The Survey Says: GOP Voters Are Better Informed, More Open Minded

File this under: Duhhh!

Yet another new survey shows that Republican supporters know more about politics and political history than Democrats.

On eight of 13 questions about politics, Republicans outscored Democrats by an average of 18 percentage points, according to a new Pew survey titled “Partisan Differences in Knowledge.”

The Pew survey adds to a wave of surveys and studies showing that GOP-sympathizers are better informed, more intellectually consistent, more open-minded, more empathetic and more receptive to criticism than their fellow Americans who support the Democratic Party.

“Republicans fare substantially better than Democrats on several questions in the survey, as is typically the case in surveys about political knowledge,” said the study, which noted that Democrats outscored Republicans on five questions by an average of 4.6 percent.

This latest survey from Pew gives even more credence to an earlier survey showing liberals being much more close-minded.

A March 12 Pew study showed that Democrats are far more likely that conservatives to disconnect from people who disagree with them.

“In all, 28% of liberals have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on SNS [social networking sites] because of one of these reasons, compared with 16% of conservatives and 14% of moderates,” said the report, tiled “Social networking sites and politics.”

The report also noted that 11 percent of liberals, but only 4 percent of conservatives, deleted friends from their social networks after disagreeing with their politics.

A March Washington Post poll showed that Democrats were more willing to change their views about a subject to make their team look good. For example, in 2006, 73 percent of Democrats said the GOP-controlled White House could lower gas prices, but that number fell by more than half to 33 percent in 2012 once a Democrat was in the White House.

Anecdotally, I have to say I see proof of this plenty. In my life I’ve lost friendships with people who couldn’t tolerate my political views. And I’ve known plenty of liberals whose views of conservatives could only be described as bigoted. I’m not saying it doesn’t go both ways at times, but it seems to me, as these surveys support, liberals are far more guilty of it.

About these ads

119 thoughts on “The Survey Says: GOP Voters Are Better Informed, More Open Minded

  1. Cluster

    I took the test and found it to be at about an 8th grade level, which explains why many liberals failed it. One of the questions was what party FDR was associated with, and my understanding is that many liberals missed that question, supporting many our own opinions of the liberals who post here as being void of any real philosophy or understanding of liberalism and instead just eager to lash out at their cartoonish perception of what they think conservatism is. That statement actually applies to the entire MSNBC network as well.

    1. Diane Valencen, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H [Journ.], ArF J., M.F.

      Actually, Cluster, no. The study found that liberals include more of both ranges of persons those with higher levels of education and those with lower levels of education while conservatives fell mostly in the middle. I, personally know exactly what liberalism is. Liberalism is the freedom to be free without having to abide by anything other than the laws of society which are ever changing while not forcing those who don’t believe in your personal values to live by them.

      1. neocon1

        innercity plantation dwellers, welfare queens, illegal aliens, convicted felons, and the dead make up a VERY large percent of donk “voters” do tell us all about those high IQ’s and “education”

      2. Diane Valencen, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H [Journ.], ArF J., M.F.

        Okay neocon you got your daily rant in now would like to explain what is to be done about the tens of millions of white rural citizens on public assistance and welfare?

      3. Amazona

        When Diane says “I, personally know exactly what liberalism is. Liberalism is the freedom to be free without having to abide by anything other than the laws of society which are ever changing while not forcing those who don’t believe in your personal values to live by them.” she does nothing but illustrate the total and abject political ignorance of the most vocal of what I now have to call the PL, or Pseudo Liberal, contingent.

        it is a silly, vacuous, emotional little screed of personal wishful thinking, showing the dependence of the Left and PL on an ever-changing, infinitely flexible, lexicon of fluid definitions.

        No, my dear, whatever you may think of “Liberalism” in your odd little bubble of multiple personalities, both dead and alive and for all I know hovering in between, there is a very real definition of the term as a political term. And after all, that is what we are talking about here.

        Liberalism, also known as Progressivism, is a name given to Leftist political theory in an effort to cloak it in a lofty-sounding, appealing, disguise. It is the definition of a specific political model, which is one of large and powerful central government controlling nearly all, if not all, elements of the lives of those under its authority. It is a collectivist model, one which disdains and often tries to eliminate individualism, personal initiative as well as personal responsibility, and shift all allegiances from God and family to the State.

        In short, dear misguided girl(s), it is the antithesis of your giddy non-definition. Yes, such as you need to cling to a concept of a Utopia in which people are bound by laws of society which must be, to accommodate self-indulgence, be ever changing . Fine. In a personal reality of rainbow unicorns, gumdrop computers, existence as a compilation of various identities which may or may not be called ‘demons’, etc. this is perfectly consistent. But in the real world, where the rest of us live, it is not only nonsense, it is nonsense to such an incredible degree of nonsense it is, simply, stunning.

        Liberalism is a rigid, intolerant, and dogmatic political system, one which, when allowed its head, has resulted in people being willing to risk their very lives in efforts to escape it. Once it gains enough power to discard the fluffy trappings of “equality” and “fairness” and “social justice” it reveals itself to be the opposite of all of these noble-sounding dreams.

        Do try to set aside your girlish fantasies and do some actual studying on the subject.

      4. Amazona

        Diane, what is your obsession about skin color? Are you really so shallow and superficial that this is your primary concern?

        As for your racist little whine to neo, would (you) like to explain what is to be done about the tens of millions of white rural citizens on public assistance and welfare? allow me to offer a response:

        Welfare reform, a la 1994. Check it out.

        Oooooh, can I possibly mean that people OF ALL SKIN COLORS should assume personal responsibility for their lives? How too too UNliberal, how too too contradictory to some ever-changing law of society!

        But yep, I do.

        INTENDED consequence: Shrinking of the federal government and its control over peoples’ lives. Yet another UNliberal goal.

      5. tiredoflibbs

        Ama, Diane does not know what it is to be “liberal”.

        First off, there was CLASSIC LIBERALISM. And now, there is the bastardized form of liberalism, which has been taken by progressives (code word for socialists, when socialism was hardly acceptable back in the early 1900s).

        Now they are migrating from “liberalism”, since they have made it a dirty word, back to “progressive”.

        If Diane truly believes herself to be liberal, she would be horrified to find out she is more conservative.

      6. dbschmidt

        LiberalismLibertarianism is the freedom to be free without having to abide by anything other than the [few] laws of society [to maintain order] which are ever changing while not forcing those who don’t believe in your personal values to live by them.

        Liberalism is the absolute control from the government or stateist collective, which is ever changing at the whim of the elites, extracting cradle to grave control of all aspects of the “individual.”

  2. Retired Spook

    but liberals don’t understand how conservatives think because they don’t recognize conservatives’ additional intuitions about loyalty, authority and sanctity, Haidt argues.

    I would prefer to the use word “ideals” rather than intuition. I posted the link to this a couple threads back, and J.R. and I posited that there are a lot more ideals that Conservatives hold that Liberals can’t or don’t relate to: honor, duty, trust, reverence, charity and patriotism, just to name a few. And that begs the obvious question to our resident Liberals: what are some of the ideals that you believe distinguish you from Conservatives besides the ones mentioned in the study — aid to victims, fairness and individual liberty? And, as I noted in the previous thread, I can’t recall ever knowing a Liberal who was interested in anyone’s individual liberty except his own. But fairness and aid to victims are certain hallmarks of Liberalism. What else?

  3. dennis

    The self-serving title of the Daily Caller item would not have been picked or approved by the Pew organization. It seemed strange that the Caller didn’t even link the survey in their own article, until I looked it up on Pew’s website. Then it all made sense – at least why the Caller didn’t link it – because their title was such nonsense.

    The few questions about political knowledge that favored Republicans can easily be understood. Constant repetition in conservative media pretty well hammer those answers home: to wit, conservatives want to shrink bloated government, they want to drill in ANWR and of course, Franklin Roosevelt is constantly demonized as the Democrat who was the author of the New Deal. Indoctrination is not the same as understanding, but can easily produce results like this on a quiz dealing in such shallow matters.

    “On the remaining issues – expanding rights of gays and lesbians, increasing taxes on the wealthy, restricting abortion and providing immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally with a possible ‘path to citizenship’– there are no significant differences in knowledge between Democrats and Republicans.” http://www.people-press.org/2012/04/11/what-the-public-knows-about-the-political-parties/?src=prc-headline
    In regard to indoctrination, just as interesting is the Pew study showing that of all presidential candidates, the only one who hasn’t had a single week in 2012 when positive coverage exceeded negative coverage is Barack Obama. Despite all the right’s claims of liberal or left-leaning bias in the media, through January the percentage of negative assertions about Obama in the media outnumbered positive ones by between 28 and 37 points. The difference moderated after January but still remained negative. Keep in mind these are negative assertions only, not facts or even persuasive cases – most originating of course from the GOP presidential candidates. However, repetition is a powerful factor in creating a popular narrative; whether it’s false or true, people (especially the uncommitted or apolitical) begin to internalize the message after it’s heard enough times.

    As for the study that showed “Democrats are far more likely that conservatives to disconnect from people who disagree with them,” my take on that from personal experience is that right wingers most often go nuclear in public forums, aggressively using profanity and personal insults to make their point. There are times when, if you control the podium, there’s not much recourse other than to cut them off. A few months ago a longtime conservative friend of mine in his late 50s told my 19 yr old nephew “f— yourself” for expressing appreciation for Obama’s health care bill. Mind you, my nephew is one of the most intelligent and courteous young people I know (an IQ in the 150-160 range, a conservative Christian and home-schooled by his parents thru high school). He also has type 2 diabetes from childhood and multiple reasons to be more aware of health policy than your average civilian. I had to cut my old friend off because he just couldn’t exercise civility or control himself. See Neocon here for a pretty typical template of the same syndrome. Bottom line, if Dems are more likely to disconnect from people who disagree wtih them, it may be because of the unspoken corollary: their militant adversaries can be (and often take delight in being) highly disagreeable.

    Spook: “Liberals don’t understand how conservatives think because they don’t recognize conservatives’ additional intuitions about loyalty, authority and sanctity, Haidt argues.”

    I do recognize conservatives’ intuitions regarding human authority, and have always been at odds with it. In fact it may be one of the main reasons I parted ways with conservatism in my adolescence. I recognized that human authority is essentially self-serving and has a million ways of disguising itself to appeal to people’s desire for security and acceptance. Loyalty, however, is a trait that doesn’t have any partisan qualities – there are highly loyal and traitorous people all over the spectrum, and have been all through history.

    As for sanctity, experience tells me that conservatives are ones who most often appeal to sancitity for political advantage and power, but are least likey to actually show reverence for principles broadly based in sanctity: whether of human life, Christian principles as taught by scripture or anything else of a sacred nature. Religion and sacred things are props to be exploited for political and personal advantage. Forgive me for saying it, but these are my observations over decades of time.

    1. Canadian Observer

      Dennis, a very reasoned and well stated post. Sadly, you can expect that along with the usual name calling, hyperbole & insults, your views will be attacked and dismissed as leftist drool. Contrary to what Matt, or any of resident conservative commentators at B4V may claim, they really have no interest in hearing or participating in intelligent discourse when it comes from the other side of the political spectrum.

      1. Cluster

        CO, you have been here long enough to know that the premise of your post is just non sense. Most of the conservatives here have begged liberals, like you, to civilly engage in a political debate, only to met with more empty platitudes and scorn. Much like Dennis’s post, of which you laughably fawned over. Dennis again simply reads into the subject matter what he wants to believe and uses an isolated personal experience to bolster his claim.

        First of all, had he read the actual comments from the test, he would have known that far more Liberals got the FDR question wrong, which doesn’t surprise me and further convinces me that many of our current day liberals are ignorant of history. in re: to Dennis’s claim of negative press for Obama, well that again is purely subjective. If he is referring to news accounts of the current economic climate, then it would be hard pressed to write a positive spin on that, so reporting the facts of the current economic climate is not “negative” press, it’s just reporting the facts. Aside from that, 90% of the media is firmly in Obama’s corner and they admit as much, giving him every benefit of the doubt. When was the last time you read an article on the gun walker scandal? That is actually a huge issue that the media ignores and gives cover on.

        And I am not sure what Dennis meant when referring to “human authority”. Most conservatives are very spiritual thus the only authority they defer to is one of the Diety. In my opinion, liberals are enamored with “human authority”, thinking that Obama actually had the power to calm the seas and heal the planet (remember those little gems?).

        So once again I just have to disagree with Dennis’s conclusions, no surprise there, and will leave this with this little gem from a staunch union liberal who said this about conservatives while introducing President Obama:

        “Let’s take those son of a bitches out”

      2. neocon1

        K0

        your views will be attacked and dismissed as leftist drool.

        when the shoe fits………

      3. Amazona

        The claimed observer who also claims to be Canadian says:
        “..they (conservatives) really have no interest in hearing or participating in intelligent discourse when it comes from the other side of the political spectrum…”

        Are you saying there is a place where it is possible to participate “…in intelligent discourse when it comes from the other side of the political spectrum…” ?

        Because it sure as hell isn’t here.

        Many of us have asked “..the other side of the political spectrum…” to engage “…in intelligent discourse…” to no avail.

        Are you ready to kick off a new era in B4V, and start us off with some “intelligent discourse” on the advantages of Leftist government? (I assume this is what you meant when you referred to “the other side of the political spectrum”)

        It would probably be a good idea to lay down a base line of definitions, as “intelligent discourse” has to start with mutual agreement as to terms. Why don’t you go first, and tell us how you define “the other side of the political spectrum”—that is, the Leftist side. Please restrain your original definitions to political theory and ideology, not including agendas and outcomes, as that will only clutter the original foray into this “intelligent discourse”. We can get into that later, in the “intelligent discourse” on the relative successes and failures of each system, and the goals of each system.

      4. Canadian Observer

        Amazona April 24, 2012 at 11:54 am
        ——————————————————————
        Your obsessive demands for a person to state his/her political philosophy with every post is bewildering, Amazona. I suspect that in your younger years, during your liberal phase, you were emotionally hurt by someone near and dear to you and you just can’t let it go.

        In all my years, I don’t think I’ve ever encountered anyone who has less self-awareness as you have. You constantly project your shortcomings unto others. Engaging in a debate, whether if be intelligent discourse or not, would be a futile exercise as we can plainly see from your many dismissive rants.

        By the way, if you doubt my Canadian origin, I’m sure the moderators can verify it for you. Neocon has long accused me of being a frog (Quebec), so perhaps you could also take his word for it.

      5. tiredoflibbs

        CO whines: “Your obsessive demands for a person to state his/her political philosophy with every post is bewildering..”

        Why would it be bewildering, when half of them can’t answer or can’t explain logically their reasons for their views?

        I believe you don’t like it because it puts you on the spot unprepared and uninformed. It exposes your ignorance which lends truth to the topic of this thread.

        So sad.

      6. Retired Spook

        Your obsessive demands for a person to state his/her political philosophy with every post is bewildering,

        I’m not sure why it should be so bewildering, CO. This is, after all, a political blog, the primary purpose of which is to discuss and compare political ideology and governing philosophy. I used to ask the same questions Amazona does, but finally realized that virtually all Liberals who have ever visited this blog have simply treated it as their own private mental litterbox and aren’t really interested in discussing ideas. You’ve been coming here for as long as I can remember, and yet I can’t recall a single meaningful idea you’ve EVER presented. One can only conclude that, (a) you don’t have any meaningful ideas, or (b) your ideas are so fringe that you can’t defend them. Which is it?

      7. Amazona

        Oh, so now the non-Canadian non-observer is a psychiatrist, as well. My oh my.

        Isn’t it funny that on a political blog, being asked to state and define a political position is considered to be unnatural, and/or proof of emotional trauma, or projection, or—take your pick, there are probably a dozen different escape clauses used by the Left to dodge the question.

        Another question: How can one engage in “intelligent discourse” about politics without at least a basic understanding of what politics IS? The Lefties who not only cannot or will not disclose their political philosophy but then try to weasel out of being expected to do so make me think of people who might go to a baseball blog and try to participate by interjecting comments on the color of the uniforms and why the infield is mowed in a diagonal pattern instead of a herringbone.

        And then all snippy when it is pointed out that they don’t even know the rules of the game.

        But let’s start with little baby steps. Do you agree or disagree that “intelligent discourse” has to start with mutual agreement as to terms?

        Because I can’t think of any “intelligent discourse” on any subject which allows wildly fluctuating definitions of terms. You and I could not engage in “intelligent discourse” on cattle breeds, for example, if we could not agree on the definitions of different breed characteristics. We could not share “intelligent discourse” about Apple computers vs PCs without first understanding that we are using the same meanings for the same technical terms. We could not even have “intelligent discourse” on basic math if one of us defined the word “four” as the sum of six and three. Try having “intelligent discourse” on the weather, when one of the participants defines “cloud” as offsite data storage.

        While I was never frightened, hurt, disappointed, let down or otherwise traumatized by a Liberal in my youth—aside from the rather objective disillusionment at learning that Liberals can never answer a question about Liberalism, preferring to respond with another question or simply dodge the question entirely—-I do remember an episode of Twilight Zone in which everyone around a man started using different definitions of words.

        Oh, the words were familiar. They just made no sense in the context in which they were used. The problem gradually got worse, so instead of saying “Do you want hamburgers or sandwiches for lunch?” it went to “Do you want keys or chimneys for lunch?”to being more like “Do mice glow keys if chimneys at wheel?”

        Everyone around him had the same understanding of the words they were using, but to him, it was gibberish, made worse by the fact that he knew the words, just not the new meanings.

        It was an excellent lesson in the importance of all parties having the same definitions for words that are used, if “intelligent discourse” can be achieved.

        So tell us, CO, what about pinning down the actual meanings of words before engaging in “intelligent discourse” do you find so threatening? it has to be quite distressing to you, to nudge you into such elaborate fantasies about my mental and emotional states in a rather sad effort to change the subject.

      8. Canadian Observer

        Oh, so now the non-Canadian non-observer is a psychiatrist, as well. My oh my…Amazona
        ———————————————————————————
        Is your hatred for liberals so great, Amazona, that you refuse to accept even an easily proven simple fact? I stated that I live in Quebec, which, contrary to what you may have heard, is still a province of Canada. I was born in Prince Edward Island, the birthplace of Confederation. More Canadian you could not get. Yet you continue with the assertion that I’m non-Canadian. Why is that?

        Your MO seems to be to respond to the most benign of posts with endless harangues, repeating the same thing over and over again, insisting on setting the rules for debate as if you were the owner of this blog. Why is that?

        You know, Amazona, admitting to yourself that sometimes the other fellow, regardless of political affiliation, might have a legitimate argument and to actually acknowledge that, without rancor or insults, would probably do you a world of good. A little humility would not be amiss.

    2. Retired Spook

      I do recognize conservatives’ intuitions regarding human authority,

      I’m not sure you do, Dennis, but then, I guess it depends on how you view authority. I think Conservatives are more likely to have respect for authority and play by the rules than Liberals. The overwhelming majority of notable radicals over my lifetime that have defied authority and subscribed to “the ends justify the means” and “rules are made to be broken” memes have been Liberals.

    3. neocon1

      dennistooge

      are you stalking me……or is it obsession? certainally hope it is not infatuation I know how you donks roll.

      obviously your “conservative friend” did not recognize the brilliance in your 19yo piss pot know nothing…know it all college student nephew and got sick of his commie brain washed BS and told him to STFU…..

      he is much better off with out a “friend” like you.
      hey how is killer tiller’s collection spot coming? baaaa baaaaa grrrrr

    4. Amazona

      Just curious—who tested the IQ of a home-schooled kid, and why?

      That claimed IQ is way beyond “intelligent”.

      Yesterday I was talking to a raging Liberal about a conversation I had last week on the flight to Florida. I sat next to a developer who had been in North Dakota, investigating the idea of doing some building up there to meet the demand for housing for oil field workers. He asked me what I thought of the future of the Bakken field, and I said there was enough oil there to keep busy for decades, but that efforts to halt hydraulic fracturing would, if implemented, pretty much shut it down.

      And this simple observation prompted a hysterical shouting freakout from the Lib about how the EPA is not by damn doing a thing about fracking, the government is not interfering with drilling, and so on, for a five minute rant. A yelling, eye-bulging, red-faced tantrum, based on the assumption that I was leading up to an attack on….well, on something beloved by the Left. Obama, the EPA, whatever.

      I just sat there and when it was over said, very mildly, that my advice to him was to carefully investigate any effort to halt fracking, before investing in the area. That is all I tried to say at the beginning.

      my take on that from personal experience is that right wingers most often go nuclear in public forums, aggressively using profanity and personal insults to make their point.

      Well, dennis, you visit different “public forums” than I. As for THIS “public forum” I have yet to see a Liberal called the names the Left routinely indulges in, in attacks on conservative ideas. “James” can’t type two sentences without an insult, and many of you Lefties have called names like f***ing c**t and so on. You admit that some insults are to make a point. What point does the profanity of the Left here make?

    5. dbschmidt

      Dennis opines “As for the study that showed “Democrats are far more likely that conservatives to disconnect from people who disagree with them,” my take on that from personal experience is that right wingers most often go nuclear in public forums, aggressively using profanity and personal insults to make their point. yet fails to mention how many Conservative speakers have had their speeches disrupted, assaulted, and outright canceled due to the loving nature of the “Big Tent” Liberals. Do not recall the same can be said for Liberal speakers; however, I do note for their public meetings they do leave a big mess for others to clean up. I guess that could fall under “The Broken Window Theory” they love so much as well.

      Basically, once again, I could provide ten examples for each one of Dennis’s examples but that would not be enough to convince him or anyone else who has a closed mind and a serious lack of knowledge about things like “The New Deal” and “The New Bill of Rights” but as a start they both should have been bound in red.

      BTW, every Liberal I have “engaged” with disconnected not because of the volume of my voice (low) but the lack of ability to refute facts.

      1. dbschmidt

        Oh look Dennis–more from the party of tolerance (and I am not even looking)

        ‘If I Had a F–king AK Right Now’: Occupy Portland Protesters Go Off On Violent, Obscenity-Laced Tirades After Being Denied Park Reentry

        not to mention firing at a police officer. Just remember to complain about the source and not the content.

        http://www.theblaze.com/stories/lets-go-get-guns-occupy-portland-protesters-go-off-on-obscenity-laced-tirades-about-arming-themselves-spreading-disease-police-slave-catchers-after-being-denied-park-reentry/

    6. Amazona

      Hmmm….identifying FDR as a Democrat is now “demonizing” him?

      Ditto for crediting him with the New Deal?

      Verrrry interesting.

      So set us straight, dennis. To which political party did Franklin D. Roosevelt belong? And which President implemented the New Deal?

      Don’t just tell us we are wrong—tell us what the correct answer is.

      And while you’re at it, tell us how and why identifying someone as a Democrat is “demonizing” him. As the Only True Christian you ought to be able to tell us what it is about the Democrat Party that self-identifies with demons.

      “On the remaining issues – expanding rights of gays and lesbians, increasing taxes on the wealthy, restricting abortion and providing immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally with a possible ‘path to citizenship’– there are no significant differences in knowledge between Democrats and Republicans.”

      This is just too funny. Who comes up with these things?

      What “rights” of gays and lesbians are now restricted? And what is the difference between “gay” and “lesbian”? I thought “lesbian” was just a subset of “gay”.

      Gay people can do anything straight people can do. (If they want to, heh heh.) There is no “right” denied to them. Of course, the Left has decided to engage in its infinite redefinition of terms and decide that the use of a specific WORD is a “right”, and they have sucked in quite a few of the uber-gullible, but this is simply silly. The whole invented and choreographed peudo-fuss about “gay marriage” is not about what legal rights are given to homosexual couples, but only about the use of one WORD.

      “Increasing taxes on the wealthy” is not only restricted to Liberals, but is a very clever use of a divisive word—“wealthy”—as it is always easier to target a group if it can first be isolated and then made into an Other. It’s just class warfare, part of the Divide and Conquer strategy of the Left.

      “Restricting abortion” is hardly a goal of the Left, or, as your author prefers to call them, Democrats.

      “providing immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally with a possible ‘path to citizenship’” is also pretty much restricted to the Left. The Right, for the most part, wants to grant some form of residency to illegal immigrants who, while being here illegally, have worked, paid taxes, not become criminals, and have proved that they will bring something positive to the country.

      The much-vaunted “path to citizenship” is just another way of saying “buying votes” and is a hallmark of Leftist strategy.

      While some IDENTITIES of Democrat and Republican have become somewhat interchangeble, the IDEOLOGIES of Left and Right remain absolutely oppositional. As they have to, representing as they do completely conflicting visions of government.

      I wonder if you PL trolls will ever understand the difference. Or, if you do understand it, quit trying to conflate identity with ideology, as it is a tactic that has served the Left so well.

    7. Count d'Haricots

      In regard to indoctrination, just as interesting is the Pew study showing that of all presidential candidates, the only one who hasn’t had a single week in 2012 when positive coverage exceeded negative coverage is Barack Obama.

      Lie when the truth is the handiest.
      The actual Pew Report stated that Obama and Gingrich had one week with more positive coverage than negative, while Santorum had “never enjoyed a sustained period of positive press.”

      And dennis wonders why I don’t take him seriously?

  4. Cluster

    Here again, democrats choose to ignore the sovereignty of states, ignore the constitution, and ignore current federal immigration laws in favor of political advantage, proving once again that liberals will sell America in a heartbeat if it means political power for them:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/democrats-plan-bill-to-undo-arizona-immigration-law-if-it-is-upheld-by-court/2012/04/23/gIQAJ4V7cT_story.html?wpisrc=al_politics

    Shumer and Obama’s vision of America is not welcome here.

    1. Retired Spook

      Cluster,

      Talk about a disconnect:

      “If the court upholds the Arizona law, Congress can make it clear that what Arizona is doing goes beyond what the federal government and what Congress ever intended,” Schumer said in an interview.

      No, if the S.C. upholds the Arizona law, it will be making it clear that the Federal Government has failed to enforce “what Congress ever intended”.

      He called the Arizona law an “assault on the domain of the federal government” that Congress will need to address if the court allows it to stand.

      Boo-frickin’ hoo, Senator Schumer. How does it feel when the shoe is on the other foot?

      1. Cluster

        Exactly right Spook, and this speaks to Diane’s post above describing liberalism as not having values imposed upon others. Isn’t that exactly what liberalism is all about, and what Shumer is engaging in? Even though the majority of Arizonans support 1070, and the fact that the bill mirrors current federal law, the liberal Shumer is hoping to impose his will on our state.

    1. neocon1

      cluster

      that is about the 300th thats for tra von beating “reported” the war they wanted has started not to long from now when these roving black mobs attack they will be met with a hail of gunfire from PO’s neighbors.

      it will get real ugly real fast…but of course that has been the plan all along.

      DONT get caught un armed and ill prepared.

  5. Diane Valencen, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H [Journ.], ArF J., M.F.

    The entire conservative way of thinking may be a result of lack of thinking, the desire to make quick answers to complex questions.

    This from reasearch study “Low-Effort Thought Promotes Political Conservatism” done recently at the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville:

    “The authors test the hypothesis that low-effort thought promotes political conservatism. In Study 1, alcohol intoxication was measured among bar patrons; as blood alcohol level increased, so did political conservatism (controlling for sex, education, and political identification). In Study 2, participants under cognitive load reported more conservative attitudes than their no-load counterparts. In Study 3, time pressure increased participants’ endorsement of conservative terms. In Study 4, participants considering political terms in a cursory manner endorsed conservative terms more than those asked to cogitate; an indicator of effortful thought (recognition memory) partially mediated the relationship between processing effort and conservatism. Together these data suggest that political conservatism may be a process consequence of low-effort thought; when effortful, deliberate thought is disengaged, endorsement of conservative ideology increases.”

    Simply put if you think you are a liberal, if you don’t think you are a conservative.

      1. Retired Spook

        Cluster,

        But Diane’s premise does beg the question, what would one call the phenomenon we see on the Left, where people claim Obama is going to pay for their groceries, their mortgage and gas for their car? What do we call the phenomenon when people line up around the block to get “Obama cash” from “Obama’s stash”? Describing that as “low effort thought” is being charitable.

      2. neocon1

        duane vaseline MF, FUBO, BS, woof arf

        The entire conservative way of thinking may be a result of lack of thinking, the desire to make quick answers to complex questions.

        marx alinsky 101, OR pure BS
        I take both mixed in a smelly brew = liberalism.

      3. neocon1

        spook

        where people claim Obama is going to pay for their groceries, their mortgage and gas for their car? What do we call the phenomenon when people line up around the block to get “Obama cash” from “Obama’s stash”?

        arent these all the “EDUCATED”, high IQ “thinkers” that the leftists and forkers are blaring about?

        sounds more like tramps, druggies, losers, plantation dwellers sucking off and wanting more OPM to me.

      4. neocon1

        “Low Effort Thought”

        maybe?

        NO effort “thought”

        I think NO effort STUPIDITY would be more appropriate for duane vaseline arf, woof FUBO.

      5. Diane Valencen, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H [Journ.], ArF J., M.F.

        Cluster I was just trying to make it simple for you.

      6. neocon1

        duane vaseline arf woof FUBO

        EVERYTHING you say is “SIMPLE” including your lil dungeons and dragons <85 IQ fantasy land for LOONS blog, and those simpletons who populate it.

      7. Diane Valencen, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H [Journ.], ArF J., M.F.

        Neocon thanks for that. i love paul harvey but i think all those ills he cites are simply society evolving and they don’t come from the Devil they come from the minds, hearts and actions of men.

      8. Diane Valencen, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H [Journ.], ArF J., M.F.

        And neocon insults me again. Not a big shock really. I still want to know how many straight marriages my gay marriage has ruined.

      9. Diane Valencen, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H [Journ.], ArF J., M.F.

        Neocon conservatives are always talking about how liberals want to take things from them. There is only one thing we want to take away from conservatives and that is their ability to force people to live by their rules. I don’t want your guns, you can have as many as you want as long as you get a license and go through a background check.

        You can keep your religion and worship as you please as long as you don’t demand that everyone else follow your one true path.

        You can have low taxes as long as the oldest, the weakest and all children have a means by which to survive.

        You can have the “troops” and idolize them as long as you take care of them after they’ve done your dirty work for good or ill.

        You can live in homogeneous suburbia as long as the people in the inner cities have the same opportunities and the playing field is level.

        You can have all the kids you can as long as you recognize a woman’s right to choose to have or not have children.

      10. Amazona

        More Orwellian double-speak: “evolving” now means “moving backward”. According to Di, “evolving” means shedding the confines of civilization and regressing toward savagery.

        Guess that’s why those “laws of society” have to be “ever changing”—to keep up with those fluid definitions.

      11. Amazona

        The only thing Di and her sweetie could ruin would be a party, by showing up.

        No, Di, hijacking the word “marriage” has no effect whatsoever on the actual relationships of those who are truly married. You PL trolls love to use this straw man but it is silly and false.

        What it does is cheapen and dilute a word that has extensive historical and cultural and even religious significance, reducing it to one of those infinitely flexible and therefore meaningless terms so beloved by the Left. Now, instead of a covenant between a man and a woman, it’s pretty much whatever anyone wants it to be, whenever, wherever.

        The so-called “gay community” insists, ad nauseum, that their sexual orientation is special, but they refuse to find or create a special word that captures its specialness, Why do you/they so stridently insist on hijacking a word that used to mean something specific, to apply it to their special relationships? Obviously because they feel, deep down, that the only way to make those relationships natural is to graft on a word that implies a natural nature.

        The very demand of the “gay community” to use a word that has, for centuries, been applied to non-gay unions is simply proof of an underlying and pervasive conviction that it will take this word, and ONLY this word, to convey social approval and legitimacy.

        It is an effort to hide deep-seated shame. If you are not ashamed of your orientation, then why do you need to cloak it in heterosexual terminology? Yes, you are trying to change the definition of that terminology, but it is and always will be a term originating in heterosexual unions sanctified by religious rites and/or by government law.

        Make up your minds, gay folk. Your relationships are either normal and should be recognized as natural, just different, or you admit they are not natural and desperately need to fix that, which you think you can do by attaching the word “marriage” to them.

        It just seems to me that if you really had confidence in the naturalness and goodness of homosexual commitments, you would be eager to find or create a word that would express this, as well as the special nature of such commitments.

      12. Diane Valencen, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H [Journ.], ArF J., M.F.

        Amazona

        Savagery, really? Evolving means progressing not remaining stuck in the present or worse wishing to live in the past.

      13. tiredoflibbs

        Yes Ama, progressives, like Diane and the rest of the forker ilk, are trying to dilute the word “marriage” just like they have successfully diluted the word “racist”.

        It is no surprise that they throw out that straw man argument. They revert to the same straw man arguments when it comes to race and religion.

        To them, lurking behind every bush and tree is a non-progressive who are in the Klan and are looking to impose a theocracy. It is amazing they defend those who are actively imposing a theocracy on their culture and violently trying to impose a theocracy on the rest of the world, namely the Islamic extremists, both terrorist and theocrats (psst. Diane not all of Islam, just the “progressive” ones).

        Again, Diane and the rest of the mindless forkers throw terms around and have no clue as to their meaning.

      14. Amazona

        Aha, another definition of terms from our resident definer, Diane of the multiple identities.

        Evolving means progressing not remaining stuck in the present or worse wishing to live in the past.

        Interesting. By your definition, “evolution” carries with it no connotation of improvement, but merely of motion.

        This must be why the simpleminded mantra of “change” has such appeal for people like you. If there is no interest in making things better, but just for making things different, this would be quite appealing.

        However, my own definition of “evolution” includes improvement. Simple change for the sake of change, while losing important aspects of, say, culture or civilization, is quite far from my own definition of the term.

      15. J. R. Babcock

        Interesting. By your definition, “evolution” carries with it no connotation of improvement, but merely of motion.

        Bingo, Amazona. You’ve nailed the dirty little secret of Liberalism. Why do you think they call themselves “Progressives”?

      16. neocon1

        duane visqueen… forker ESQ, dog, cat gumdrop, FUBO woof

        s. I don’t want your guns, you can have as many as you want as long as you get a license and go through a background check.

        that is NOT freedom, that is ignoring the second amendment…who are you to demand I need a govt license and back ground check?
        —————————————————————————-
        You can keep your religion and worship as you please as long as you don’t demand that everyone else follow your one true path.

        you do not have to follow that path, but if the majority does follow it then we make the laws based on our beliefs it is representative govt.

        ———————————————————————————–
        You can have low taxes as long as the oldest, the weakest and all children have a means by which to survive.

        you can have higher taxes as long as 100% of people employed pay the SAME RATE, those who do not pay do not vote, those who suck off the govt, do so for a per determined period say 2 years..

        ———————————————————————————–

        You can have the “troops” and idolize them as long as you take care of them after they’ve done your dirty work for good or ill.

        Our troops protect all of us, you scum buckets included so we ALL get to pay our fair share for that protection, dont like it? move to N. Korea or somolia,….”idolize” ? na that a useful idiot thing like in dear leader and a thrill down the leg.
        ———————————————————————————

        You can live in homogeneous suburbia as long as the people in the inner cities have the same opportunities and the playing field is level.

        I can live anywhere I can afford and so can you, opportunities are not AA at the point of a gun they are self determined, playing field be damned as a WM I live and work on the most obtuse playing field imaginable, it is just we are the best, smartest, hard working, diligent men on the face of the earth and over come the obstacles as if they were a child’s toys in the road.
        ——————————————————————————-

        You can have all the kids you can as long as you recognize a womans right to chose or not have children

        your “right to chose” ends with the harm (MURDER) of the child.
        NOBODY can tell you that you can not have children….HOWEVER IF you CHOOSE to screw like a lemming and get pregnate, then you give it up for adoption, after two get sterelized, or PAY out of YOUR own pocket to raise it / them.

      17. tiredoflibbs

        Diane the drone: “s. I don’t want your guns, you can have as many as you want as long as you get a license and go through a background check.”

        Says the proggy who will fight tooth and nail against any waiting period for an abortion.

        But, to them wating periods on guns, a guaranteed 2nd amendment right, is okay.

    1. Amazona

      Diane has been kind enough to offer us a lovely example of the lowest possible level of “thought” in her first post.

      Allow me to repeat: Liberalism is the freedom to be free without having to abide by anything other than the laws of society which are ever changing while not forcing those who don’t believe in your personal values to live by them.

      This, evidently, is supposed to put to shame the conservative model of studying and understanding political systems, and choosing the Constitutional model based on its proven (and studied and comprehended) history of success, regarding the expansion and protection of personal liberties and the advancement of economic progress and its attendant rise in the quality of life.

      She was gracious enough to provide us with an example of the process of “ever changing” definitions, a la George Orwell, where knowing less can be classified as knowing more.

      Nice work,Di. Drop in any time with more tidbits of Liberal “thought”.

    2. Amazona

      participants considering political terms in a cursory manner endorsed conservative terms more than those asked to cogitate; an indicator of effortful thought

      Let’s deconstruct this, without the subsequent psychobabble trying to “explain” it.

      Let’s look at the dismissive term “cursory”. Snide. Let’s just say that when participants are considering political terms, conservatives can quickly state what they believe. And state them in clear, concise, and specific terms, uncluttered by emotion and general agendas. But Liberals have to “cogitate” to try to explain what they believe—and we have seen here how well THAT works. We do not get actual political thought, but the political equivalent of a Miss America interview—“well, I believe in, like, world peace, and justice for all, and oh yes, ending hunger..”

      And then, alakaZAAAM! this obviously “effortful” thought is magically transformed into deep cogitation which, of course, indicates sooooo much higher intellect.

      Translation: If you actually know what you believe, politically, your ability to state it cogently and precisely is proof of a “lower level of thought” but if you are clueless and have to ponder and “cogitate” to come up with some kind of explanation, you are just soooo much smarter.

      Right.

    3. Amazona

      Simply put if you think you are a liberal, if you don’t think you are a conservative.

      Yet conservatives can, and do, clearly state the foundation of their political convictions, and relate them to historical performance of those convictions when applied to government, while Liberals can’t seem to come up with any definition of their political beliefs other than a laundry list of social engineering goals, devoid of any understanding of the political ideology of the system they think might meet those goals. And if asked to support their allegiance to this un-understood system, by providing historical evidence of its success, they can only come up with examples of marginal success in nations where watered-down Leftist policies have been in play.

      What evidently passes for “thinking” in the Liberals who post here is a frantic mental scrambling for something, ANYTHING, to deal with being challenged to explain and defend their system. It kind of looks like thinking, sometime, a little bit, but usually more resembles goat roping.

  6. bozo

    13 out of 13. Top 8% of the nation. Guess that makes me a powlitikal jenious. Really easy as long as you answer every question with the pablum served up by the corporo-conservative media.

    1. Cluster

      13 of 13 was not at all difficult to score – in fact it’s a little frightening that many people didn’t score 13 of 13.

    2. Amazona

      corporo-conservative media

      These guys get funnier all the time, as they edge/surge closer to the edge of sanity.

      1. bozo

        The disconnect fascinates me. You really believe Bain Capital/Thomas H Lee Parters who together own ClearChannel, by far the largest radio station holding company in the nation, are a bunch of liberals spewing commie propaganda? Yep, THAT Bain Capital owns ClearChannel.

        Of course the Saudi prince and the Aussie billionaire don’t count…somehow?

        Which broadcast network is, in fact, not corporately owned? Maybe all journalists are rogue Marxists who Jedi-mind-trick their parent companies into letting them indoctrinate our children with their “liberal bias.”

        Which network does NOT have a one-percenter at the helm? No, a .1 percenter? Maybe they’re too busy playing golf to mind the store?

        Really?

    3. neocon1

      yes blowzo, how lucky we would be to be free of those Eeeeeevil corporations eh?

      you know they were and are so lucky in the communist corporate free utopias they ring them with barbed wire (iron curtain) mine fields and machine gun bunkers to keep people out…..Oh WAIT!!

  7. Cluster

    Interesting post from Diane above. I don’t think she realizes that she is proving beyond any doubt the low level of thought liberals engage in. Let’s examine:

    You can keep your religion and worship as you please as long as you don’t demand that everyone else follow your one true path.

    Please provide the evidence where Christians are demanding that everyone else follow their path. I think you must have Christians confused with Islamists.

    You can have low taxes as long as the oldest, the weakest and all children have a means by which to survive.

    Low taxes are entirely subjective, and the means by which to survive is also extremely vague. This is about as empty as any platitude could ever be. Secondly, where in the constitution does it mandate that tax payers provide the means for others to survive?

    You can have the “troops” and idolize them as long as you take care of them after they’ve done your dirty work for good or ill.

    Tax payers already pay for their salaries, pensions and benefits. And interesting that you call the work of our troops “dirty work”. That’s a revealing comment Diane.

    You can live in homogeneous suburbia as long as the people in the inner cities have the same opportunities and the playing field is level.

    Neo has stated on numerous occasions that he lives in a very mixed neighborhood, and calls many of his neighbors good friends, so your cartoonish perception is false. Secondly, what exactly is a level playing field? Equal opportunity, or equal outcome?

    You can have all the kids you can as long as you recognize a woman’s right to choose to have or not have children.

    No conservative has ever stopped a woman from irresponsibly killing her unborn child. What we do oppose is being forced to pay for it.

    1. Amazona

      I suggest that the ..right to choose to have or not have children.. starts and stops with the right to not become pregnant.

      I suggest that the right to life begins with the beginning of life, and at that point trumps the right to selfishness or convenience on the part of a gestational female. At the point where one life becomes two lives, each life has to have equal protection.

      1. Diane Valencen, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H [Journ.], ArF J., M.F.

        What is it that makes conservatives think they have the right to tell an adult when and when not to have sex? This is the real issue here Amazona. Is sex for fun only for married straight couples?

      2. Cluster

        Since when have conservatives ever tried to tell people when, or when not to have sex?? Diane, you really must quit constructing these strawmen.

        The conservative position is that IF someone decides to have sex, they need to accept the responsibility of that decision. It’s that personal responsibility thing that liberals choose to ignore. Try and stay focused.

      3. tiredoflibbs

        wow, Diane, who are you talking about? Encouraging people to take the proper precautions or abstaining is “telling them what to do”?

        So, proggies of the late 80s and 90s encouraging the use of condoms was telling people when and when not to have sex? All those PSAs from the Dept. of Health was telling people what to do? I thought it was to mitigate the spread of AIDS and other diseases, silly me.

        Let’s see it is okay for proggies to tell a person not to smoke, not to ride a bike without a helmet and other behavior that may put a strain on the health care system. But when it comes to promiscuous people and encouraging them to abstain or use contraception (to prevent the spread of disease and put more of a strain on the health care system, it is evil conservatives trying to tell them what to do.

        Amazing…. As long as YOU agree and it is part of the left wing agenda it is okay. If it goes against, it’s “what gives you the right to tell me what to do?”. So the proggies butting in other aspects of life, is not a problem for you as well?

        Pathetic.

        I can see why you live in the land of make believe known as (your version) “hell”.

      4. Amazona

        As usua, Di, it is hard to tell just WHAT you are trying to say. You alone, you collectively, whichever of you is awake and on duty today. But let me wade through your hysterical take on what I did say.

        Sex is fine for consenting adults. Some find it merely recreational (“fun”) some treat it with great respect and reverence as one of the most meaningful expressions of love and intimacy, some view it as primarily for procreation. Most people view sex as a combination of the above, having fun while doing it, using it to express love and intimacy with the loved one, and to procreate. Evidently some restrict it just to the “fun” aspect.

        However, sex is not just a bump and tickle with no responsibilities and no potential consequences. Like all chosen activities, sexual conduct carries with it, like or not, significant responsibility. Therefore, those not willing to accept the responsibility should not engage in sexual conduct.

        Or in driving a car, or in drinking alcohol, or any of a myriad of other chosen activities.

        What is so interesting is the effort of people like you to first diminish the sexual act to nothing more meaningful than “fun” and then to try to escape all responsibility for its consequences. And let’s face it, the creation of a whole new human life is a pretty big consequence to try to avoid by simply killing it off and going back out for more “fun”.

        There. Did that clarify it for you?

      5. Amazona

        And what does a view of sexual conduct being accompanied by personal responsibility have to do with a belief that the best form of government for the United States of America is the Constitution?

        What is it about you people and your ignorance of the meaning of the word “conservative” in political terms? You just toss it around, seeming to use it as a pejorative to describe any thought or belief you find offensive.

        Fine. Your ignorance, you get to make the rules about how you exhibit it. But realize that when you choose to link “conservative” with values such as personal responsibility, you create a paradigm in which the opposite, or irresponsibility, would logically be associated with the opposite political model, or Liberalism.

        Your call.

  8. GMB

    It is clear that Diane wants all the rights of living in classical liberal democracy but wants no part of the responsibilities. How do you argue with a person like that?

    Stay out of my bedroom until I get pregnant then get your tax dollars into my bedroom.
    Pretty much sums it up right Diane?

      1. neocon1

        duane vaseline arf MF FUBO

        my gay marriage has ruined.

        1. there is NO such thing as homosexual “marriage” there is the pathology and mental illness of sodomy.

        2. it is you who forcefully shove your agenda, ideals and perversions upon the 99% who dont want any part of it…..unlike the muslims, we dont murder you for it.

    1. neocon1

      yup

      I want to screw screw screw and you to pay pay pay……for my pills, abortion, bastard child.(obama?)

      1. neocon1

        The Ascendence of Sociopaths in US Governance
        Casey Research ^ | March 21, 2012 | Doug Casey

        There are seven characteristics I can think of that define a sociopath, although I’m sure the list could be extended.

        1) Sociopaths completely lack a conscience or any capacity for real regret about hurting people. Although they pretend the opposite.

        2) Sociopaths put their own desires and wants on a totally different level from those of other people. Their wants are incommensurate. They truly believe their ends justify their means. Although they pretend the opposite.

        3) Sociopaths consider themselves superior to everyone else, because they aren’t burdened by the emotions and ethics others have – they’re above all that. They’re arrogant. Although they pretend the opposite.

        4) Sociopaths never accept the slightest responsibility for anything that goes wrong, even though they’re responsible for almost everything that goes wrong. You’ll never hear a sincere apology from them.

        5) Sociopaths have a lopsided notion of property rights. What’s theirs is theirs, and what’s yours is theirs too. They therefore defend currency inflation and taxation as good things.

        6) Sociopaths usually pick the wrong target to attack. If they lose their wallet, they kick the dog. If 16 Saudis fly planes into buildings, they attack Afghanistan.

        7) Sociopaths traffic in disturbing news, they love to pass on destructive rumors and they’ll falsify information to damage others.

        the govt is God to sociopaths..

  9. Jeremiah

    Some interesting Conservative commentary. I’ve read through all the comments and found them good reading.

    Somewhere back in the thread I read where “liberals like to redefine terms, or change wording.” The reason for this is because liberals adopted, or created the concept known as postmodernism – a left-wing concept, that says, the individual reserves the right to determine their own definition or meaning of words…and additionally, under the postmodern construct, one also reserves the right to determine the rightness or wrongness of all actions individually.

    Postmodernism denies all authority. Therefore it is also an atheistic concept.

    Postmodernism coalesces with the socialist/communist constructs to bring about Marx’s break down in communication between families/family and society (take for example: class warfare). Thus the end result being the culmination of social and economic takeover by the State. It’s end, however, being one of failure. Stalin’s regime as one good example.

    1. watsonredux

      cluster said, “Most of the conservatives here have begged liberals, like you, to civilly engage in a political debate, only to met with more empty platitudes and scorn.”

      So Diane provides her view of liberalism in one short paragraph devoid of insults and the usual garbage we find here. And what does she get in return? Insults.

      Amazona responds by dismissing Diane’s statement as “a silly, vacuous, emotional little screed of personal wishful thinking, showing the dependence of the Left and PL on an ever-changing, infinitely flexible, lexicon of fluid definitions.” Oh, was that part of the civil political debate you were seeking, cluster?

      Amazona then goes on and on, post after post–16 by my count–offering up insult after insult. She accuses Diane of being an “odd little bubble of multiple personalities” and tosses aside Diane’s statements as her “hysterical take.” That’s rich coming from you of all people, Amy.

      Amazona further dismisses Diane’s statements as “girlish fantasies” and “Orwellian double speak,” and later offers yet another personal insult having nothing to do with anything by claiming that “the only thing Di and her sweetie could ruin would be a party, by showing up.”

      This, apparently, is the “intelligent discourse” Amazona so desperately seeks, the “civil” political debate that cluster “begs” for. All she and cluster really want, of course, is to insult people to stroke their egos.

      1. Amazona

        Oh, waaa waaa waaa, wattle. Diana her own self is the one who writes as “We, Ourselves” and claims to be several people, at least some of whom are dead. I didn’t make that up and assign it to her. Do try to keep up.

        Yes, I found her breathless litany to be giddy wishful thinking totally unrelated to reality. If you want to challenge that idea, challenge it, don’t just snipe at the fact that I said it.

        Diana herself used the phrase “ever changing” and I commented on that by using the term ” an ever-changing, infinitely flexible, lexicon of fluid definitions.” Do you find a great chasm between her own words and mine? Do you deny that the Left redefines words to meet its own needs? Gee, let’s chat about that, shall we? We can start with defining “liberal” as a rigid and illiberal political system based on the restriction of personal liberty, for starters. Those who have read Orwell understand that I made an accurate literary comparison. So sorry you had such a reaction to it.

        What I “tossed aside ….. as her “hysterical take” was an emotion-based lie about what I said. What is it that makes conservatives think they have the right to tell an adult when and when not to have sex? This is the real issue here Amazona. Is sex for fun only for married straight couples? None of this had any relationship to anything I said, so yes, did find it to be a hysterical reaction. And deeply dishonest, which I did not mention.

        The fact is that you, and people like you, have steadfastly refused to engage in actual political discourse. Period.

        Any time someone wants to actually talk about political ideology, and debate the pros and cons of each political system, I am ready and willing to do so. But I am not obligated to pretend that nonsense is sense, any more than I would be obligated to give someone a trophy for just showing up or an award for “trying so hard”.

      2. Amazona

        Quote me accurately, wattle.

        No, my dear, whatever you may think of “Liberalism” in your odd little bubble of multiple personalities, both dead and alive and for all I know hovering in between, there is a very real definition of the term as a political term. And after all, that is what we are talking about here.

        You may not find claims of being many people in one, speaking not only in first person plural but capitalizing it as We, Ourselves, and claiming to be a compilation of various personalities both living and dead, to be “an odd little bubble” of reality. You may relate to this on a very personal level, for all I know. But do remember that my comment is based on what Diana herself as claimed to be the truth about herself.

        I notice your evasion of the real content of that paragraph——- …there is a very real definition of the term (Liberal) as a political term. And after all, that is what we are talking about here. .. Whatever it was that Diana went on about, it certainly had nothing to do with a definition of Liberal as a political term.

        But then you and your kind evade and avoid any effort to define Liberal as a political term, and the new tactic is to attack anyone who asks them to.

  10. dennis

    Cluster: “in re: to Dennis’s claim of negative press for Obama, well that again is purely subjective.”

    No, it came from the Pew Research Center report “How the Media Covered the 2012 Primary Campaign”, which linked to the data I cited. See http://www.journalism.org/analysis_report/barack_obama_0?src=prc-section .

    Cluster again: “And I am not sure what Dennis meant when referring to “human authority”. Most conservatives are very spiritual thus the only authority they defer to is one of the Diety.”

    Yeah, I see that confirmed every time I come here – how “very spiritual” conservatives are, and how much you defer to “the Diety”. What diety is that? Any time I reference Bible teachings to explain my position I’m called a “pious hypocrite”, a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” or (sarcastically) “the Only True Christian, the only one truly schooled in The Way and The Light, and God has sent you to lecture us” (that’s Amazona, never at a loss for a snide characterization). Bottom line is, you don’t very much like having your political values measured against what the Bible teaches, even though it’s the primary authority for Christian doctrine and history.

    Amazona wants everything boiled down to political terms, but politics aren’t a moral arbiter of anything. Political doctrine is a worldly and terribly constricting frame of reference. Politics and Christianity make conflicting demands on your loyalties – to be a purist of either the left or the right would require compromising basic Christian principles. Jesus taught “no man can serve two masters.” Whether anyone’s opinions fall on the left or the right is a trivial matter; whether they’re defensible according to the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels is a radically different approach to civic responsibility, but one I feel far safer with.

    To me it appears much of the evangelical right often disregards Jesus’ plain teachings to accommodate their political ideology, rather than basing their political choices on those teachings. For anyone calling themselves “Christians” I think that’s exactly backward from the way it should be. Otherwise, why claim the name at all?

    Political ideology and human authority seem roughly equivalent much of the time, from the way laws and policies play out. I don’t reference human authority much except for avoiding things that might get me arrested. I far more often reference what God has been pleased to reveal through his Word. For some reason when it comes to political matters that lands me on the liberal side more often than the conservative side. But maybe that’s because I serve a liberal God who has been extremely generous with the gift of salvation – giving it not to the deserving, of whom there are so few, but to the underserving, of whom there are so many.

    1. Amazona

      Amazona wants everything boiled down to political terms

      You really need to pay more attention. I only want POLITICS boiled down to political terms.

      And this seems to be way beyond the ability of those who post here showing Leftist tendencies, and/or attacking what they seem to think is conservative.

    2. Amazona

      There is absolutely nothing in the Constitutional Conservative political model which would create a conflict with religious belief, or a conflict of loyalties. No one who understands this political system could say such a strange thing.

      You may claim that what God has revealed to you through His word has landed you on the side of Liberal politics, but I think this is a self-serving justification, and one that shows a lack of understanding of Liberal political ideology.

      Not of the glossy “I’d Like To Give The World A Hug” fantasy that the Left dangles to lure in the well-meaning but intellectually lazy, but the true ideology. But the Left is a great home for those who believe in collective salvation instead of personal redemption.

    3. neocon1

      dennistooge

      MURDER (abortion) is NOT a Christian value
      SODOMY is NOT a christian value
      STEALING anthers wealth through enormous taxes to give to another is NOT a Christian value.
      COVETING anthers property and wealth is NOT a Christian value.
      Bearing FALSE witness (class warfare) is NOT a Christian value
      LYING is (obama daily) is NOT a Christian value.
      even Satan can quote the bible to suit his purpose, you are truly a wolf in sheeps clothing…

      how is killer tiller’s collection basket job coming in your “church”?
      UU ?

  11. GMB

    2 Thessalonians 3:10

    Pretty much sums up conservatism in one small passage of the Bible. Nowhere can I find in that book where Jesus advocated taking forcefully from who do and giving it to those that won’t.

  12. Jeremiah

    To go along with the post that I made at 11:22 PM I would like to share this video…this is a newer version of Ravi’s lectures on postmodernism….and kind of ties it in with where we stand today…

  13. dennis

    Amazona, “collective salvation” is a concept you continue to reference in response to things I’ve said here. It’s a foreign concept to me, as “salvation” in the biblical sense is dependant on each person’s individual response to the Saviour.

    GMB, why am I not surprised you sum up “conservatism” like that? I don’t disagree with your reference; however context matters greatly. The question is how you balance that specific counsel of the apostle Paul, given in response to a local problem he was addressing with the church in Thessalonica, with broader principles he taught elsewhere (such as Romans 12, the entire chapter but especially the last two verses), the values taught by Christ in the Sermon on the Mount and all through the Gospels, and the principles of philanthropy that were embedded in the Torah. The list is nearly endless. You can’t extract one verse of a personal letter to a local church and use it to trump everything else the Bible teaches. There’s a reason for the discipline of exegesis: to place things within their proper context and undertand them as they were intended.

    But yes, this is a very handy hammer to drive your economic values home. Contextually it’s much like Neocon using Psalm 109:8 to curse President Obama. However it says nothing to address the sick or disabled who can’t work, or to balance the needs of the working poor – a huge class – with the grotesquely disproportionate compensation of the rich, about whom Jesus had significant things to say. For balance I’d suggest you read James chapter 5, paying special attention to the early verses (that’s a very short book near the end of the New Testament). I could go on at length, but suffice it to say if you respect the Bible, there is risk in taking a minor passage out of context and placing it in opposition to major themes woven through several thousands of years of biblical record.

    1. GMB

      I would suggest to you to stop assigning motives to other people. You only make assumptions that you cannot support.

      Simple way to think of it. Nowhere in the bible does it state that I have the responsibility to feed those who will not feed themselves. Nowhere does does Jesus advocate the forceful redistribution of sommeones wealth to those who will not earn it themselves.

      You obviously do and you hide behind verse to do so.

      Commandment 8. Thou shalt not steal. Learn it dennis. Believe in it. Jesus commands the person, the individual to charity. He does not command Ceasar to do charity in his name.

      Get youself a real Bible and get your head out of niv type humanistic garbage rewrites.

      1. Jeremiah

        He does not command Ceasar to do charity in his name.

        GMB,

        Yes, I agree 100%. And that puts into context Dennis’ motives, which is to use the authority of God’s Word and apply it as his own authority, when man clearly does not establish authority, but acknowledges it.

        So, in Dennis’ desire to take from the rich and give to the poor, he is reconstructing biblical principles in order to take authority from God, and give it to the State.

        He has come as Neo has shown us many times, a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

      2. bozo

        All that believed were together, and had all things in common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.
        (Acts 2:44-45)

      3. bozo

        ‘Course, the Bible also says for slaves to obey their masters, not to rise up against the inhumanity, but to be the best darn slave you can be. And that shellfish is an abomination (obviously has never tried the lobster bisque at Legal Seafood). It also commands that we bash the babies of our enemies on rocks, and that priests abort adulterously-conceived fetuses. And the story where God gets mad because some dude killed every man, woman and child in the tribe, but didn’t kill the donkeys and sheep like God asked him to…priceless.

      4. tiredoflibbs

        Hmmmmm, bozo….

        …individuals SOLD their possession and distributed among those in need.

        NO mention of Caesar, taking and redistributing the wealth to those in need. NO mention of the state needed to this activity.

        None.

        As I said, denny believes ONLY the government can perform such action.

      5. neocon1

        blowzo

        the CHRISTIAN bible is the NEW TESTAMENT the OLD testament was the Jewish torah…….Christians use the OT ONLY for historical purpose and to prove Christs lineage, and to study the Judeo LAW.
        We (christians) are under the period of grace and not the OLD T LAW.

        do TRY to educate your self Clarabelle before beeping your horn.

      6. neocon1

        sooooo blowzo

        what if the “rich man sold ALL his goods (wealth) and gave it to the needy………what would happen TOMORROW to the same “needy” when OPM was gone?
        now who would fend for and feed them?

        the case of cutting open the hen to get ALLLL the golden eggs.

    2. Amazona

      Suffice it to say if you respect the Bible, there is risk in taking injunctions to personal acts of charity out of context and placing them in political agendas, reframing them as commands to force others into actions in the name of major themes woven through several thousands of years of biblical record.

      dennis, you admit that salvation “…in the biblical sense is dependant (sic) on each person’s individual response to the Saviour. ..” yet you insist that we are instructed by God to engage in collective acts of charity, and you constantly harangue us with your claims of national responsibility to follow Biblical instructions for redemption.

    3. Amazona

      It is easy to track the motivation of dennis, hard as he tries to hide it behind Biblical quotes.

      ” .grotesquely disproportionate compensation of the rich, ..”

      And there you have it. Not a conviction truly based in sincere religious belief that God has commanded nations to engage in collective charity, but his own sour resentment of “the rich”.

      Note the word “compensation”. It’s as if “the rich” are simply handed vast amounts of money, “grotesquely DISPROPORTIONATE” to their efforts, their achievements, their contributions to the economic prosperity of others.

      Here, again, dennis has set himself in judgment of others. dennis has clearly created a vague amorphous group he has identified as “the rich”, lumping all people of wealth together, and determined that there IS some “proportional compensation” for all of them, one which is not “grotesque”.

      And dennis’s solution for this “grotesquely DISPROPORTIONATE” distribution of wealth is to take it away, piously claiming that he only thinks this should be done because God told him it should.

      How did dennis receive these messages from God? Well, by studying the Bible and by being very very careful which parts to quote and what interpretations to put upon those quotes.

      So dennis is in high cotton. He has set himself up as the arbiter of “fair”
      compensation, even though he has no idea of what efforts are being “compensated”, only that sometimes the compensation is “grotesquely DISPROPORTIONATE” to what he thinks it should be. And then he has set himself up as the purveyor of the Word Of God, explaining, for example, that when God warned about the dangers of wealth He was not warning individuals of the dangers of putting wealth above charity and honesty but that He really meant people like dennis should be able to take that wealth away.

      I imagine he has set up a trifecta, in which he is also qualified to determine where that confiscated wealth should go.

      In the name of God, you know.

  14. Jeremiah

    God said “the poor you’ll always have with you.” And in reference to the charitable acts that are shown in the Old Testament passages, the farmers were expected as individuals to leave the outside edges as a remainder for those that were poor and didn’t have much to eat. The King didn’t demand that farmers leave to the poor, no this was God’s command to these families. God did not say to King David “King David, go plunder all the rich families crops and give them to the poor.” No, God instructed His people individually on what He required of them. The government had no hand in this.

    1. Amazona

      Well said, Jeremiah.

      God has told each of us how to achieve personal redemption. He has not told us we can gain salvation by forcing certain acts upon others.

  15. GMB

    Lets address the sick and disabled who can not work. Who bears the resposibility to make sure they are cared for? The church or the state? Should be an easy question to answer.

    The Church of course. Where does Jesus command Ceasar to take from anyone to care for them?

    1. GMB

      The Church only asks for ten percent of my wealth to do thier mission. The state demands more and will enforce thier will at gunpoint to get it.
      The Church is more effecient at getting that wealth to those that need it.

      The state not so much. Layer upon layer of burocracy and waste must be dealt with before the truly poor ever recieve a penny. By your writings, this is the system that you prefer. Our founding fathers who were much more moral and upright than I happen to disagree with you.

      They saw the pitfalls of an all powerful government and drafted a Constitution that headed off most of those pitfalls. However people took it upon themselves to ignore our founders warnings and instituted a direct tax on themselves and changed our country forever.

      You and your “all things o everyone” type of political belief has gotten us, along with those go along to get have gotten us nearly 15 trillion dollars in debt.

      Just how much of that is your fair share?

      1. tiredoflibbs

        GMB, denny is of the belief that NOTHING can be accomplished without the force of government.

        The poor cannot be taken care of without government.

        You nailed it with the requirements of the church being less to that of government. Denny is of the simple belief that the more government demands and the more people resist, they are simply “greedy”. There denny uses the bible to back up his beliefs and pushes the agenda of those in government and their requirements for “donations”.

        I am still waiting for denny to preach to his masters in government, those who bear false witness against the “brotherhood of man” as he calls them, namely non-progressives. He is quick to criticize those of non-progressive persuasion, but his fellow drones, moochers and looters he gives a predictable pass. Denny needs to stick to photography and stained glass – anything else is way above his head.

        Pathetic.

    2. neocon1

      how about the FAMILY?
      both myself and my wife’s family took care of our grandparents (in home) until their deaths.

      OH WAIT

      welfare queens with 8 kids from 8 DIFFERENT mutts have NO family’s thanks to the donk plantation and OPM

  16. Retired Spook

    I’m guessing that Dennis did not vote for Gore in 2000 or Kerry in 2004 or Obama in 2008 as their charitable records were dismal. And I’m guessing that Dennis will vote for Romney this fall as his charitable record is probably the best (tithe X 2) of any candidate who has ever sought the Presidency. Correct me if I’m wrong, Dennis.

    1. tiredoflibbs

      I haven’t seen denny criticize Biden for his 1.5% contributions to charity nor obAMATEUR’s dismal contributions to charity as well.

      Of course, the press touted obAMATEUR’s 20% contribution, but really that is not enough. WE THE TAXPAYERS pay for his residence, food, travel, transportation, what living expenses does he pay for?

      His contributions should be higher than the paultry 20% he gave, he can afford it.

      But wealth envy drones like denny will criticize the “rich” as long as they are of the non-progressive persuasion. Denny is predictably silent when it comes to his party.

      Pathetic and predictable.

      1. Amazona

        Remember, Obama was quite stingy till he got closer to running for President, and needed a better charity profile. This is what his charitable giving looked like before he hit the national stage:

        2005: $77,315 to charity out of income of $1.66 million (4.6 percent)

        2004: $2,500 out of $207,647 (1.2 percent)

        2003: $3,400 out of $238,327 (1.4 percent)

        2002: $1,050 out of $259,394 (0.4 percent)

        An effort is made to tout his giving of his Nobel Prize money in his charitable donations, but again, he was giving away money he never really had, which, while consistent with his dedication to handing out OPM, is not exactly dipping into his own pocket.

  17. bardolf

    James Lovelock, the scientist that came up with the ‘Gaia Theory’ and a prominent herald of climate change, once predicted utter disaster for the planet from climate change, writing ‘before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.’ Now Lovelock is walking back his rhetoric, admitting that he and other prominent global warming advocates were being alarmists. In a new interview with MSNBC he says: ‘”The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books — mine included — because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened,” Lovelock said. “The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now,” he said. “The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising — carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that,” he added.’ Lovelock still believes the climate is changing, but at a much, much slower pace.”

      1. bardolf

        It isn’t exactly the Iraq war (one needs to add 3 zeros) but a billion dollars here and there add up.

      2. neocon1

        baldork

        and the last 3.5 years in afghanistan? Oh wait that has been FREE.
        gitmo? sheik KFC? HUH? what promise? what money?

    1. watsonredux

      Amysnarka said, “Quote me accurately, wattle.” (More name-calling from Amy. I guess that’s part of her attempt at civil discourse.)

      I did quote you accurately, Amy. Your very first post in response to Diane’s very simple post started with this: “it is a silly, vacuous, emotional little screed of personal wishful thinking, showing the dependence of the Left and PL on an ever-changing, infinitely flexible, lexicon of fluid definitions.” I then gave several other examples of your name-calling and insulting other posters.

      It’s obvious you don’t want an exchange of ideas; you merely want to belittle people. Your phony attempts to engage so-called liberal posters are disingenuous at best, lying at worst. If you want civil discourse, you need to be civil.

      And just for the record, we have had civil debates here a B4V. You just conveniently forgot.

      1. neocon1

        watstooge

        a leftist BS sandwich is just that, hard to call it anything else……suck it up big boy and quit ur whining you sound like some liberal weenie……OH WAIT!!

      2. neocon1

        waspdouche

        “I then gave several other examples of your name-calling and insulting other posters”.

        watsonredux April 25, 2012 at 3:59 pm #

        Amysnarka

        Holy SHIITE batman a pot meet kettle moment LOL

      3. Amazona

        Wattle, with what part of “…silly, vacuous, emotional little screed of personal wishful thinking, showing the dependence of the Left and PL on an ever-changing, infinitely flexible, lexicon of fluid definitions….” do you disagree or find too too offensive?

        Let’s just take us a look-see, shall we? Here are some definitions of the words which aroused such intense passion that you simply had to post an attack on me for using them.

        Silly:
        1. Exhibiting a lack of wisdom or good sense; foolish.
        2. Lacking seriousness: frivolous:

        Vacuous:
        1. A vacuous truth is a statement about a collection of objects none of which exist.
        2. Devoid of substance or meaning; inane:

        Screed:
        1. an informal letter, account, or other piece of writing

        So, what we have here is a pile of righteous indignation about words being used correctly, to describe an opinion of a statement which I found to be foolish and lacking seriousness, devoid of substance, and contained within an informal account.

        I went on to merely restate the claims of Di and other Lefties, that the actual definition of words is not necessary, is a foolish restriction, and so on. She is the one who used the term “ever-changing”—-I merely restated it.

        So, let’s take a look at the comment that sparked my response: I, personally know exactly what liberalism is. Liberalism is the freedom to be free without having to abide by anything other than the laws of society which are ever changing while not forcing those who don’t believe in your personal values to live by them.

        I stand by my observation that Liberalism is NOT …..the freedom to be free without having to abide by anything other than the laws of society which are ever changing while not forcing those who don’t believe in your personal values to live by them…… and that this IS, in fact, a statement “….exhibiting a lack of wisdom or good sense; foolish, lacking seriousness, and frivolous….” as well as being “… devoid of substance or meaning; inane.”

        Why do I say this? Quite simply, because it is true. Diana’s comment has nothing whatsoever to do with any definition of Liberalism, and IS, in fact, nothing more than an emotion-based wish list of vague utopian ideals. Liberalism is a political system, a Leftist political model which has nothing at all to do with not “…having to abide by anything other than the laws of society ..” or any of the other claptrap she explained.

        I think what happened is that my comment struck a nerve, pointing out the silliness and vacuousness of what passes for political substance from Pseudo-Lefties who have no clue whatsoever about the ideology they support, and who become quite agitated when this is pointed out.

        If you guys want to have what you call “civil debate” on any topic, speak up. But don’t be switching definitions in midstream so you can flip from politics to New Age fantasies.

  18. bozo

    What was the subject again? Oh, yeah, about that poll…

    Transcript from a mall near you:

    Pollster: So, Mr. Republican, which political party advocates for smaller, less intrusive government?

    Republican: Republicans.

    Pollster: Very good. You’re so smart. Have a nice day.

    Later…

    Pollster: So, Mr. Democrat, which political party advocates for smaller, less intrusive government?

    Democrat: Well, do you mean with rhetoric or actions?

    Pollster: Please, sir, just answer the question.

    Democrat: Well, Republicans talk a lot about less intrusive government, but they’re the ones who created Homeland Security and the PATRIOT Act that intrudes on all our privacy and liberties and eliminates search and seizure rights, and just passed legislation forcing the invasion of women’s hoohas against doctor’s advice. They control the purse strings in the House and just keep raising the debt ceiling, so they’re not that worried about spending despite what they say on TV, and…

    Pollster: I guess you just don’t know the answer, then. Stupid Democrat.

    Conclusion: GOP Voters are better informed, more open minded.

    1. Amazona

      freakzo, just when can “a woman’s hooha” be “invaded” against WHAT “doctor’s advice” ?

      Hint: A female CHOOSES to risk pregnancy by having unprotected or poorly protected sex. A female then CHOOSES to kill the outcome of that first decision, and CHOOSES to do so at a very early stage before the heartbeat can be determined by external ultrasound. She makes these CHOICES knowing that an ultrasound examination to determine heartbeat of the doomed baby is mandatory. Therefore she CHOOSES to accept a transvaginal ultrasound if this is what is called for to accomplish her CHOICE of murdering her baby.

      What you and your other ignorant lemmings are whining about is that she really doesn’t want to see that she has a living human being growing inside her, but prefers to latch onto the lie that this is just “a clump of cells”. Tough. A CHOICE has to be based on full information and disclosure—otherwise it is just a guess.

      The radical Left pro-death crowd will fight and fight and fight to protect what they lyingly call “CHOICE” when in fact they fight and fight and fight to keep actual information about the reality of the procedure they love so much hidden from often-frantic, often-confused, always-misled, often panicky, females on the brink of choosing between being real women and being mere gestational creatures.

    2. Amazona

      However, freakzo has stumbled upon a truth, clearly not recognizing it as he spends so little time in its vicinity.

      This is that the IDENTITY of Republican is too often at odds with the Constitutional Conservative movement it is supposed to represent.

      This is why so many conservatives are rejecting the IDENTITY of Republican, in spite of the pragmatic reality that when it comes to elections, we have no choice but to vote for Republicans, given the fact that a Libertarian or other third party vote would merely hand power to the Left, and then strive to reform the Republican Party from within.

      (As is what is happening in Indiana as we speak.)

    3. Amazona

      Pollster: So, Mr. Democrat, which political party advocates for smaller, less intrusive government?

      Clearly the answer is “Republican”. If you want to know who really ACTS to reduce the size and scope of the federal government, you need to phrase your question better.

      And you need to differentiate between federal government and levels of more local government. (I know, I know, Libs have a really hard time with this concept. “The 10th WHAT?????” Huh? )

Comments are closed.