account to make you even richer.
October 23, 2006, 10:13 pmcenterblue:
Thanks for looking out for me here while I was on vacation, I appreciate it.
October 23, 2006, 10:14 pmAdam:
It’s a ball of cells, not a person. When it can live outside the womb without life support systems to keep it alive, it’s a person, and not before.
October 24, 2006, 2:33 amG$:
I bet everyone of you are Trekies, too. Get with the program, nerds and put the hauka down. Of course, everyone agrees with Centerblue’s post. If anyone of you could only stand the pain of common sense that a conservative will inflict upon you then stand up and take your beatin’. Let’s start with any of the top 10 reasons why Liberals are better than conservatives. Who’s gonna be first?
January 11, 2008, 6:38 pmJoe:
<>
You defeated your own argument. At one time carrying guns to protect against the government was a good idea, now you agree it is no longer that time. Therefore the present, once again, trumps the past–as any good liberal will tell you.
I’m not saying you can’t STUDY the past for guidance….but to try, for example, to interpret the Constitution in the exact same way the people who wrote it, people who knew nothing of Internet or abortion or nanotechnology or what have you, is absolutely ridiculous.
April 13, 2008, 9:06 pmJoe:
Regarding the taxing comment: it isn’t so much about taxing the rich more. It’s in fact about taxing them less. What do republicans do whenever there are economic problems? Cut the capital gains tax (only the rich own stocks, not the poor). Cut the marginal tax rate on corporations, but only rich people have corporations. Exempt them from paying social security taxes on income above $90k or whatever it is now–but of course only wealthy people make that much money. Given all these “perks” these rich folks get, I have absolutely no problems with assessing a higher income tax against them.
And please, spare me the whole BS about needing to cut taxes on the rich so they can create more jobs. The only place that money goes is into their yachts and their hedge funds, as the jobless recovery after the 2001 recession as well as the current credit debacle made clear.
April 13, 2008, 9:12 pmBrent:
Joe’s post at the bottom represents the typical idiocy of liberal thought. If you truly believe that the uber wealthy are lolling about inactively and putting their money solely into paint jobs on their megayachts, then I feel sorry for your incapacity for thought beyond your nose. Liberals are a fascinating breed of self-righteous, arrogant, and absolutely wrong people. I think you mean well, but logic doesn’t seem to factor in to your thought processes. The wealthy and entrepreneurial of this country are to be heralded and encouraged, not penalized for success. These are the people that create everything you see around you including the computer you are reading this on. These are the people that create wealth for others. I don’t think they should be penalized. EVERYone should be taxed fairly across the board, the poor, the middle class, and the wealthy.
September 10, 2008, 1:10 pmJoe:
“These are the people that create wealth for others. I don’t think they should be penalized. EVERYone should be taxed fairly across the board, the poor, the middle class, and the wealthy.”
Sounds good to me! So…since the top 10% own 80% of the nation’s wealth, seems fair to me they should pay the vast majority of the taxes. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States)
Along those same lines, with so much wealth concentrated in the hands of so few, and with the average CEO making 400 times the pay of the average employee, I think the facts speak to themselves that the only thing these people do is hoard the majority of wealth to themselves.
Educate yourself, and refrain from ad hominem attacks that only undermine your arguments. Why is it that the Rabid Right has to resort to tearing down their opponents’ intellectual capacity instead of simply presenting facts and evidence to prove their points? Pathetic.
————
Edit: one other thing,
“These are the people that create everything you see around you including the computer you are reading this on.”
I highly doubt it was the CEO of HP who built this computer I’m using. It was built by one of those average workers who makes 400 times less than he does. The only thing “the wealthy” do is exploit the labor of others to make even more wealth, especially in recent years. When even Greenspan says that the distribution of wealth is a major problem in this country, I have to agree. All that accumulated wealth goes far beyond simply creating jobs (and where are those jobs in recent years anyway? Mostly in low paying industries); it goes towards generating ever more wealth through hedge funds and leveraged products and all the other toxic waste that is now exploding in everyone’s faces in this financial crisis we’re having.
I’m not saying we should “punish” the wealthy. But who can better afford an extra 2% in taxes–the CEO of HP, or the working stiff who built this computer? Please.
September 12, 2008, 1:21 pmBrent:
Firstly, apologies for the ad hominem attacks…was just feeling feisty at the time. To the point…
The CEO and founders of HP are indeed responsible for that computer you are typing with. The guy who assembled the thing is replaceable…the CEO with the brains to oversee a large corporation and provide employment and resources for thousands of people is not nearly as replaceable and is thus, worth more and thus, deserves a hell of a lot more compensation than the worker ant at the assembly line. Not that one or the other is worth less as a human being, but their monetary value is and should be vastly disparate. So where exactly do you draw the line when it comes to wealth redistribution? It seems that you are indeed talking about punishing the wealthy even MORE. Do you realize that the top 50% of wage earners pay 96% of all taxes?? And that the top 5% pay over 50% of ALL income tax? Why in the heck do people not understand this when they speak of the wealthy hoarding their money and bilking the poor? The left barks this lie constantly, and it is an absolute joke.
You also are acting as if there is a limited supply of wealth. This is so wrong. Wealth is not a zero-sum game. Just because Johnny has a million dollars, that doesn’t mean there is a million less in the universe for Timmy to acquire. Oh darn, gotta go. More anon….
September 16, 2008, 1:11 pmAlex:
“Live and let live” is not what God wants humans to do. He told us to spread his word. I’m probably talking to deaf ears though since a large amount of liberals are atheists…..
September 16, 2008, 1:13 pmJoe:
“It seems that you are indeed talking about punishing the wealthy even MORE. Do you realize that the top 50% of wage earners pay 96% of all taxes?? And that the top 5% pay over 50% of ALL income tax?”
I wish you’d cite a statistical source, but I’ll take your word for it.
So what? This would probably be true even if you had a totally flat tax, given the huge disparity in income between the top and the bottom. (5% tax on $10k income vs. $50million, for example).
Unfortunately, there are wars to be fought, bombs to be dropped, freedom to be spread, and nations to be liberated (at least according to Bush). That also means there are bills that must be paid. How much of that nearly $1 trillion price tag would you like the waitress to pay vs. the CEO? Who do you think can better afford it? (10% tax increase to the CEO is a minor inconvenience, for the waitress it could mean homelessness.) This country has a lot of financial problems, my friend–and someone has to pay for it all. (It was the neocons who wanted the Iraq war, right? Let them eat cake!)
“Why in the heck do people not understand this when they speak of the wealthy hoarding their money and bilking the poor?”
Let’s not obfuscate two issues: one is paying taxes, the other is hoarding of wealth vs. stimulating the economy/job creation. I’m sure some of that huge pot of money kept by the top 1% goes to stimulating the economy, but even Alan Greenspan has said that the concentration of wealth at the top is extreme and unjustifiable.
If nothing else, the tragedies unfolding on Wall Street this week tell the story of where a lot of that money was parked (and which now seems to be disappearing, boo hoo): CDO’s, mortgage-backed securities, and other exotic garbage concocted by financial wizards. All that money sitting in hedge funds funding thinly capitalized speculative investments in toxic waste was not creating jobs or stimulating anything.
One last thing on this topic: don’t think I’m speaking as some bohemian liberal schmuck with a job flipping burgers, being all bitter about the rich. I happen to live very comfortably, and pay more in taxes than the median income in this country by far. But you won’t catch me whining and complaining about taxes. Nobody likes to pay taxes, and I want my money well spent (no more inane wars, thanks)…but I also am grateful that I’ve been privileged enough to be where I am, and I don’t mind paying a greater share of society’s burden. I can certainly afford it more than the waitress. That’s just something I’ll never understand about conservatives (and which will probably spur me soon to create another top 10 list soon)….the philosophy seems inherently selfish and refuses to recognize that with greater privilege should come a greater burden.
September 16, 2008, 11:21 pmJoe:
““Live and let live” is not what God wants humans to do. He told us to spread his word. I’m probably talking to deaf ears though since a large amount of liberals are atheists…..”
I’m agnostic these days, actually. I think both sides are equally foolish and lack any evidence whatsoever.
Spreading God’s word is one thing; imposing it on other people regardless of their wishes, passing laws to enforce God’s word on people who do not agree, and mixing government with God’s business are entirely different things altogether.
I have no problems with religion when it serves positive roles in society (helping the poor, teaching ethics, etc.). But when it’s used as a wedge issue and a way of setting people against each other, then that’s when you can expect me to squish you rhetorically.
September 16, 2008, 11:30 pmBrent:
“the philosophy seems inherently selfish and refuses to recognize that with greater privilege should come a greater burden.”
I just think paying nearly 50% in income taxes is a little too unfair, but maybe I’m crazy. I don’t disagree that those who make more should bear a greater burden, but they usually do, in the form of risk, charitable contribution, and job creation. Incentive to bear the burden and not forced charity would certainly yield finer results. As for me, I don’t mind paying taxes, but excuse me if I think the 45% of my gross income going to the government is highway robbery. Trouble is, neither party is going to do anything about it besides make it worse. I’m currently at the point were I can’t stand either side. Ugh. In fact, I forgot what exactly we were bickering about.
September 22, 2008, 2:27 pmZach:
Liberals rule =]
October 21, 2008, 8:49 pmJoe:
Any comments resorting to name-calling are summarily deleted.
October 21, 2008, 10:25 pmJared:
I laughed when I read this list because this is the most idiotic and ignorant dronish list i have ever read. First of all, Liberals would seek to “take care” of the people of this country from sun up to sun down. They would like to make every decision for you, and numb every sense of liberty you have left.
Liberals repulse me and that anyone could think this way makes me sick. They say they are the “People’s Party” or they say you are “Humane” but how can that be when they believe in BIG GOVERNMENT, and less power to the people. I Cannot see how giving government more power increases the Rights of the People. WE THE PEOPLE founded this country and WE THE PEOPLE should run it. If alive, The founding fathers would start another revolution if they saw the tyranical state of our country.
I always hate it when liberals say the conservatives give tax breaks to the wealthy, what ignorant libs dont know is conservatives also decrease taxes for the poor. The Liberals will say anything to get into your money and tax you so much you have no choice but to except government funds. AND THE REAL TRUTH IS THAT ONLY 50% of the Population acually pay taxes. The “RICH” as you put it carry all the burden.
Oh and the “Rich” became rich why? because they worked their ass off their whole life to obtain their wealth, and they didnt make that money to support another family who put themselves in that state. There are Charities for that The hard truth for liberals to face is that there is no excuse for failure in this country (except of course for unstoppable illnesses/injuries).
This Country was made so that anyone could be anything, there is no glass roof. so i laugh at the fact that people complain because they dont make 100,000 dollars a year. Well WHOSE F’N FAULT IS THAT.
PEOPLE MAKE THAT MUCH MONEY BECAUSE THEY STUDIED EVERY NIGHT IN HIGH SCHOOL, OR STAYED AFTER CLASS EVERYDAY, WHO WENT TO COLLEGE, AND DIDNT PARTY, AND WORKED HARD THEIR WHOLE LIFE. This is a country were we reward hard work, and not discourage it by giving people who didnt work that HARD the same REWARDS.
If you flaming liberals think you are entitled to Top of the Line Health Care, or 100,000 dollar year salaries, or anything else, you are wrong. NOTHING IS ENTITLED IN THIS COUNTRY, it is EARNED by the sweat of a man’s brow, by HARD WORK
If anyone of you people want to argue with these ideals you can try it my email is Strikezone93@yahoo.com
September 23, 2009, 8:54 pmRyan:
Top Ten Reasons why conservatives are better.(10.We see people as people, not color. (9. Conservatives force Democrats to cut taxes, which stimulates the economy(the 1990’s economic boom occured after the Republican Congress cut the capital gains tax).(8.Conservatives believe America should not leave its defense up to France and Russia (Keep in mind that France and Russia had oil contracts with Iraq, so that may be why they opposed liberated them. (7.We see our soldiers as defenders of freedom, liberals see them as occupiers. (6.Conservatives believe in individual freedom; while liberals prefer to condemn individual freedom ( for example: Franklin Roosevelt jailed thousands of Japenese just because they were Japanese.)(5.We oppose the EPA forcibly moving poeple from their homes without proper scientific data ( this actually happened). (4.Conservatives have enough common sense to understand that outlawing murder, rape, and theft is not legislating morality. (3.Conservatives understand that the eminent domain should not be used for private businesses (keep in mind when the Kelo v. New London case was decided, the four justices agianst it were conservative leaning jusices). (2.Refer to #4. (1. conservatives understand that those who do not earn from the ast are condemned o repeat it (i.e. apeasement) Oh,let’s end it a classic joke: what is the difference between a pupp and a liberal? The puppy quits whining when it grows up =)
October 11, 2009, 7:03 pmJoe:
Ryan, finally a reasoned response–to which I’ll reply briefly.
On your points:
10) This would be fine, if all had the same opportunities. They do not, as a visit to any inner city school will tell you.
9) Conservatives cut a huge amount of taxes during the Bush Administration, contributing no small amounts to current deficits. The net result? 203,000 fewer jobs now exist than 10 years ago (source: http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/09/total-10-year-job-gains-negative-203k/). How is that stimulating the economy?
7) Do Iraqis see our soldiers as defenders of freedom?
6) Liberals do not condemn individual freedoms, so long as it’s understood that your right to punch ends where my nose begins. This extends to a lot of places conservatives don’t like. For example, your industry’s right to pollute indiscriminately ends with my right to enjoy clean air and a cooler planet.
5) I’m sorry, I have no idea what this one is about.
4) Liberals have no quarrel with outlawing murder, rape, or theft–but we do have a quarrel with regulating private behavior between consenting adults or trying to bring religion into the political process.
3) Liberals believe, as (I think) the Supreme Court did in Kelso, that legislatures can define greater limits of eminent domain if they choose. If they do not, then there’s not much issue with a taking of private land (for just compensation) for the purpose of substantial economic development.
2) Refer to #4.
1) I take it you meant learned from the past. Seeking peaceful resolution is not appeasement.
I’ll let you have the last word on the joke, since it’s too late in the evening for me to think of a counter.
October 12, 2009, 11:27 pmRyan:
To Joe-How do you feel about the liberals wanting to violate the first amendment through the “fairness doctrine”? They basically want to do a repeat of the alien and sedition acts of the 1790’s. The alien & sedition acts were used by the party in power( Federalists) to imprison any opposition media. Now the Democrats want to revive it, and take down Rush, Sean, and the Savage Nation. As a conservative, I believe the first amendment means FREE speech, NOT REGULATED speech. Regulation of speech leads to despotism. If you understood history, you would fear this as well.
New Subject-Do you know what NAMBLA is? As soon as you read this, open a new window and type NAMBLA in Google. Click on it. Tell me what you think. Do you agree with this idea of sexual freedom?
October 14, 2009, 10:04 pmRyan:
According to Real Clear Politics liberals make on average 6% more money than conservatives. Even though conservatives make less, they give on average 30% more in charity than liberals.Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average. In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.People who reject the idea that “government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality” give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition. Justice Willett notes that Austin — it voted 56 percent for Kerry while he was getting just 38 percent statewide — is ranked by The Chronicle of Philanthropy as 48th out of America’s 50 largest cities in per capita charitable giving.Democrats represent a majority of the wealthiest congressional districts, and half of America’s richest households live in states where both senators are Democrats.
October 14, 2009, 10:45 pmJoe:
<> No. Read again what I said: between consenting adults.
And as for all those numbers you’re throwing around about charity: where do you think the majority of money came from to rebuild red states devastated by hurricanes, floods, etc.? Blue states.
Re: Fairness Doctrine and your belief about free speech not regulated speech: educate yourself, Sir. You do not have the right to cry fire in a crowded theater, therefore speech can be and is in fact regulated all the time, every day. Reasonable time, place and manner regulations have long been upheld in First Amendment jurisprudence.
October 16, 2009, 12:52 amRyan:
I don’t think you understand what I mean by regulated free speech. Common-sense dictates that yelling “fire” or “bomb” in a crowded theater is not free speech. Although, when the government decides through a centralized panel what is appropiate,that is violation of free speech.
As for the charity stats, you are a typical liberal. You are generous with other peoples money, tight with your own wallet. When the government gives, it is impersonal. When an individual gives, it is more personal.
Oh, and there is no specific clause in the constitution that gives Congress the authority to set up welfare programs. It may be okay, if their constitutions allow, for states to give welfare.
October 16, 2009, 10:02 amRyan:
The Obama administration said that the stimulus package was necessary to prevent the unemployment rate from going past 8%. Now, the unemployment rate is 9.7%. The jobless claims keep growing. This doesn’t include those who have given up looking for work.
According to the Rasmussen polls: 28% percent of voters strongly approve of Obama’s role as President, while 39% strongly disapprove. 44% support his healthcare plan, while 50% oppose it. Only 34% think America is moving in right direction, while 60% say the wrong direction. In Virginia Governor’s race, the Republican candidate has a seven point lead over the Democrat.
Americans are finally realizing that liberalism is not the answer.
October 16, 2009, 10:51 amDo you think the Republicans would take the House if the election were held today?
Joe:
I can only imagine that the unemployment would be worse without the stimulus plan to fight the financial meltdown Obama inherited from his predecessor’s policies (and those of the Republican Congress that ruled for 12 years.)
The 39% of voters who strongly disapprove of Obama are more or less the same conservative wing-nuts who think Sarah Palin is God’s gift to America. You also conveniently failed to mention those who either moderately approved of Obama or had no opinion, which together would form a majority.
Americans are not stupid, and understand fully that the trillion dollar deficits, two wars (one modestly necessary, the other not at all so), and the financial de-regulation that allowed to the meltdown to occur all came from the Republican brand of conservatism (which has little to nothing to do with true conservatism.) Do you really think Americans are ready to line up to get led again by the party of Rush Limbaugh, so soon after they were tossed from power? We will see.
If the election were held today, Dems would lose some seats but would keep the Congress. Their popularity is down, but not as much as Republicans’. Non wingnut Americans understand that the problems being faced now were long in the making and will be long in the solving; and not all Obama’s fault as you’d like to paint them to be.
October 17, 2009, 7:59 pmJoe:
And by the way–I suspect that liberals or left-of-center individuals like George Soros, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett have done far more for charity than most of you conservatives. Bleeding hearts and all that….
October 17, 2009, 8:03 pmJoe:
RE: Virginia race for Gov, Deeds is just a bad candidate and I’ve thought that from the beginning (so was McAuliffe.) If McDonnell wins it will be due to a poor opponent, not because of any GOP wave. How about that New Jersey race? (Corzine 40, Christie 37) Doesn’t look like much of a GOP wave to me. A few loudmouths at town halls does not a wave make.
October 17, 2009, 9:12 pmJoe:
Relevant to recent discussions on this blog:
Morning Fix: A premature celebration for the GOP
Republicans in Washington can barely contain their glee at the turn of President Obama’s political fortunes in the first nine months of the year but a new Washington Post/ABC News poll suggests the GOP still faces serious perception problems in the eyes of the American public.
Less than one in five voters (19 percent) expressed confidence in Republicans’ ability to make the right decisions for America’s future while a whopping 79 percent lacked that confidence.
Among independent voters, who went heavily for Obama in 2008 and congressional Democrats in 2006, the numbers for Republicans on the confidence questions were even more worse. Just 17 percent of independents expressed confidence in Republicans’ ability to make the right decision while 83 percent said they did not have that confidence.
(While Obama’s numbers on the confidence question weren’t amazing — 49 percent confident/50 percent not confident — they were far stronger than those for Republicans.)
On the generic ballot question, 51 percent of the sample said they would cast a vote for a Democratic candidate in their congressional district next fall while just 39 percent said they would opt for a GOP candidate. (As late as this summer, Republicans had seemingly narrowed the wide generic ballot lead Democrats enjoyed for much of the last two election cycles.)
And, perhaps most troubling for GOP hopes is the fact that just 20 percent of the Post sample identified themselves as Republicans, the lowest that number has been in Post polling since 1983. (No, that is not a typo.)
These numbers, coming roughly one year before the 2010 midterm elections, show that any celebration on the GOP’s behalf is premature as the party has yet to convince most voters that it can be a viable alternative to Democratic control in Washington today.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/morning-fix/morning-fix-beating-something.html?wprss=thefix
So, um, no…don’t exactly see a GOP wave here….now or in 2010.
October 20, 2009, 7:36 amreaganconservative:
Here is a principled parable for you…
A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself a very liberal Democrat and was very much in favor of redistribution of wealth. She was ashamed that her father was a staunch Republican.
Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.
One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes and the addition of more government welfare programs. He responded by asking her how she was doing in school. She answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, with no time to go out and party like other students. She didn’t even have time for a boyfriend. Her father listened and then asked, “How is your friend Audrey doing?”
She replied, “Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA She is so popular on campus, college for her is a blast. She’s always invited to all the parties, and lots of times she doesn’t even show up for classes because she’s too hung over.
“Her wise father asked his daughter, “Why don’t you go to the Dean’s office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your 4.0 GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA.”
The daughter, visibly shocked by her father’s suggestion, angrily fired back, “That wouldn’t be fair! I have worked really hard for my grades! I’ve invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree! She played while I worked my tail off!”
The father slowly smiled and said gently, “Welcome to the Republican Party”
October 21, 2009, 9:58 amJoe:
Cute, in a world of sorority chicks. Unfortunately we live in a world where real bills have to be paid on things like nasty (and sometimes unnecessary) wars, highway and transportation projects, social security, and what not. We live in a country where we want to have every benefit, but are unwilling to sacrifice enough to pay for it out of each of our hard-earned money.
So tell you what…why don’t we round up all of the conservatives who don’t want to pay taxes and put them somewhere by themselves without roads, highways, hospitals, garbage collection, medicare or social security, farm subsidies, and all the other benefits of society. Then you’ll get exactly what you put in, that is to say nothing, and you can keep all your hard earned money!
October 21, 2009, 1:41 pmreaganconservative:
We are not saying we shouldn’t pay no taxes. We just don’t think the government should take from others, and then give it to others. That is SOCIALISM. It’s always easy to spend other peoples money, isn’t it?
October 22, 2009, 4:22 pmreaganconservative:
if you think about it, the difference between Democrats and Republicans is Republicans borrow and spend, while Democrats tax, borrow, and spend.
Here are some witty jokes:
Question: Why can’t liberals find facts?
Answer: They aren’t looking for any.
Question: Did you hear about the new liberal agenda.
Answer: They got two hands in your front pocket and two in you back pockets.
Question: What’s the definition of a liberal genius?
Answer: A liberal who can count all 50 states. ( Obama thinks there is 57)
Question: How many Liberals does it take to change a light bulb?
Answer: It takes ten, nine to deny that darkness exists and one to hire a Republican to change it.
Question: How much does a Liberal cost?
Answer: Nothing, Liberals have no values.
Question: Why do Liberals lie?
Answer: It comes natural
Question: What is a Liberal’s primary “feeling?”
Answer: Envy.
Question: How can you tell a group of Liberals?
Answer: They are the ones burning the Constitution
Q: What do you call a basement full of Liberals?
A: A whine cellar.
Q: How many Democrats does it take to change a light bulb?
October 22, 2009, 4:45 pmA: None. They prefer to walk in the dark.
Joe:
I can’t resist turning these jokes around a bit:
Question: Why can’t conservatives find facts?
Answer: Who needs facts? It’s all about faith!
Question: Did you hear about the new conservative agenda.
Answer: Same as the old one: God, guns, and gays.
Question: What’s the definition of a conservative genious?
Answer: One who uses proper grammar. (It’s “Obama thinks there ARE 57 states.)”
Question: How many conservatives does it take to change a lightbulb?
Answer: none, it will remain unchanged, because nobody wants to pay to change it and they’d rather sit in the dark.
Question: How much does a conservative cost?
Answer: Nothing, who’d pay a penny for the profound failure of conservatism and its damage to America for the last 20 years?
Question: What is a conservative’s primary “feeling?”
Answer: Hatred (gays, liberals, illegal immigrants, black presidents, pick your bigotry poison.)
Question: How can you tell a group of conservatives?
Answer: They are the ones burning the cross.
Question: What do you call a basement full of conservatives?
Answer: Old and Moldy.
Question: How many Republicans does it take to change a light bulb?
October 23, 2009, 8:36 amAnswer: None, they’re in the dark about how much they’re becoming American history’s has-beens.
reaganconservative:
Here are FACTS about global warming:
FACT:An actual greenhouse works as a physical barrier to convection (the transfer of heat by currents in a fluid) while the atmosphere really facilitates convection so the impression of actual greenhouse-like activity in the Earth’s atmosphere is incorrect. (if it’s too warm in the greenhouse you open a top and bottom window and let convective action displace warmed air with cool, while Earth’s atmosphere is surrounded by the near-vacuum of space.)
FACT: The so-called “greenhouse effect” is necessary to maintain a habital planet. (water vapor)
FACT:The sun behaves approximately like a black body of radius rs=6.599 x 105 Km, at a temperature of Ts=5,783 K. The radiative flux at the sun’s surface is given by the expression σTs4, where σ is the Stefan-Boltzmann Constant (5.6704 x 10-8 Wm2K4). Flux refers to radiation per unit area. Thus, at the Earth’s distance from the sun, res=1.496 x 108 Km, this flux is reduced by the factor (rs/res)2. The Earth’s disk has a cross section, acs=πre2, where re is the Earth’s radius (6.378 x 103 Km), and thus intercepts acsσTs4(rs/res)2 radiation from the sun. In order to balance this intercepted radiation, the Earth would warm to a temperature Te, where σTe44πre2 = acsσTs4(rs/res)2. This leads to a solution Te=272 K.
Clouds, which obviously require an atmosphere, and other features of the Earth reflect 31% of the incident radiation. Taking this into account reduces Te to 255 K.
FACT:2008 is coldest year in a decade
FACT:According to satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades show a mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8Cover the last 100 years, which is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium.
FACT: Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. For instance, the Medieval Warm Period, from around 1000 to1200 AD (when the Vikings farmed on Greenland) was followed by a period known as the Little Ice Age. Since the end of the 17th Century the “average global temperature” has been rising at the low steady rate mentioned above; although from 1940 – 1970 temperatures actually dropped, leading to a Global Cooling scare.
FACT: Nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere. We could not live in 100% nitrogen either. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is. CO2 is essential to life on earth. It is necessary for plant growth since increased CO2 intake as a result of increased atmospheric concentration causes many trees and other plants to grow more vigorously.
FACT: Polar bears can swim up to 100 miles.
October 23, 2009, 4:45 pmJoe:
Here’s the only fact you need to know: over 2000 scientific and rigorous studies evaluated by the IPCC have demonstrated with clear and convincing evidence that human activity is substantially contributing to the elevation of temperatures. Now you can scream, you can cry, you can throw a tantrum. But when the vast majority of climate scientists agree on this basic premiss, then you need to pull the ideological wool from your eyes and LISTEN.
Are they saying that man made warming is the SOLE cause of global warming? No. That’s a red herring. Perhaps natural factors are also contributing. Fine. We’re still responsible for limiting the portion of the warming that we are causing.
So is the “global cooling” nonsense that conservatives spew to try to debunk global warming. While that “theory” did make the cover of some news magazine (Time?), it was a SMALL minority of scientists even at that time who believed that would occur. Most of the rest still believed the opposite.
Now am I going to believe 2000 scientific studies, or people who pull a few statistics out of their asses to try to prove an ideological point? You do the math.
October 23, 2009, 9:59 pmreaganconservative:
You are right, let us pull the ideological wool from our eyes and LISTEN:
If you go to http://www.petitionproject.org; you will see a petition signed by 31,478 scientists against the idea that we are causing global warming. The petition consists of 9,029 PhD’s.
The world renown physicist Edward Teller is a signer.
In November 2004, German climatologist Hans von Storch, director of the GKSS Institute for Coastal Research (IfK) in Geesthacht, Germany, foresaw that claims of alarmist consensus would be made by non-scientists and even some scientists.
According to George Taylor, who is a member and will be President of the American Association of State Climatologists for the next year, he says that at their annual meeting,for every “For every outspoken scientist like Pat Michaels there are dozens of less verbose but equally committed men and women who do not buy into the Administration’s [(Obama administration)] point of view.”
If you are truly openminded, you will go to http://www.sitewave.net/news/s49p1865.htm.
You will see those who support Al Gore compared to those who don’t.
At the U.N. global warming conference in Poland, over 650 scientists voiced opposition to the 52 who authorized the IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.
“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” – Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.
“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” – Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”
Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” – Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.
“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” – U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.
“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?” – Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.
“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” – Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.
“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” – Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.
“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” – Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.
“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” – Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.
“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” – Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata. # #
Go to http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072E-802A-23AD-45F0-274616DB87E6 to see for your own eyes.
I did the math: there are over 30,000 scientists against man-made global warming, and 52 scientists that believe in man-made global warming.
October 24, 2009, 10:20 pmJoe:
A quick perusal of the IPCC website’s documents section contains presentations that feature in the aggregate far more than the 52 scientists you ridiculously claim.
You quote a few nutjobs who call themselves scientists and are just repeating ideology.
Sad to say, even in science you will never get 100% consensus on anything. There are still a few kooks out there that believe that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS, that the Earth was created in seven days, and that global warming is nothing to worry about. They all cloak themselves in a veneer of scientific respectability when in fact they stand in the face of the overwhelming majority of the evidence.
Just because a kook says something and calls himself a scientist doesn’t make it true. I’ll go with the heavy preponderence of the evidence, thanks.
October 25, 2009, 12:41 amreaganconservative:
You think a Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, an atmospheric scientist who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.” A UN IPCC who has an award-winning PhD in environmental physical chemistry, a geologist who is a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet, an atmospheric scientist who is part of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA, the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers,a meteorologist who is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee, an atmospheric physicist who is formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh, an environmental scientist who has more than 150 published articles, the vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan, an award-winning paleontologist are a few nutjobs?
You are saying these guys are cloaking themselves with respectability?
Are you that ideological?
October 26, 2009, 6:07 pmJoe:
What I’m saying is that when you have a controversy, logic demands that you side with whoever has the majority of the evidence. And based on the previously mentioned 2000+ studies evaluated by the IPCC, that’s the global warming argument. None of the credentials you cite prevent someone from being wrong.
How about viewing it from the lens of “who has the most to gain if they convince the world they’re right?” What do the many scientists, liberals, etc. who think global warming is happening have to gain from it? Do you think they/we WANT the world to get hot? We would LOVE TO BE PROVED WRONG, and be shown that mankind’s pollution of the atmosphere is truly of no consequence. I personally have heard a new theory emerging that perhaps solar sunspots (and their recent absence) may delay warming or even be responsible for it when they appear–and I would LOVE that to be right! People who hang their hats on scientific evidence don’t have their feelings hurt if it’s later proved wrong by better, future evidence. We simply want policy to be developed on whatever the best science is at the time, NOT on ideology.
What about the other side (yours)? There, it’s easy to see who gains from convincing others of their point of view: industry in general and the fossil fuel industry in particular….the industries, in fact, that have been found to fund many a “global warming is bunk” study. Pardon me for looking askance for a point of view pushed by industry with a vested interest in convincing the public that no warming exists. Unlike the “pro” side that would love to be proved wrong, I can’t think of any evidence that would be sufficient to convince the naysayers that they are wrong. It’s almost an article of faith: there is NO warming, no matter how much evidence exists to the contrary. THAT is ideology, not reasoning based on science.
Finally, here’s an argument that should convince even a reasonable conservative that we should do something about global warming. There are four possibilities along two axes, whether man-made warming is real or not, and whether we do something about it or not. So: it’s real and we do nothing, it’s real and we do something, it’s not real and we do nothing, and it’s not real and we do something.
If it’s not real and we do nothing, nothing happens. This is the scenario most conservatives would love to be true.
If it’s real and we do something, warming gets mitigated to some extent. This is the scenario most liberals believe we should work towards.
These two cases are uninteresting because the consequences of our actions match with reality. But what about the mismatches?
If it’s not real but we do something about it: worst case, our economy falls into depression, millions become unemployed, trillions of dollars are “wasted” in developing non polluting technologies and controls, etc. Total economic chaos for no good reason. And then we recover and move on.
If warming IS real and we do nothing, then again worst case: extinction (if the planet’s climate changes drastically enough.)
We can’t know with absolute certainty whether warming is real or not (yet)–hence the controversy among scientists. All we can control is whether we do something about it or not. So which “worst case” scenario would we rather deal with if we end up being wrong about warming one way or the other: a depression, or extinction? Any reasonable person, even a conservative, should conclude that the depression is the preferable alternative, and that therefore doing something is better than doing nothing. In other words, the cost of doing nothing is FAR worse (extinction) for being wrong about warming, than is the cost of doing something for non-existing warming.
So….join me in doing something about (possible and likely) global warming!
October 26, 2009, 7:47 pmreaganconservative:
I respect your comment, I really do. I believe we can have an honest intellectual dialogue.
But, I don’t believe in doing something without proper scientific evidence.
It’s like saying we should do something about computers turning on us without there actually being hardcore evidence about computers turning on us.
The facts say everything is natural.
It’s not going to kill us
The Jurassic Period had 1800 ppm of CO2 (4.7 times higher than today)
During the Late Ordovician period we had an ICE AGE and 12 times more CO2 (4400 ppm) in our atmosphere than we do today.
Much of the increase in temperatures this century occurred during the first half of the century, while the major increase in CO2 occurred in the last half. The CO2 increase comes after the temperature increase. In short, the increases in CO2 do not correlate to the increase in temperature.
October 26, 2009, 10:31 pmJoe:
You’re not addressing the RATE of increase, which is far faster now than in previous eras based on core sample evidence taken from the antarctic, etc.
What you say about the last half of the century may or may not be true (I don’t have the weather stats), but I do know that almost each of the last ten years in the new century have been record breaking years, so slicing off an incomplete piece of time to prove a statistical point is not convincing.
Regarding the scientific evidence and doing something about it, three points: first, as I previously said I don’t think ANY amount of evidence is going to be enough to convince skeptics if the 2000+ studies previously cited aren’t enough. Second, while there is a risk of acting prematurely and being wrong, as I said before the consequences of not acting are too great in case global warming ends up being true. Third, given the amount of lead time needed to enact the fundamental changes that would be required to lower emissions, waiting until we have a priori proof akin to “I think therefore I am” is going to be entirely too late if warming ends up being true.
Anyway, I think we’ve come about as close to the other’s position as each of us is going to come. I do appreciate the dialogue.
October 28, 2009, 1:59 pmJoe:
My last comment wasn’t clear re: rate of increase. What I meant is that while CO2 levels went high in previous eras (and caused substantial change in climate), they did so over a very long period of time. This time, because of man’s use of fossil fuels the carbon is accumulating at a far faster rate (the blink of an eye compared to Earth’s age), which could cause an abrupt change in the Earth’s climate that humanity may not be able to absorb. So it’s not just what happened in the past that’s relevant, but how quickly the change occurred.
October 28, 2009, 2:02 pmreaganconservative:
I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree on the global warming issue.
I was wondering if you would support making social security a personal choice?
Would you support making welfare a workfare program?
Do you think we should unilaterally disarm?
October 28, 2009, 9:42 pmJoe:
Social security: actually, yes…if it’s voluntary to move to a personal account. It’s about the only thing I agreed with Bush on! I have no expectation SS will be there for my retirement in its current form.
Welfare: yes. Contrary to some belief, liberals don’t want to give money away for nothing.
I think government should give every opportunity for someone to get trained, find a job, and receive some support while they’re doing that. If they refuse to work or succumb to illegal drugs or alcoholism, then bye bye benefits. (Though that’s easier said than done in an economy with 10% unemployment.)
Disarm (I assume you mean with nukes.) I think we should take the lead and lead by some example and some reduction, but it’s of course terribly foolish to go down to zero without iron clad guarantees and proof that others are doing the same. We have far more nukes than we need to mount an effective defense or deterrence, so I consider there to be some reduction wiggle room here.
October 29, 2009, 9:38 amPhilip:
Rofl!!!! Everything on here is backwards. Please wait and write articles on a day other than opposite day because we all know that liberals will believe anything they hear. Just like drones to the queen.
November 4, 2009, 10:19 amreaganconservative:
“Property is the fruit of labor…property is desirable…is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another; but let him labor diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built.” The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume VII, “Reply to New York Workingmen’s Democratic Republican Association” (March 21, 1864), pp. 259-260.
November 4, 2009, 4:51 pmreaganconservative:
If a Conservative doesn’t like guns, he doesn’t buy one. If a Liberal doesn’t like guns, they believe no one should have one.
If a Conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn’t eat meat. If a Liberal is, they want to ban all meat products for everyone.
If a Conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how to defeat his enemy. A Liberal wonders how to surrender gracefully and still look good.
If a Conservative is homosexual, he quietly enjoys life. If a Liberal is homosexual, they loudly demand legislated respect.
If a Conservative is a minority , he sees himself as independently successful. Their Liberal counterparts see themselves as victims in need of government protection.
If a Conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation. A Liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.
If a Conservative doesn’t like a talk show host, he switches channels. Liberals demand that those they don’t like be shut down.
If a Conservative is a non-believer, he doesn’t go to church. A Liberal wants all churches to be silenced.
If a Conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it. A Liberal demands that his neighbors pay for his.
If a Conservative disagrees with a Liberal president, he is called a racist. When a Liberal disagrees with a Conservative president, it’s patriotic dissent.
If a Conservative expresses his political view, he is called an idiot. A Liberal expressing his political views is expressing his right to Freedom of Speech.
November 4, 2009, 4:55 pmJoe:
There’s so much nonsense in this last post that I’m disappointed with you. For a moment there in the earlier comments you showed a glimmer of rational thought so absent in a conservative movement led by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. I see I was wrong.
November 5, 2009, 12:18 amJoe:
Further, after three years of thoroughly pissing off conservatives with this post and answering defensive diatribes (and on very rare occasion having a thoughtful discussion), I think it’s time to finally shut it down. I’ll post a new list of why liberals are so much better than conservatives soon, since so much has happened in the last three years….but that’s for another day.
Feel free to send me comments privately, though I’m not obliged to answer!
November 5, 2009, 12:26 am