[speechlesstx]

The brilliant Janeane Garofalo told us how she really feels 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?

[George_1950]

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

[NeedKarma]

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

[tomder55]

Maybe Garofalo and Michael Weiner should debate :

Amazon.com: Liberalism is a Mental Disorder: Savage Solutions: Michael Savage: Books

[speechlesstx]

maybe Garofalo and Michael Weiner should debate :

Amazon.com: Liberalism is a Mental Disorder: Savage Solutions: Michael Savage: Books

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

[BABRAM]

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.

[excon]

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

[inthebox]

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

[galveston]

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.

[excon]

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

[TexasParent]

maybe Garofalo and Michael Weiner should debate :

Amazon.com: Liberalism is a Mental Disorder: Savage Solutions: Michael Savage: Books

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.

[speechlesstx]

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

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.

[TexasParent]

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



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.

[George_1950]

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?

[speechlesstx]

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.

[NeedKarma]

... 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.

[speechlesstx]

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.

[excon]

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

[NeedKarma]

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.

[tomder55]

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/curren...-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.