The brilliant Janeane Garofalo told us how she really feels (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lynn-davidson/2009/02/13/janeane-garofalo-says-gopers-are-holes-sarah-palin-small-minded) about conservatives...


The reason a person is a conservative republican is because something is wrong with them. Again, that’s science – that’s neuroscience. You cannot be well adjusted, open-minded, pluralistic, enlightened and be a republican. It’s counter-intuitive. And they revel in their anti-intellectualism. They revel in their cruelty.

I don’t know if you heard me talking to Jenny a while ago, but I was saying that first you have to be an a**hole and then comes the conservatism. You got to be a d*** to cleave onto their ideology...

I guess someone forgot to tell her she's supposed to be helping her prez unite the country. Here's your chance, let's get it all out on the table. Is that how you see conservatives?

Consider the source. I prefer, “If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain.”
Winston Churchill

People are inviduals. I don't taint all as a group.

Maybe Garofalo and Michael Weiner should debate :

Amazon.com: Liberalism is a Mental Disorder: Savage Solutions: Michael Savage: Books (http://www.amazon.com/Liberalism-Mental-Disorder-Savage-Solutions/dp/1595550062)

maybe Garofalo and Michael Weiner should debate :

Amazon.com: Liberalism is a Mental Disorder: Savage Solutions: Michael Savage: Books (http://www.amazon.com/Liberalism-Mental-Disorder-Savage-Solutions/dp/1595550062)

Maybe then they could leave the rest of us out of it.

Personally I think we should have a selection process that narrows the choices down to about ten presidential candidate individuals, provide them a national stage every four years, not labeled by any party affiliation. Let the public decide on which candidate individual best benefits the nation. The "party" thing is way overrated and the lines often blurred. Just one more reason I'm a registered Independent.

Hello Steve:

Okee doakee. You want me to lay it out for you, huh?

First off, we have to define the word "conservative". If you, as I do, believe that Barry Goldwater is the father of the modern conservative movement, then I'd think all conservatives are wonderful. That's because I AM one.

However, if you define conservatives as those who's basis for their conservatism is their religion, and NOT the Constitution, then I think they're doing a disservice to America.

excon

Personally I think we should have a selection process that narrows the choices down to about ten presidential candidate individuals, provide them a national stage every four years, not labeled by any party affiliation. Let the public decide on which candidate individual best benefits the nation. The "party" thing is way overrated and the lines often blurred. Just one more reason I'm a registered Independent.

That's a great idea.

And another thing; if they break a campaign promise they're out of there :D














G*P

Hello Steve:

Okee doakee. You want me to lay it out for you, huh?

First off, we have to define the word "conservative". If you, as I do, believe that Barry Goldwater is the father of the modern conservative movement, then I'd think all conservatives are wonderful. That's because I AM one.

However, if you define conservatives as those who's basis for their conservatism is their religion, and NOT the Constitution, then I think they're doing a disservice to America.

excon
I am a Christian AND a conservative. I don't know why you see such a divide.

I am a Christian AND a conservative. I don't know why you see such a divide.Hello gal:

Well, it's not me really. It's the great conservative Barry Goldwater. Here's what Wikipedia says about him:

(January 1, 1909 – May 29, 1998) was a five-term United States Senator from Arizona (1953–1965, 1969–1987) and the Republican Party's nominee for President in the 1964 election. He was also a Major General in the U.S. Air Force Reserve. He was frequently referred to as "Mr. Conservative" in numerous media articles.

Goldwater is the politician most often credited for sparking the resurgence of the American conservative political movement in the 1960s. He also had a substantial impact on the libertarian movement.

Goldwater rejected the legacy of the New Deal and fought inside the conservative coalition to defeat the New Deal coalition. He lost the 1964 presidential election by a large margin to incumbent Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson. The Johnson campaign and other critics painted him as a reactionary, while supporters praised his crusades against the federal government, labor unions, and the welfare state. His defeat allowed Lyndon Johnson and the Democrats in Congress to pass the Great Society programs, but the defeat of so many older Republicans in 1964 also cleared the way for a younger generation of American conservatives to mobilize. Goldwater was much less active as a national leader of conservatives after 1964; his supporters mostly rallied behind Ronald Reagan, who became Governor of California in 1967 and President of the United States in 1981.

By the 1980s, the increasing influence of the Christian Right on the Republican Party so conflicted with Goldwater's libertarian views that he became a vocal opponent of the religious right on issues such as abortion, gay rights, and the role of religion in public life.

-----------------

In other words, Goldwater, like me, would be FOR gay marriage, and an end to the drug war. He wouldn't want intelligent design taught in school, and he wouldn't want your crèche displayed on public property...

excon

maybe Garofalo and Michael Weiner should debate :

Amazon.com: Liberalism is a Mental Disorder: Savage Solutions: Michael Savage: Books (http://www.amazon.com/Liberalism-Mental-Disorder-Savage-Solutions/dp/1595550062)

Bad example, Savage is a name calling shock jock idiot. Who would sell his mother to make a buck. Mr. Herbal remedy salesman has no love for either the Republican's or Democrats. His ego allows him to promote the idea that he has all the answers despite the fact that he is often so extreme in his positions that even the Republican's wouldn't own him.

As for mental disorders, both parties have ideas that people hold to that definitely would bring into question their ability to think clearly. I can see both sides, and each qualify as a mental disorder. However, like someone said early in the topic; some of us are our own thinkers and reject being labelled either liberal or conservative. Personally I have liberal views on some things and conservative on others as I would think most people do, unless they drink the koolaid of either side then it's heresy to even have an opposing view thought, never mind agree with that view.

We need more people that can see the common sense of both positions and marry different approaches for the good of the country, rather than remain entrenched in the party line so as to clearly define themselves for electability rather than being responsible to the people.

I'm glad to see the folks here don't seem to agree with Janeane. No doubt there are extremists on both sides, Savage is out there and Ann Coulter has her moments, but I still don't hear from the right the level of hatred expressed on the left, such as this thread from Democratic Underground (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5041302#5041319)


Mike Malloy: The Republican Party needs to be eliminated. Updated at 8:51 AM

:applause: from the "Amen" corner.

They serve no useful purpose. There's no reasoning with them. They'll gladly destroy the country if they think it will return them to power.

May they all rot in pieces. I hate to say I hate anyone, but I hate them all.. .


Yep - Domestic Terrorist Organization. n/t...


I also have been telling my husband this since the election. We must for the sake of the

Country and the World, bring them down, expose them, vote them out and prosecute them and if necessary jail them. They must go now and asap...


I know it's crazy but I think we should give them 3 states

And let them have their own little Taliban world. We can build that wall they have always wanted and they can have the two tiered social system they so desperatly want.

They are useless, they do not care about America they have proven this over and over again...


But let us remove the children from that place.

The psychological terror of Republican World would be inhuman...


The Republicans have gone way beyond different ideas

They have set us on a path to ruin. And if this American experiment really worked, they would all have been in jail for war crimes long ago, and we wouldn't even be at this point. This is not a law abiding party that disagrees with us. This is a party of torturers, war criminals, corporate crooks, and all around a$$ holes. They should be treated like the criminals they are.

I can only imagine what deleted post #76 said.

I'm glad to see the folks here don't seem to agree with Janeane. No doubt there are extremists on both sides, Savage is out there and Ann Coulter has her moments, but I still don't hear from the right the level of hatred expressed on the left, such as this thread from Democratic Underground (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5041302#5041319)



I can only imagine what deleted post #76 said.


I don't watch much TV, especially the news, so I am not exposed to the Liberal bias that the Republican's in the election and on conservative talk radio say is predominant on television.

I can say that I do listen to conservative talk radio because that is the only talk radio available here in South Texas and the hatred, lies, half-truths, name calling, and misrepresentation of the Democratic party and liberals in general is constant and unapologetic.

Can both sides stop running each other down and instead bring ourselves up as an example? There are a lot of GOOD Democrats out there and I am sickened by the conservative talk radio slander of everything liberal and Democrat.

So Speech, it goes both ways; and I think mature adults could stop this bashing each other and put that energy into promoting our respective sides and then let the people decide without all the lies from both sides.

I can say that I do listen to conservative talk radio because that is the only talk radio available here in South Texas and the hatred, lies, half-truths, name calling, and misrepresentation of the Democratic party and liberals in general is constant and unapologetic.
.
Just curious: what is the worst lie, who said it, and when?

I can say that I do listen to conservative talk radio because that is the only talk radio available here in South Texas and the hatred, lies, half-truths, name calling, and misrepresentation of the Democratic party and liberals in general is constant and unapologetic.

Now seriously Tex, give me some examples of the "hatred" coming from conservative radio hosts... and I've already acknowledged Savage and Coulter being a little out there. I have it on all day as well at work so I do hear snippets of Rush and Michael Medved, but I can't for the life of me recall anything that could honestly be defined as hatred come out of their mouths, and certainly nothing like the examples I've given. But, truly outrageous nonsense like that from DU, Garafalo, Bill Maher, Olbermann and many other celebrities are all too common on the left. I think you even acknowledged you understood how conservatives felt after 8 years of relentless - and truly hateful - Bush bashing.


Can both sides stop running each other down and instead bring ourselves up as an example? There are a lot of GOOD Democrats out there and I am sickened by the conservative talk radio slander of everything liberal and Democrat.

Again, compare the two. Compare what Rush says with what Garafalo says. Compare what Medved says with what Olbermann says. Compare Hannity's words with Bill Maher's words. I don't think there's any contest which side is more vile and outrageous, and the left tends to get a pass while the right gets castigated for even a joke taken out of context. How many liberal hosts have been targeted by congress - twice no less - for comments in or out of context?


So Speech, it goes both ways; and I think mature adults could stop this bashing each other and put that energy into promoting our respective sides and then let the people decide without all the lies from both sides.

I think I already acknowledged it goes both ways, and sure we can elevate the discourse, but the left in this country wants it both ways. They want to regulate if not silence speech on the right and retain their right to lie, slander and mislead. I won't go quietly while that happens.

... but the left in this country wants it both ways. They want to regulate if not silence speech on the right and retain their right to lie, slander and mislead.You certainly are showing a good example that we should follow.

You certainly are showing a good example that we should follow.

Do you ever have anything of substance to offer? Could you please enlighten us all with examples of my lies, slander and misleading remarks? That's part of my point here, NK, the left is awfully good with accusations but not very good at substantiating their claims. Go ahead, take a stab at it. Prove what a lying , slandering, misleading example I am.

They want to regulate if not silence speech on the right and retain their right to lie, slander and mislead. I won't go quietly while that happens.Hello Steve:

If you want to tie, I'll go along with you. There's an equal number of right and left wing wacko's.

But, I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill. You keep thinking that there will be a "Fairness Doctrine" established that will be anything but fair to YOUR side. I don't doubt that wackos on the left would do it too, if they could.

But, they can't.

There's enough of us free speech advocates from the 60's hanging out here, who, along with you righty's, won't go quietly either. As long as I have a breath left in me, you'll have your right to be wrong, and broadcast it loudly to the world.

excon

Do you ever have anything of substance to offer? Could you please enlighten us all with examples of my lies, slander and misleading remarks? That's part of my point here, NK, the left is awfully good with accusations but not very good at substantiating their claims. Go ahead, take a stab at it. Prove what a lying , slandering, misleading example I am.
I think you missed the whole point. Texas was trying to ease the bashing by both sides but you posted exactly the bashing he spoke of.

There's enough of us free speech advocates from the 60's hanging out here, who, along with you righty's, won't go quietly either. As long as I have a breath left in me, you'll have your right to be wrong, and broadcast it loudly to the world.


Yes that used to be an almost universal American creed. However the 1st amendment will be violated and it won't be called the Fairness Doctrine . What I think will happen I outlined on this posting comment #33
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/time-americans-take-streets-308015-4.html


Oh I don't see the "fairness doctrine" happening because the libs would be censored also . Instead they plan on breaking up syndication and "monopolies" like Westwood One .They will initiate a local content ruling where stations will be obliged to air local content that covers a "diverse " cross section of the communities.

I think you missed the whole point. Texas was trying to ease the bashing by both sides but you posted exactly the bashing he spoke of.

Bullsh*t. I didn't bash anyone. I'm going to request again for you to prove your claim. Good luck, because you can't.

But, I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill. You keep thinking that there will be a "Fairness Doctrine" established that will be anything but fair to YOUR side. I don't doubt that wackos on the left would do it too, if they could.

I'm really starting to be surprised at what you consider a molehill since the election. If I hadn't seen so many of them stand up for the first amendment then have no problem whatsoever with speech zones on college campuses I might believe you, but that's the way they think - free speech for me, but not for thee.

Bullsh*t. I didn't bash anyone.
Ask Me Help Desk - View Single Post - Tell us how yoo really feel (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/1553882-post15.html)


but the left in this country wants it both ways. They want to regulate if not silence speech on the right and retain their right to lie, slander and mislead.Also your new thread: https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/democrat-culture-corruption-continues-318010.html
And here too: https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/can-democrats-tell-truth-200738.html

Ask Me Help Desk - View Single Post - Tell us how yoo really feel (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/1553882-post15.html)

"They want to regulate if not silence speech on the right and retain their right to lie, slander and mislead."

You call that "hatred, lies, half-truths, name calling, and misrepresentation?" I call it a documented fact.


Also your new thread: https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/democrat-culture-corruption-continues-318010.html

First of all you were referring to this thread, but keep trying, NK. Note the question mark at the end of the title, that I mentioned Democrat tax dodgers - another documented fact, and noted Burris' changing story (two-step) - also a fact.


and here too: https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/can-democrats-tell-truth-200738.html

Which of my comments aren't factual and since when is it bashing to ask if someone can tell the truth based on the supporting evidence provided? Give it up, NK, you're certainly in no position to complain of my bashing others.

If one Christian has sex with an underage boy does that make ALL Christians homosexual pedophiles?

If one Christian has sex with an underage boy does that make ALL Christians homosexual pedophiles?

Right, I'm bashing for not always prefacing a comment on the left with "some." My comment is factual. No one is trying to silence liberal speech are they?

Yeah actually lib listeners have effectively silenced lib radio due to lack of interest .

Even 'Obama 1260' radio in Washington DC was dropped for lack of interest. It was replaced by canned economic reports.

yeah actually lib listeners have effectively silenced lib radio due to lack of interest .
After all, there is a lot of competition for liberals: ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, and probably lots of others I don't know of.

yeah actually lib listeners have effectively silenced lib radio due to lack of interest .

Even 'Obama 1260' radio in Washington DC was dropped for lack of interest. It was replaced by canned economic reports.

Touché, although that was the free market at work and not censorship.

Here's a good example (http://townhall.com/columnists/MikeSAdams/2009/02/16/ask_god_what_your_grade_is) of the people on the left I'm referring to:



Ask God What Your Grade Is
by Mike S. Adams

Jonathan Lopez is a Christian. He is also a student at Los Angeles City College (LACC) in Los Angeles, California. During the fall 2008 semester, Lopez took an Introduction to Public Speaking (Speech 101) class. It was taught by one John Matteson.

In Speech 101 there are several different speaking assignments, including a delivery speech, a culture speech, an informative speech, and a persuasive speech. For the informative speech, Professor Matteson allowed students to cover any topic and to speak between six and eight minutes with or without visual aids.

In November, Jonathan Lopez attempted to give his informative speech on God and the ways he has seen God act miraculously in his life and in the lives of others. In the middle of that speech, Lopez spoke of God and morality and read the dictionary definition of marriage. He also read two verses from the Bible.

But before Lopez was finished with his speech, Professor Matteson interrupted him. After calling Lopez a “fascist bastard” in front of other students, Matteson invited students to leave the class if they had been offended. When no one left, the professor dismissed the entire class.

As Jonathan Lopez prepared to leave class that day he found an evaluation form left in his backpack by Professor Matteson. There was no grade for the informative speech. Instead there was this instruction: “Ask God what your grade is.” It was followed by a statement saying that “prostyelsyszing [sic] is inappropriate in a public school.”

Professor Matteson’s evaluation did not mention that it is “inappropriate” to censor the speech of those belonging to a protected class. Nor did it mention that it is “inappropriate” to do these things while acting under the color of state law.

This was not the first time Professor Matteson’s animus towards Christians had been on display. Several weeks before the aforementioned incident, he told students the following: “If you voted yes on Proposition 8, you are a fascist bastard.”

Naturally, the combined effect of Professor Matteson’s remarks about Proposition 8 and his remarks about Lopez’ informative speech have created a chilling effect on First Amendment expression. It is likely that students other than Lopez are refraining from expressing political, religious, and social beliefs not in line with Professor Matteson’s.

This chilling effect led Jonathan Lopez to meet, in late November, with Allison Jones, Dean of Academic Affairs at LACC. But the problems continued.

On December 1, Lopez and another student arrived late to Speech 101. To prevent interrupting speakers, Professor Matteson required students to wait outside until they heard applause signifying the end of a speech. Mr. Lopez entered late because he did not hear anyone speaking. Because someone was, in fact, speaking, Lopez apologized to the class.

Professor Matteson ignored this apology and decided to confront Lopez in front of his peers with the following: “Not very Christian of you.” The snide remark caused Lopez heightened concern over his eventual outcome in the class. Consequently, Mr. Lopez decided to give Dean Jones a written note describing the December 1 incident.

Unfortunately, Professor Matteson saw Lopez give the note to Dean Jones. The Professor then confronted Lopez. During the confrontation, the Professor said he would make sure that Lopez was expelled from school.

Mr. Lopez then decided to seek legal counsel and to request action to correct Professor Matteson’s conduct. Both Dean Jones and LACC President Jamillah Moore were sent letters through Mr. Lopez’ attorneys. They refused to take any action.

Instead of acting, Dean Jones wrote that she received two complaints from students in Speech 101. One student allegedly said “I do not believe that our classroom is the proper platform for him to spout his hateful propaganda.” Another student allegedly said “I don’t know what kind of actions can be taken in this situation, but I expect that this student should have to pay some price for preaching hate in the classroom.”

Following the inaction of Dean Jones, Mr. Lopez sent, via counsel, a second letter demanding action in his case. Dean Jones responded by saying that the situation had been appropriately addressed. She then brazenly stated that any service of process or tort claims could be served on the District’s General Counsel.

As of this writing, Mr. Lopez still has not received a grade for his informative speech about God and miracles. Only God knows what his grade is.

Exactly as I said this liberal mindset is, free speech for me, but not for thee. The student was denied his right to free speech, insulted, mocked, threatened and accused of "preaching hate." Yet the professor is getting away with it.

I think you missed the whole point. Texas was trying to ease the bashing by both sides but you posted exactly the bashing he spoke of.

Maybe it's the Canadian in me, but the extreme positions here in America paralyse you as a nation from time to time and you are slow to come around. I don't know if it was always this way, but I have a feeling it has been as part of your history and the issues that have divided you (i.e. Segregation, Vietnam War, Cold War, etc.).

In Canada, we had very few divisive issues in comparison as we grew as a nation in the shadow of The United States. One thing I admire about American's and it can be a blessing or a curse is your passion for your positions; but that division means as a nation you are slow to develop consensus about a lot of issues, so some injustices take longer to resolve.

I think the Democratic push for the fairness doctrine is to try and restore some balance in reporting and opinion so that the nation can return to being exposed to a minimum of both sides of an issue, rather than the current entrenchment of positions on both sides.

I don't know if Speech will agree, but we argued in another topic about the need for civility; if that is the aim of the fairness doctrine, then I am slightly in favor, but I do worry about any authority regulating speech. So if I carry our conclusion from the other topic forward Speech, I think it is incumbent upon both sides to self govern themselves and return to civility, or as usual if they can't do it, the government will do it for them.

Maybe it's the Canadian in me, but the extreme positions here in America paralyse you as a nation from time to time and you are slow to come around. I don't know if it was always this way, but I have a feeling it has been as part of your history and the issues that have divided you (i.e. Segregation, Vietnam War, Cold War, etc.).

In Canada, we had very few divisive issues in comparison as we grew as a nation in the shadow of The United States. One thing I admire about American's and it can be a blessing or a curse is your passion for your positions; but that division means as a nation you are slow to develop consensus about a lot of issues, so some injustices take longer to resolve.

We have a long tradition of spirited disagreement and I think that’s healthy. I don’t think the true, obvious, outright hatred for the other side is healthy and that’s all I’m talking about here, the extreme, not the passionate, reasoned disagreement even when it lobs the occasional insult.


I think the Democratic push for the fairness doctrine is to try and restore some balance in reporting and opinion so that the nation can return to being exposed to a minimum of both sides of an issue, rather than the current entrenchment of positions on both sides.

I disagree with that, there’s no shortage of reporting or commentary with a liberal slant. If they can’t cut in the market then they deserve to fail.


I don't know if Speech will agree, but we argued in another topic about the need for civility; if that is the aim of the fairness doctrine, then I am slightly in favor, but I do worry about any authority regulating speech. So if I carry our conclusion from the other topic forward Speech, I think it is incumbent upon both sides to self govern themselves and return to civility, or as usual if they can't do it, the government will do it for them.

I’m all for more civility, but the government regulating speech is a scary thought.

and it can be a blessing or a curse is your passion for your positions; but that division means as a nation you are slow to develop consensus about a lot of issues, so some injustices take longer to resolve.


Just my own opinion ,but I think if the debate was allowed to be played out there would be quicker resolution. However ,too often "solutions " are imposed on the people by the black robed oligarchs in the Supreme Court and that prolongs the debate and the bad feelings.

While I don't count myself a conservative, I will come to Speech's defense on one of the points he made.

I guess it doesn't occur to me because I'm usually the one laughing at the jokes and commentary, but Speech's reference to Bill Maher and the like really didn't strike a cord with me until I gave it a second thoughT; and you know, in my opinion he's right.

The 'left' if you will, will easily portray the 'right' in a demeaning fashion and many of us will laugh without giving it a second thought. Yet, if I were on the 'right' I would be upset being categorized or stereotyped in such as fashion, and especially when it's high profile on television.

I feel the same disgust when the conservative radio talk show hosts regularly try and create a negative stereotype of any American who believes anything other than their conservative agenda.

If I didn't know better, it sounds like full blown racist stereotyping by both sides without the usual target of physical difference but in this new round of disturbing characterization bordering on hate by both sides; you are now either a "Liberal" or a "Conservative" which in effect is both sides shouting the N'word at each other and trying to make it stick.

As someone who grew up in Canada, the racism in the United States was clear and disgusting to most Canadian's; and to this now Texadian this new political racism is just as disgusting.

P.S. Admittingly I've been a political racist as well. Racism is a difficult weed to root out once it's taken hold whether that be a stereotype based on the color of someone's skin or the ideas each person has concerning the welfare or lack thereof of our fellow man.

Hello tex:

As tom has pointed out on many occasions, politics in the US has always been hard ball.

It's always been good for us, too. Believe it or not, we've even been further apart than we are now. We DID have a civil war, after all.

I'm one of the polarizing figures here too. But, I get along pretty good with the wingers of the wrong persuasion.

I just treat them as though it's not their fault they're deficient.

I don't call them any other names, though, and they know I'm not really serious about that one.

excon

Hello tex:

I'm one of the polarizing figures here too. But, I get along pretty good with the wingers of the wrong persuasion.

excon
Tex: excon stole my thunder about polarization and the Civil War, but it's quite a lot more than than. All this verbal hokem is about self-government and fair debate. Now, excon is pretty good, but he just has an exalted opinion of himself, but we are concerned about him and trying to bring him along, sort of like a sheep astray. Excon made some derisive comments about Glenn Beck today; but if he had been listening to the TV show on FOX, he would claim Beck as a son.

I'm one of the polarizing figures here too. But, I get along pretty good with the wingers of the wrong persuasion.

I just treat them as though it's not their fault they're deficient.

I don't call them any other names, though, and they know I'm not really serious about that one.

Well we know you're really just a loveable ol' teddy bear so you have to come across as cantankerous to protect your image. ;)

Well we know you're really just a loveable ol' teddy bear so you have to come across as cantankerous to protect your image. ;)

He's easy to see through isn't he? :D

He's easy to see through isnt he?? :D

Yep, just an old softy. :D

Hello again:

Cut that out!

excon

You are so right!

Cut that out!

excon

Awww come on, I even have a new image for you to use...