Conservatives Know Liberals; Liberals Don’t Know Conservatives

From Volokh Conspiracy:

…One other point that I find really interesting and important about Haidt’s work is his findings on the ability of different groups to empathize across these ideological divides. So in his book (p. 287) Haidt reports on the following experiment: after determining whether someone is liberal or conservative, he then has each person answer the standard battery of questions as if he were the opposite ideology. So, he would ask a liberal to answer the questions as if he were a “typical conservative” and vice-versa. What he finds is quite striking: “The results were clear and consistent. Moderates and conservatives were most accurate in their predictions, whether they were pretending to be liberals or conservatives. Liberals were the least accurate, especially those who describe themselves as ‘very liberal.’ The biggest errors in the whole study came when liberals answered the Care and Fairness questions while pretending to be conservatives.” In other words, moderates and conservatives can understand the liberal worldview and liberals are unable to relate to the conservative worldview, especially when it comes to questions of care and fairness.

In short, Haidt’s research suggests that many liberals really do believe that conservatives are heartless bastards–or as a friend of mine once remarked, “Conservatives think that liberals are good people with bad ideas, whereas liberals think conservatives are bad people”–and very liberal people think that especially strongly. Haidt suggests that there is some truth to this…

We see this all the time.  First off, anyone who is right of center in any meaningful sense can usually with 100% accuracy determine what a liberal will think on any issue before the liberal is queried.  This is why we don’t need to tune in to CNN, read the New York Times editorial page or watch the President’s State of the Union Address.  We already know what they are going to say. There is never a surprise in a liberal.

Secondly, we know that liberals will not know what we think about any particular issue, even after they have asked us.  Whatever we say will just go through the liberal’s mental filter and come out as us saying whatever the liberal believed we should have said, given that we are conservative.  The most recent example of this absurdity is the way liberals treated Huckabee’s recent comments  –  whatever one wishes to think about them, all Huckabee said as that liberals treat women as if they are unable to control their libidos and need Uncle Sugar to take care of them.  Once that went through the liberal filter, it came out in liberal thinking that Huckabee thinks that women cannot control their libidos and need Uncle Sugar to take care of them.  I can assure one and all that if Huckabee is still prominent 20 years from now, liberals will be condemning him for having once upon a time said that women cannot control their libidos.

If you read the whole article linked from Volokh, you’ll see that it starts out describing how people originally come to their views – that we tend to take up views which meet our predispositions and then tend to concentrate on evidence which confirms us, rejecting that which denies our view.  This is probably true to a certain extent.  I can see why I was open to the conservative argument when I first started paying attention to politics in the late 1970’s – Carter’s liberalism was such a clear failure that I’d have had to be an idiot to think that liberalism had the answers.  Any particular liberal out there can provide us with reasons why liberal twaddle appealed to them at the start.  But I think there is this difference – when you start entering in to conservative thought, you’ll find a variety of views right from the get-go.  Unlike the mindlessness of liberalism, conservatism has dissidents.

And because we have dissidents, we are forced to argue and when you argue (if you are to be at all successful) you have to get in to the mindset of your opponent.  You have to accord their point of view some respect and assume that they want the same good end as you, even if their means of doing so are different (and perhaps incorrect).  Liberals don’t have dissidents – the powers that be of liberalism decree that this or that is the only acceptable view and everyone must conform to it – and everyone who doesn’t is slandered as a hate-filled bigot.   Naturally, all of us would urge liberals to try and understand our views, but that won’t really be successful – a liberal who enters in to the worldview of a conservative in order to understand it would very swiftly cease to be a liberal.  Not saying that they’d go out and become TEA Party activists the next day, but they’d cease to be liberal because they’d cease to automatically accept whatever the liberal powers-that-be decree…and thus they would be ostracized by fellow liberals, and most people cannot tolerate ostracism (not for nothing did the ancient Greeks give you a choice between drinking hemlock and going in to exile; some choose hemlock as the preferable option).

What all this means is don’t expect liberals to be kind or merciful: they can’t be and remain liberals.  To remain liberals they must remain ignorant of and fearful about us.  Just keep that in mind as we battle it out.

Advertisements

89 thoughts on “Conservatives Know Liberals; Liberals Don’t Know Conservatives

  1. Retired Spook January 25, 2014 / 7:32 pm

    I tried Haidt’s quiz and came out — SURPRISE — 92% conservative and 8% liberal.

    I’ve known three types of Liberals in my life: ones like Amazona who finally saw the light; ones who dig in their heals and become irrationally argumentative when confronted with the error of their views; and ones who are so ignorant that they refuse to confront what they’ve convinced themselves they believe because, deep down, they know they can’t defend it. The best they can possibly say about liberal ideas is that, even though they’ve never worked before, this time will be different. But, of course, it’s NEVER different because the ideas themselves are flawed. Just as we’ve witnessed on this blog over and over and over, I can’t honestly say that I’ve ever had a conversation with a Liberal who made a good argument for Liberalism. They almost always fall back on ad hominem attacks because it’s next to impossible to launch a credible criticism of individual responsibility, individual liberty, personal accountability, rugged individualism and personal charity — all traits of Conservatism.

    • Amazona January 25, 2014 / 7:43 pm

      I would add another category: Those who vote Liberal not because they prefer, or believe in, any aspect of Liberal ideology, but because they have been swayed by the Liberal propaganda that Libs are good and conservatives (the Right, Republicans,) are bad.

      I’d prefer to talk to Libs who at least have decided that a huge central government is the best way to run the country than to deal with those who simply fall back on cliches and platitudes and stereotypes, who don’t really vote FOR anything or anyone but just AGAINST. If someone thinks the feds should be able to do something, or will do it better, there is at least the possibility of a discussion. But if someone just believes that no Right-winger can possibly be ethical, or honest, or decent, then there is no way to talk to him.

    • Amazona January 25, 2014 / 7:50 pm

      I once had someone insist that programs such as health care payments and education HAD to be federal, to make it “fair”—that is, so everyone would have the same whatever. When I said that having things operated at state or local levels meant more oversight, more attention paid to the specific issues of the area, plus giving people the choice to vote with their feet if they felt their area was lacking in something, he just insisted that no, that would still lead to students in some states getting worse educations, people in some states getting better health care, and so on.

      The very concepts of choice and individual freedom were alien to him, in his passion for a huge and monolithic government in which everyone was treated the same, it didn’t matter to him if that “equality” was one of lower standards—-it would be “fair” because no one would be better off. It would be too great a burden (read: too much personal responsibility) to have to pack up and move away from a state with a poor school system, or to find private schooling.

      The thing he absolutely would not even consider was that the feds were highly unlikely to provide a high quality of anything—that was just something that would be solved with OPM.

    • M. Noonan January 26, 2014 / 12:30 am

      Spook,

      While I can’t speak for liberals, my guess is that most people become liberal because it is lauded, and people crave approval. If you are a 16 year old in class and the teacher is just reading out of the book (which is written by liberals) and the “correct” answers all tend towards liberalism, then you get approval by agreeing…by regurgitating back what was just spoon fed to you. On the other hand, when you question the assumptions of the liberal book, the teacher may get annoyed, you certainly won’t get the best grade and you may find yourself increasingly unpopular. As I was always pretty unpopular in school (lacked the material things and the social self-assurance to win acceptance), by the time I was 15 or 16, this didn’t bother me much…and so when a particular history teacher started teaching what I considered nonsense (his entire lecture on the Vietnam War consisted of showing us pictures of war dead with no context and no attempt to explain the how and why of it all…he was just showing us, “war = bad”, in the crudest, most propagandistic manner), I called him on it. I was pretty roundly criticized and disliked by my classmates (the teacher, as a person, was a very nice man and everyone liked him – including me). I think our basic liberal just never had that questioning situation – that set of circumstances which would make one go, “you know, there’s just something fishy about what I’m being told” (economics class was another one – we were, as a matter of course, taught unadulterated Keynesianism as if it were Gospel…and while prior to the class I had next to no knowledge of economics, it always sounded absurd that government spending could “prime a pump”…what is government spending except money the government takes from elsewhere? Isn’t it a matter of the government just priming its preferred pumps while other pumps go without priming because the government has taken the money from them?). Liberals just cruised through it all, absorbed what was fed in to them and if they went on to college, just got heavier and heavier doses of the same, except now the unthinking regurgitation of what the professor says is even more crucial because your future is at stake – there is even less incentive to question when the professor holds your future in his hands. From there, unless there is a massive shake-up (and for someone like David Horowitz, it took the enormity of a friend being murdered by fellow “progressives” and the revelation that his progressive friends didn’t even want to look in to the matter to wake him up), they just go along with it – unthinking, uncritical, but also very much convinced that they got it all nailed down (hey, they got good grades in college, didn’t they? Doesn’t that mean they are educated? And doesn’t that mean that those who disagree are uneducated?).

      • Retired Spook January 26, 2014 / 10:12 am

        Excellent analysis, Mark, and somewhat reflective of my own life, particularly from college on. My favorite exchange with a labor econ. professor (who I also liked, and probably the only reason I got a C in his class) was when he kept using the term in his lectures “all things being equal”. I finally raised my hand and asked him if he could describe a point in history where all things had been equal. He didn’t have a good answer. As I was walking out of that same class one day was when I heard my all-time favorite line about economists from one of the brighter students in the class: “if you laid all the economists in the world end to end, they wouldn’t reach a conclusion.” Nevertheless, I ended up my 4 years with a minor in economics, because it fascinated me, although, in the years since, almost everything I learned has been proven to be flawed at best, false at worst. One of my favorite digs on economists is the seemingly requisite line in almost every financial/stock market related article: “the (fill in the blank – increase, decrease, change, etc.) surprised most economists who had predicted (fill in the blank again).” When it comes to predicting events, economists, as a group, are wrong about 90% of the time. A coin toss would be much more accurate.

        With regard to how liberals view things, we’re in the midst of a completely new and different paradigm right now in that, for the first time, certainly in my life, and, I would venture, the first time ever, kids are coming out of college with massive student debt and a high percentage unable to find a job in their chosen field. Nothing educates like a poke in the eye with a sharp stick. And, of course, the Internet has added a whole new dimension to the education process for minds searching for the truth. The trick to determining the truth is being able to recognize it, whether it’s good or bad, and the trick to recognizing it is really just common sense, a trait that is possessed by very few Liberals.

      • M. Noonan January 26, 2014 / 2:58 pm

        My mother always like to point out that Economics is the one discipline where you can be always wrong and still win a Nobel Prize.

  2. dbschmidt January 25, 2014 / 9:55 pm

    I find it quite simple for a complicated proposition. Simply put–Liberals are the failure our upbringing. I am not going to expand on this much further just as I have started to avoid idiots like some of the posters on the previous thread.

    Idiots because they are not actually open to any new information which can actually alter their mindset. Liberals (as I was one a long, long time ago) because they miss their momma. They need an over-reaching government Sugar Momma to wipe their proverbial butts. They, deep down, feel they could not handle the world on their own. I have never met a truly independent liberal and every one of the liberals on this blog that will point towards HollyWierd, or other places like it, will reinforce my point.

    –End of Story–

  3. Amazona January 26, 2014 / 9:53 am

    I’ve always called Liberalism (well, not ALWAYS..) the short cut to the Higher Moral Ground.

    If you are a Lib, you have to do absolutely nothing but vote to lay claim to at least a share of moral superiority.

    You start off by being FOR good things and AGAINST bad things. So you are AGAINST hunger, poverty, torture, corruption, dishonesty, etc. But, as you are at the same time aligned with a political philosophy, it just stands to reason that the Opposition, purely by being the OPPOSITION, has an opposite attitude toward the things you are against. Therefore, the Opposition must be FOR those things.

    And shazaam, you have set up a paradigm of moral (and intellectual) superiority for yourself, and moral depravity for those with differing political views, without doing a thing but having some thoughts.

    Cool.

    Then you set up an identity which is based on being FAIR. That is, on identifying victim groups and then steadfastly refusing to consider the possibility of anything negative being associated with those groups.

    And there is another point for you on the I’m-Just-A-Better-Person scale.

    You decide that the problems of some people will be solved with money, so you take away money other people have earned to hand out for what you have determined to be just and good causes, and this makes you feel that you, yourself, have been charitable.

    Another point.

    And so on.

    But it is all emotion, all the time. How many Liberals have studied and compared the ideologies of both Leftist governance and Constitutional government, the economic theories that go with each, the outcomes under each kind of system, the quality of life for those living in each kind of system, the nature of abuses that have occurred under each kind of system (starving millions to death to shore up political power vs manipulations of capitalism to get rich. etc.), factored in human nature drives such as desire for liberty and the drive of ambition, and then made a rational and objective decision that Leftist governance is a better system?

    (BTW, this is a really easy question, as the answer, if asked of the rank and file Dem voter, is “none”.)

    But they have fallen into a honey trap, one which makes them feel good about themselves because they feel that they are on the right side of every moral issue and lets them consider political opposition to their ideology to really be moral depravity in opposition to their sensibilities. And all they have to do to maintain this illusion of Betterness is to pull the right levers in the voting booths and attack the Opposition when given a chance.

    What a deal.

    • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] January 26, 2014 / 11:26 am

      Amazona there is a difference between taking a short cut to the Moral High Ground and actually looking out from the Moral High Ground. I’ll give you this point you are absolutely right that it is as simple as voting for Progressive or Liberal candidates to get your moral superiority biscuit. As a group Progressives do stand for good things. Being against poverty, torture, corruption, misogyny, bigotry, abuse aren’t simply things that Progressives are against though. Conservatives are also against many of these societal scourges.

      This is where things get confusing and clearly why conservatives are tripped up and find themselves unpopular both electorally and in general. Progressives don’t require a purity test, a loyalty test, or a religious affiliation to walk into our tent. Conservatives with their messages about tax rates being too high should, on that issue alone, have had a way in to the minds of the moderates and independents out there but for some reason they have a social agenda that is more important to them than the economic agenda.

      Issues like same sex marriage, abortion and immigration are where conservatives fail simply because their tent is not as inclusive. I’m not going to be so closed minded as to say that this is because of some grand bigoted conspiracy but it is what it is. Conservatives offer little to blacks, Latinos, members of the LGBTQ community, single mothers or the non religious. The coalition that has been built by conservatives since the fall of Nixon of working class whites in the rural West and South and a few upper middle class and wealthy whites who have an agenda driven by heredity and inheritance. This coalition had a majority during the Reagan era and had the Moral High Ground in the dying age of the Cold War. This coalition drove America forward to a conservative vision that likely thought that with political power would come the power to change society; to pull it back from the brink. At this point in Reagan’s second term no one would have imagined that 18 states and the District of Columbia would recognize the marriage rights of same sex couples.

      And yet, thirty years later, here you are in an America that seems nearly alien to you. Looking up at people like me who are standing on top of the mountain of Morality. What happened? Is the question most of you are asking and that is the smartest question you can ask and it has an easy answer. Three decades ago, the Greatest Generation were the electoral force in America. They were more conservative than even you Amazona having never dabbled in the experimentation of the 1960s and 1970s with Liberalism as you have said you did. These men and women who were adults in the 1940s and 1950s were around your age now in the 1980s and Reagan was an ultimate relief to them. Hey were afraid the Greatest were that all of their hard work to secure freedom and liberty for the coming generations of THEIR CHILDREN was going to wasted by the creeping Socialism, Diversity and Depravity that they saw in Liberalism.

      The answer is obvious what happened. Those from the Greatest Generation had children, the Baby Boomers, and those Boomers had children in the 1970s. Those Generation X children had children Generation Y, or the Millenials. Being born now to the Generation Y women are the Digital Natives of the information age or Gen Z kids. The easy answer to the question of what happened to fear of authoritarian religious, political or corporate power is the last generation that never questioned them has nearly died entirely and has been replaced with an ever more questioning set of grandchildren.

      Those grandchildren continued the trend of questioning all authority that began in the 1960s into the new Millennium. I’ll be the first to admit that the War on Poverty was a failure because it simply threw money at a problem that could not be solved so simply. However, in that time the Greatest Generation still held sway on all matters social and the ground was not yet fertile for the sort of change that one sees today.

      On my side of the great political divide Progressives worry about the pendulum swinging back toward conservatism on a daily basis. Maybe the generation that will be born to young girls that are infants now in America in the 2030s and 2040s will hearken back to the nostalgic days of the 1940s and 1950s. Who knows? By the time they go to the polls for the first time they will live in an America so saturated in information both for the good and the bad that the messages that resonated with 21 year olds in 1945 will seem as archaic as silent movies do today.

      [q c p n!]

      • dbschmidt January 26, 2014 / 12:15 pm

        Start learning history rather than that puke you just expelled. Look who was for freedom for blacks and who fought against it at every turn. You, Sir, Madam, or otherwise are completely ignorant of the actual American history.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] January 26, 2014 / 12:28 pm

        DB there are visionaries within every generation. In the Greatest Generation I can point to William Sloane Coffin as one of those people who were heavy lifters in the struggle for black civil rights. Coffin was a veteran of WW2, a Yale alumnus, a CIA agent and finally left the intelligence community [on moral grounds in 1955; the smart kids in the room will know why] and became an ordained minister. He championed King, Tutu and Mandela and not only fought against the Vietnam War he championed gay rights long before Stonewall.

        My point is he isn’t and never was one of you.

      • M. Noonan January 26, 2014 / 2:57 pm

        Coffin was just a typical liberal, however – born of privilege and latching on to whatever fashionable, leftwing cause of the day there was. Had he been born in 1824 he would have been a Eugenicist out there with Margaret Sanger demanding the sterilization of black people and other “inferiors”. Taking a look at this life, I doubt if the man ever thought about anything.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] January 26, 2014 / 3:19 pm

        So you are saying that there were no conservatives at the time of Coffin’s life that came up in similar circumstances?

      • M. Noonan January 27, 2014 / 2:22 am

        No, just saying that he was conventional; unthinking. There was no attempt on his part to actually understand the circumstances. Take, for instance, his opposition to the Vietnam War – did he ever think about why we were there? What sort of regime it was in Hanoi? There is nothing in his background to indicate that he did. The Progressive fashion was to be against the war, and so Coffin was against it. Had he thought about it, he still might have come out as anti-war – there were valid reasons for us to not be there. Contrast Coffin to Fr. Neuhaus – while Coffin was born rich, Neuhaus was born poor. Coffin was chaplain at Yale, Neuhaus ran a parish in a poor neighborhood with many minorities. Both were early involved in the Civil Rights struggle and both were opponents of the Vietnam War. But when Roe came along, Neuhaus thought about it and came out in firm opposition, Coffin didn’t. Neuhaus his whole life thought about things and tried to do the right thing. Coffin never thought about things and only did what was fashionable. When Civil Rights became fashionable, he did it. When anti-war activism became fashionable, he did it. When the absurd nuclear freeze movement became fashionable, he did it. Heck, when divorce became fashionable, he did it (divorced twice!). He never became pro-life because it was never fashionable.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] January 26, 2014 / 12:37 pm

        People I associated with thirty years ago some of whom were Socialists and some who were Marxists or at least thought they were, thought America was lost because of Reagan. Some of those guys and gals left America for France in 1985 because they thought the Democratic Party could never come to the center and take back the political megaphone for its issues.
        I dropped off a couple at JFK who were like me in their mid thirties at the time and they couldn’t understand why I was staying. I said, “Two things I know. The Liberals in the Democratic party have learned their lesson on running weak candidates. The more important thing is there isn’t another conservative voice of Reagan’s stature that can be elected or one coming down the pike any time soon.”

      • Amazona January 26, 2014 / 8:34 pm

        Freddy wallows in great verbosity, to produce a thought that can be summed up quite quickly:

        “Stupid people of any party make decisions based on ISSUES instead of on rational choices of governmental systems, and Freddy doesn’t know the difference.”

        What a lot of claptrap about “tents” and “issues”. Yes, too many decisions have been made for these reasons, but it’s time to get past that and talk about government.

        Of course that will leave poor Freddy out in the cold, as he is an issues guy. Real politics is not only too darned hard for him, it is too darned inconvenient, what with being full of facts that contradict his silly fantasies.

      • Amazona January 26, 2014 / 8:41 pm

        “Progressives don’t require a purity test, a loyalty test, or a religious affiliation to walk into our tent”

        Hmmmm. Wasn’t it a mob of Progressives who not only attacked black conservatives such as Condoleeza Rice with vile and disgusting racist cartoons and comments but also applied a “purity test” to her very racial heritage, in claiming that a black person cannot be a conservative, and a conservative cannot call herself black?

        Your fantasies about Progressivism are no longer amusing, but merely tiresome and repetitive.

      • M. Noonan January 27, 2014 / 2:26 am

        That was one of the most absurdly laughable statements ever made – even quixotic presidential candidates are forced to switch to being pro-abortion when they run, even if they had to that point suckered purple districts in to voting for them by pretending to be pro-life up to that point. Try to imagine a Democrat President, for instance, appointing to HHS a devout Catholic or Orthodox Jew…it just couldn’t be done! The person could be in favor of doubling the tax rate and increasing by 500% the welfare budget…but as such a person would be pro-life, the Democrat base simply would not tolerate such an appointment.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] January 27, 2014 / 2:04 pm

        Simply disagreeing with a person’s position does not make me a racist Amazona.

      • M. Noonan January 28, 2014 / 1:43 am

        Tell that to Obama and the MSM…

      • tiredoflibbs January 27, 2014 / 4:49 pm

        “Simply disagreeing with a person’s position does not make me a racist Amazona.”
        You forget your party’s talking points there freddy.

        If anyone (only on the right of course) disagrees with obama, then that person is racist. You here this from the left constantly.

      • Amazona January 27, 2014 / 9:18 pm

        “Simply disagreeing with a person’s position does not make me a racist Amazona”

        Yet simply disagreeing with the policies of Barack Obama seemed to brand ME a racist, in the minds of such as you.

        It has been so much fun watching the human pretzels of the RRL twist themselves into the positions necessary to take one position when talking about the Right and another when applied to their own side.

      • Amazona January 28, 2014 / 12:23 pm

        “Tell that to Obama and the MSM…”

        If only it was limited to Barry and the Complicit Agenda Media. But no, this has become a staple of the knuckledraggers, mouthbreathers and race pimps who crave the validation of spite and malice offered by the RRL.

  4. J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) January 26, 2014 / 11:23 am

    I haven’t been around much lately. Have all the lefty trolls been banned? I would think this kind of discussion would attract them like flies to honey. Not missing them — just curious.

  5. dbschmidt January 26, 2014 / 12:10 pm

    The following quote comes from French classical liberal, economic journalist and legislator Frederic Bastiat’s 1850 pamphlet, “The Law.”

    But when the law, by means of its necessary agent, force, imposes upon men a regulation of labor, a method or a subject of education, a religious faith or creed — then the law is no longer negative; it acts positively upon people. It substitutes the will of the legislator for their own wills; the initiative of the legislator for their own initiatives. When this happens, the people no longer need to discuss, to compare, to plan ahead; the law does all this for them. Intelligence becomes a useless prop for the people; they cease to be men; they lose their personality, their liberty, their property.

    Try to imagine a regulation of labor imposed by force that is not a violation of liberty; a transfer of wealth imposed by force that is not a violation of property. If you cannot reconcile these contradictions, then you must conclude that the law cannot organize labor and industry without organizing injustice.

    Splains ObamaCare; however, the rest of the piece is even more interesting.

    I understand the often misquoted Winston Churchill who actually said;

    Show me a young Conservative and I’ll show you someone with no heart.
    Show me an old Liberal and I’ll show you someone with no brains.

    but I will also place a quote from the previous Frederic Bastiat from a different article;

    The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else.

    Which brings me back to the fact that Liberals, by design, require hand-holding Government to survive. To approve and reinforce their desires. Nothing about ideology because that is in constant flux to their feelings and in particular the one or moral superiority. I am going to fix “x” no matter how much it costs you should be there battle cry. Nevertheless, they will not and can not defend their position on ideology because it has failed every time and place where it has been tried.

    Reminds me too much of the “snow birds” that come down from highly regulated states complaining about all of the regulations and the first thing they do is get on an HOA and start demanding of others. To them, any regulation they thought of is good because of course they are morally superior and edumicated. They are nothing more than parasites on this nation.

    http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2014/01/24/this-obscure-french-pamphlet-from-1850-perfectly-describes-todays-america/

    • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] January 26, 2014 / 12:20 pm

      My points which you cast aside still stand as facts. DB you are like the quarterback of a good team that is being beaten in the fourth quarter 42-0. Just because the home crowd is still cheering for you and there’s still 15:00 on the clock doesn’t mean you are going to come back to win. The ship has sailed brother; you’re side lost by drafting poorly.

      • neocon01 January 26, 2014 / 1:12 pm

        My two cents…..being a Christian I believe there is good and evil, there is a God and a real devil, you either serve one or the other,plain and simple.
        As we move away from being a true Christian nation we slide farther into the abyss. Proof of this is is by the people we elect.
        We not only tolerate philanderers, homosexuals, drug users, perverts, and deviants we glorify and adulate them.
        Our citys are routinely burned and looted, rape, robbery and murder are rampant, whole segments of our population are filled with hate and rage, we murder our unborn and beat our elderly in the streets calling it a “game”. There are sections of our citys where the police do not even go to after dark.
        You have to ask your self which political party supports this evil and which opposes it. What sort of people are the make up and backbone of each party?
        Liberals/leftists/marxists/communists/atheists are the foundation of corruption and evil, one only has to count the bodies to know which one is which.

      • neocon01 January 26, 2014 / 1:17 pm

        to liberals government is their benevolent God. (Germany 1939)
        To conservatives government is simply necessary a tool but certainly not God.

      • neocon01 January 26, 2014 / 1:37 pm

        forker freddy

        “YOU *** WILL*** KNOW ****THEM**** by THEIR FRUITS”

        only a simpleton would relate life to a football “game” or a lemming would play the numbers game that everybody does it.

        “15) The Democrats are the KKK Party. Not only did they create the KKK, Democrat Robert Byrd was the last member of Congress to hold membership in the KKK, Democrat Hugo Black was the last member of the Supreme Court to hold membership in the KKK and Democrat Harry Truman was the last President to hold membership in the KKK. Now, whom do the Democrats blame for the KKK? Republicans.

        16) The Democrat Party symbol is the ass. Yes, seriously.

        17) The only two Presidents that have been impeached so far are Democrat Andrew Johnson and Democrat Bill Clinton.

        18) Barack Obama’s entire presidency.

        19) The Democrats got us into the Vietnam War, put rules of engagement in place that made it impossible to win, destroyed public support for the war with their incompetence and dirty, hippie protests and then after Nixon put us on track to win, made sure we lost by cutting off funds to our allies in the South after we left, which led to a genocide.

        20) Thanks for making us fight a Civil War because you loved slavery so much, assclowns! “

        http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2013/05/18/20-reasons-to-dislike-the-democrat-party-n1599971/page/full

    • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] January 27, 2014 / 12:33 pm

      Some serious mental gymnastics here.

      • Amazona January 27, 2014 / 2:03 pm

        It’s pretty clear that you avoid all “gymnastics”, mental or otherwise.

        Although your ongoing effort to make a system based on the subjugation of the individual to the will of the Collective into a celebration of independence and individual liberty does kind of look like gymnastics. Or more like someone spinning around trying to look at the back of his own head.

        Not much of an analysis of the article,though.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] January 27, 2014 / 2:42 pm

        The article is not something I can take stock in at all. I think it’s premise is both not grounded in fact and divisive.

      • Amazona January 27, 2014 / 9:14 pm

        Oh…I suppose you think your rejoinder IS analytical?

        You don’t like what it says, so you sneer at it. What a good little Lib you are.

  6. GMB January 26, 2014 / 3:12 pm

    The ship sailed only because the gop has no one with the will to turn it around among it’s leadership. That will change. The national repub party knows what doom is in store for them if they don’t grow a spine.

    BTW Fred, that sure was a nice little story about your friends. I am sure I have read it somewhere before. Slate maybe? Just asking…..for a friend. LOLzer,

    🙂

    • neocon01 January 26, 2014 / 3:46 pm

      Whaaaaat??

      lil forker freddys “story” was plagiarized?? say it aint so joe!!

    • Amazona January 28, 2014 / 12:20 pm

      Maybe they were on the same plane as Cher and Kim Basinger.

      Oh, that’s right—they were going to move out of the country if we elected George W. Bush, along with a passel of other Left-wing hysterics who still seem to be around.

      It’s like the Lefties’ Greatest Hits—–golden oldies that keep coming back around……….

  7. Cluster January 27, 2014 / 8:56 am

    Conservatives offer little to blacks, Latinos, members of the LGBTQ community, single mothers or the non religious. – Fred

    This is a disturbingly patronizing line, and not towards conservatives, but towards blacks, latinos, single mothers, etc.

    Fred, do you think members of these subsets of our society are incapable of living a fulfilled life without someone like you watching out over them? I believe that you, and many “progressives” do harbor the soft bigotry of low expectations towards many people in this country, and because of that, false constructs are created of an opposing party that progressives like you believe hook, line and sinker. Thus, the debate goes no where. How could it? The debate is not grounded in a basis of reality. One small example is when you said that you don’t support “unregulated gun ownership”, of which there never has been, so unless and until we can bring you around to a common sense position based in what actually is and is not – there is no hope for a constructive dialogue.

    • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] January 27, 2014 / 12:28 pm

      I’m just following the voting patterns and exit polls Cluster.

      • Amazona January 27, 2014 / 1:59 pm

        You are looking at numbers and extrapolating reasons for those numbers.

        Conservatives offer liberty and opportunity to PEOPLE, without dividing them into demographics and subsets of humanity. Constitutional Conservatism offers people a political system in which they are free to pursue their goals, according to their abilities and ambitions, and to profit by their successes just as they must endure their failures. It is not a system which first categorizes people and then identifies them by category, instead of merely seeing them as individuals.

        What Progressivism offers—or, rather, imposes—-is a system of limitations. It is a system of averages, where all is subject to the whim, the rule and the claimed benefit of the Collective.

        It also lures in emotion-based suckers like Freddy, all caught up in the fantasy that a few strident howlers screeching about their various sexual issues form a “community”.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] January 27, 2014 / 2:03 pm

        My question to you remains Amazona. Where will the conservative voters come from?

      • Cluster January 27, 2014 / 8:03 pm

        Conservatives offer liberty and opportunity to PEOPLE, without dividing them into demographics and subsets of humanity. Constitutional Conservatism offers people a political system in which they are free to pursue their goals, according to their abilities and ambitions, and to profit by their successes just as they must endure their failures.

        Hard to say it better than that.

      • Amazona January 27, 2014 / 9:13 pm

        “My question to you remains Amazona. Where will the conservative voters come from?”

        Oh, Freddy, you poor thing. You really can’t keep up, can you?

        I am speculating that a few million people, after having their noses rubbed in the fact that they have made a disastrous choice resulting in all kinds of misery, because they voted according to what FELT good, are going to be in the mood to stop feeling so much and start thinking more.

        You see, conservative voters don’t need to COME FROM anywhere. They live among us.

        You, Freddy, are a conservative, if you truly believe in individual liberty, the 2nd Amendment, personal responsibility, economic prosperity, local government, and the things you have trumpeted as your goals. It’s just that can’t get past the WORD, the identity, the giddy promises inherent in the word “Progress” and your intuitive linking of it to a political movement in defiance of its actual regressive agenda.

        But not many people are like you (for which we all give thanks.) Not many people live in such an elaborate fantasy world, so well populated with other fantasy beings, with its own fantasy newspaper and fantasy language and fantasy credentials and fantasy definition of politics, and not many people are so deeply invested in their current perceptions that they can’t be blasted out of them by a shot of cold hard reality.

        So if conservatives can unstick themselves from the muck and mire of ISSUES and focus on government, on which form of government is best for running the country, we will attract a lot of people who are coming to the realization that The One They Have All Been Waiting For is a fraud, and they have been suckered.

  8. GMB January 27, 2014 / 2:28 pm

    “Where will the conservative voters come from?”

    I hear a lot of folks that haven’t driven a car since 96 are getting ready to abandon that blue ship you are so fond of. Just a rumor at this moment but the truth someday?

    Time will tell.

    Our new book, 150 Reasons Why Barack Obama is The Worst President in History is now available on Amazon.com!
    You are following this blog

    You are following this blog, along with 1,820 other amazing people (manage).
    We’re On Twitter
    @MattMargolis, @MNoonan17 and @Leo_Pusateri
    @worstpresident

    Can You Imagine the Media in a Communist USA? pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2014… via @PJMedia_com 1 day ago
    RT @DineshDSouza: Watch my 3-minute video: “America” movie–What’s It About? dineshdsouza.com/archives/news/… 1 day ago
    RT @MNoonan17: Conservatives Know Liberals; Liberals Don’t Know Conservatives wp.me/p1FWqK-7ik via @wordpressdotcom 1 day ago
    @PMgeezer meh; no grenade launcher or cup holder… 2 days ago
    RT @DouayRheims: The Pro-Life Generation is Here to Stay – bit.ly/LH1Nqy 2 days ago

    Recent Posts

    Conservatives Know Liberals; Liberals Don’t Know Conservatives
    Three More Years!
    As If…
    An Expert Offers an Opinion on Expert Opinion
    Obame’s Failures Continue

    Blogroll

    Bare Naked Islam
    Blogs of War
    bRight and Early
    Domestic Divapalooza
    Freedom Eden
    Hoosier Access
    Living In The Surreal World
    Macker’s World
    Matt Margolis
    Musing Minds
    Scott Spiegel
    Stop the ACLU
    The Other McCain
    The Pirate’s Cove
    The Political Commentator
    The Strident Conservative
    Viking Pundit
    watersblogged!

    Archives
    2nd amendment 9/11 abortion Afghan Campaign Al Gore Allen West balanced budget Barack Hussein Obama Benghazi/Libya Bobby Jindal Catholicism China Chris Christie Christianity climate change crony capitalism cut cap and balance Death of Europe debt ceiling debt downgrade Distributism Egypt Eric Holder Fast and Furious gay marriage Gaza global warming hoax Greece gun control Gunwalker Scandal Harry Reid housing crisis illegal immigration Iran Islam Israel John Boehner liberal fascism liberal filth liberal lies Libya loser watch make/mine/grow Marco Rubio media bias morality Nancy Pelosi national bankruptcy national debt Nikki Haley ObamaCare Open Thread President Bush Rand Paul Rick Santorum Ronald Reagan ruling class Scott Brown Scott Walker Second American Revolution Sinai Solyndra stimulus stock market Syria tax and spend liberalism taxes TEA Party terrorist attacks Texas unemployment US Military Welcome Back Carter welfare state West Bank

  9. GMB January 27, 2014 / 2:29 pm

    Cool, I am a living B4V advertisement.

    🙂

    • neocon01 January 27, 2014 / 7:54 pm

      Cool, I am a living B4V advertisement.

      You rock duuude!!

  10. Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) January 28, 2014 / 7:11 pm

    The results were clear and consistent. Moderates and conservatives were most accurate in their predictions, whether they were pretending to be liberals or conservatives. Liberals were the least accurate, especially those who describe themselves as ‘very liberal.’

    Actually, this is perfectly predictable and consistent with the observations that Spook, Amazona and others have made.

    Liberals believe themselves without evidence to be superior and generally better people than non-liberals, The ease with which someone can believe in liberalism without ever challenging the efficacy means that they can, with the same ease attribute inferior and questionable scruples to any impression not consistent with liberal dogma.

    Therefore, in answering as a conservative, they merely position themselves in the most evil frame of mind, with the most self-serving of motivation and viola! The Conservative Answer!

    Conservatives (and libertarians), because they have taken the time to understand and formulate their opinions, attribute to their liberal counterparts the antithesis of reason and not the antithesis of virtue. (Although we also know that the intellectual laziness and inherent conceit of the liberal makes them, by definition debauched.)

  11. dbschmidt January 28, 2014 / 9:29 pm

    To make life simple for some folks who question my beliefs, or sailing ability, I will state that as I have done before and will continue to do so for this nation–I have offered a check to this nation that this nation could cash up to and including my life. I believe in this nation and there is nothing the Progressives can do to destroy it just as Wilson, FDR and Johnson could not do before this piece of work presently in office.

    No matter what your interpretation of poll numbers or whatever information you use–please head the fact that it took, IIRC, approximate 13 ~ 30% of the foundling nation to overthrow the greatest fighting force in the world at the time. They made the same mistake you do now. I am willing to give my life for the nation I love while you do not even, apparently, love the nation (in its original context) that has harbored you. I have the skill set to survive, train, teach others on my side while your can barely bloviate heavily while driving out of JFK.

    I would prefer to die for the right side (by anyone’s definition) than to survive on the wrong side of history. That, apparently, is not your choice.

  12. dbschmidt January 28, 2014 / 9:52 pm

    Contraception key in climate change fight: Gore and Gates
    http://www.cnbc.com/id/101361600
    Starting to sound a great deal like Sanger & Company–guess a leopard never does change it’s spots.

  13. Jeremiah January 29, 2014 / 12:18 am

    Speaking as a Conservative, myself, I am of the opinion that it doesn’t take a doctorate’s degree in political science to see the difference in conservative and liberal. All it takes is a little common sense, and the innate knowledge of the difference between right and wrong. However, as others can play trickery on our minds when we are young, and our minds are impressionable at those early stages of our life, the government controlled educational system tends to pick up where parents left off. Not that all parents are guilty of neglecting to instruct their children in the difference between right and wrong, far more have failed at this than have in previous generations. And the big problem today, is we have a Millennial generation unable to find work, fresh out of college, forced to remain with their parents, and are turning to entitlements, which of course, is a class of citizens, the entitlement class, the class that makes up the base of the Democratic party. While many have awoken from their adulation of the Obama regime, they make up a far lesser percentage of the population than does the entitlement class.

    If you listened to Obama’s SOTU address tonight, you will see that he put a lot of emphasis on expanding entitlements, and campaigning for his “healthcare” bill. This is so that he can build his base even larger than what it is now. Unfortunately, he has many notable Republicans in his back-pocket. This is to our detriment. If we do not get Mr. O impeached, we will be joining millions in soup lines, if not on our way to a FEMA camp.

    • Amazona January 29, 2014 / 11:09 am

      Jermiah, while you have touched on a few facts, such as the work force problems and the expansion of the Dependent Class, I could not disagree with you more when you say “… to see the difference in conservative and liberal. All it takes is a little common sense, and the innate knowledge of the difference between right and wrong.”

      This is where we prove that we have fallen into the trap set by the Left—that of applying moral values to what should be a choice between two forms of government.

      If you mean the difference between good government and bad government, I might agree with you. But the vast majority of those who vote in a way that supports Leftist governance do not do so out of malice, or even the lack of a moral compass. They do so because they have been convinced (with the Right contributing to this) that elections are about values, about whether this person’s values are “right” and that person’s are “wrong”.

      While there are very legitimate differences between right and wrong, and this is a valuable discussion to have, it is not about the choice between two basic forms of government, and when we drag this kind of judgmentalism into political discourse all it does is create divisiveness and more opportunity for the Left to magnify those divisions till people are splintered into opposing factions not based on political ideology but on emotion.

      I also point out that we need to get a better grip on the meaning of “impeachment”. Clinton was impeached but not removed from office. The two are not synonymous. And removing Obama from office now, with a little over two years left in his reign, is not going to do much but widen the carefully created and nurtured racial divide that is probably the worst problem facing this country.

      We can fix the economy once he is gone. We can repeal the bad bills, we can start to work on re-establishing a constitutional government. But the callously designed racial hatreds fomented by the Left will take generations to heal, and the scars will remain, just as the scars from prior racial conflicts will always be with us.

      I suggest toning down the rather shrill “WE’RE ALL GOING TO BE SHOVED INTO FEMA CAMPS !!!!” rhetoric.

    • neocon01 January 30, 2014 / 3:36 am

      we will be joining millions in soup lines, if not on our way to a FEMA camp.

      Many Germans scoffed at this idea in 1939, we all know how that worked out.Same with Cuba etc etc.
      we are in a fight in this nation with hard core marxists. To fight with pillows on our hands, and only one hand is foolish. They are fighting this fight on all fronts with sharp knives.We must oppose them on all fronts with the truth. To worry about alienating certain groups as voters is foolishness, present the unvarnished truth and often the truth will eventually prevail.

      • Amazona January 30, 2014 / 11:54 am

        “To worry about alienating certain groups as voters is foolishness,”

        To set up disparate groups and assign a “value” to each one, and then send the message that only those who qualify for inclusion in certain of those groups are acceptable voters for your side, may make you feel quite virtuous, but you will be patting yourself on the back for your perceived moral superiority from the sidelines, while the other side runs the country into the ground.

        And you will be playing the game the Left has set up for you, creating those “tents” that Freddy was bleating about and then having gatekeepers who say “you don’t qualify for this tent”—which is, if you think about, a message to go vote for the other side.

        Our tent, regarding elections for Congress and the White House, should be only about allegiance to and adherence to Constitutional government.

        On the national level, the vote is about how to run the country. Nothing can be gained by pompously announcing that approximately half of the voters who voted in the last two presidential elections are morally “wrong” and that the Right holds the title of moral correctness.

        Yeah, that’s gonna help.

        I am saying to drop the self-congratulatory preening over being The Most Moral, no matter how gratifying it is, and focus on how to run the nation. You can sit around your kitchen table and talk about how people only vote for Dems because no one ever taught them the difference between right and wrong, but when you make this the public face of the Right you are shooting yourself, and the rest of the Right, in your/our collective feet. I’m saying we/you would be a whole lot better off if you can stop judging them and start to educate them on how their votes are wrong from the points of view of history, constitutionality, practicality, and reality, and not proof of their inability to know moral right from moral wrong.

      • Amazona January 30, 2014 / 12:02 pm

        “To fight with pillows on our hands, and only one hand is foolish”

        To fight this fight with the weapons they want us to use—-divisive tactics that splinter what should be political unity into squabbling factions quarreling about who is most virtuous—-and to ignore the one weapon they fear the most is worse than foolish. It is suicidal.

        The one lesson you, and the rest of us, should have learned from this blog is that the one thing that scares the Left the most is calm, candid, objective discourse on three things:

        1. The definition of “Left” as a political model, something which Dem voters simply do not understand.
        2. The understanding of the two basic forms of government facing American voters and the history, successes and failures, and consequences of each
        3. That no vote at the national level is a vote for any issue, but is always a vote for one of those forms of government

        The Left understands that facts are their enemy, so they love to throw out emotional bait and watch some scramble after it, eager to set up their own demographics based on what they think of as moral issues. The Left loves to watch people on the Right play by the rules they have invented, dance to the tune they are playing.

        We’ve seen them scurry off into the weeds when challenged to explain and/or defend their chosen political model. They are not afraid of taking us on on “issues”—they OWN “issues”—but they are scared spitless of a debate on government.

        This is an intellectual battle, not an emotional one, so it lacks appeal to many people, who love being caught up in the drama of staking out moral ground and then defending it, for the self-gratification of labeling themselves as “right” and others as “wrong”.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] January 30, 2014 / 2:45 pm

        Amazona your points are well taken but they are simply a vision of how conservatives can take control of the American government despite the fact that the majority of people do not care for conservatism in its current form. This is not about intellectualism or ideologies or methods of government. What you are seeing, as I have said before, is the final battle of the challenges to authority in America that began in the 1950s.

        Progressives know full well what Progressive government means, that’s why they vote for it. Conservatives have allowed themselves to be defined by the words that come out of their mouths and the actions they take. The notions of constitutional government and small government have become code for regressive policies and intolerance and this is why large blocs of minorities and women do not vote for your candidates. Conservatives have allowed social issues and the glory years of the Reagan era to define them in this new technological age and that is a golden egg for Progressives. It will take many decades of moderation from these settled social issues and some unsettled ones that will fall in the favor of Liberals for conservatives to once again gain favor in the minds of the voters. This is neither Obama’s fault, Saul Alinsky’s fault or Margaret Sanger’s fault; it is your fault and the fault of millions of other conservatives who for their own reasons refuse to let go of the past.

        The 2012 election autopsy gave conservatives and moderates the template by which their positions could be presented by the voters they will need to remain viable as a national party but the TEA Party like many of you here who vote have rejected this brilliant analysis in the name of continuing the march against a President who never has to run for office again.

        But nothing is decided Amazona; just think that thirty years ago Reagan was in office and there was bipartisan cooperation in Congress. Jerry Falwell had the ear of everyone in power who wanted to be seen as an American Conservative and the thought of the social change that is taking place right now was simply a fantasy. Democrats ran candidates that did not resonate with their own base, much like the GOP has done in the last two elections. If the GOP can find a centrist, like Democrats did in 1992 then you will have a chance. If the TEA Party continues to keep the GOP hostage to its ideological purity standards on “conservatism” the party will destroy itself at the 2016 convention much as the Democrats did in 1968.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] January 30, 2014 / 3:38 pm

        This is how a 28 year old college educated American woman sees the GOP:

        GOP 2016 Platform

        End Social Security.

        End Medicare.

        Cut taxes on rich people.

        Raise taxes on poor people.

        End Medicaid.

        End food stamps.

        End the social safety net.

        Shove Jesus Christ down everyone’s throat

        That Amazona is your problem and no amount of you wanting to be William F Buckley Jr is going to change that.

      • Amazona January 30, 2014 / 3:40 pm

        “Progressives know full well what Progressive government means, that’s why they vote for it.”

        Oh, come on. You have no clue as to what “Progressive government means”, so what makes you so sure that all those other voters do? You are passionate enough about it to come here, to constantly post, to argue and quibble, and you are still utterly clueless about what “Progressive government means” even after being told over and over again, being directed to the various histories of Progressive government in action, to the actual ideology of the movement, etc.

        You still think that a movement based upon the subjugation of the individual in favor of the will of the Collective has the goal of individual liberty.

        Huh?

        Every single thing you tout as a goal, an agenda, and a result of Progressive government is the opposite of what it stands for and what it achieves. So for you to claim, evidently with a straight face, that “Progressives know full well what Progressive government means…” and furthermore “…that’s why they vote for it” is the most blatant and glaring example of a willful disconnect with reality I have ever seen.

        At least till you get to this remarkable example of superimposing personal bigotry on fact and reason: “The notions of constitutional government and small government have become code for regressive policies and intolerance ” . We understand that political reality is in conflict with your fantasies, but it’s really time for you to stop trying to impose those fantasies on people who know better.

        Let’s face it: You have a deep-seated, wholly emotion-based, set of biases against a wholly imagined identity you call “conservative”, just as you have a wholly emotion-based set of biases for a wholly imagined identity you call “Progressive”, and you are not going to let reality intrude on these cherished fantasy beliefs no matter what.

        This, while wholly inconsistent with any commonly accepted definition of normality, is entirely consistent with yours. So your elaborate imaginations of things that exist only in your own head are no surprise.

        They are just goofy.

        And BTW, you and your kind wore out the meme of “code” a long time ago.

      • Amazona January 30, 2014 / 3:46 pm

        This is how a 28 year old college educated moron with a college degree but absolutely no education American woman sees the GOP:

        GOP 2016 Platform

        End Social Security.

        End Medicare.

        Cut taxes on rich people.

        Raise taxes on poor people.

        End Medicaid.

        End food stamps.

        End the social safety net.

        Shove Jesus Christ down everyone’s throat

        While I agree that this level of utter stupidity and gleeful ignorance is exactly what might impress YOU, being so consistent with your own gleeful ignorance, it really does nothing but illustrate how woefully uninformed far too many Americans are, and how effective the toxic propaganda of the Left can be when fed to unthinking, uneducated, emotion-driven lemmings.

      • Amazona January 30, 2014 / 3:51 pm

        Just curious—does it bother you and what is probably just another of your invisible friends there in the hive that every single thing on this alleged list is a complete lie?

        End Social Security. No one has ever said he or she WANTED to “end Social Security”.

        End Medicare. No one has ever said he or she WANTED to “end Medicare”.

        Cut taxes on rich people. No one has ever said he or she WANTED to “cut taxes on rich people”.

        Raise taxes on poor people. No one has ever said he or she WANTED to “raise taxes on rpoor people”.

        End Medicaid. No one has ever said he or she WANTED to “end Medicaid”.

        End food stamps. No one has ever said he or she WANTED to “end food stamps”.

        End the social safety net. No one has ever said he or she WANTED to “end the social safety net”—whatever that is supposed to be.

        As for “Shove Jesus Christ down everyone’s throat” this is so pathetically stupid it is hard for even you to quote it, if in fact this person with this list of imaginary complaints even exists and even said such a thing.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] January 30, 2014 / 4:12 pm

        The whole point of that is the perception among the young, women and minorities in America. Amazona you can want to have a political theory debate all you want it will get the GOP nowhere. It doesn’t matter to the average voter in America what the political definition of conservatism is or is not. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Who cares! People like you cost the GOP elections when all the GOP needs to do is back away from social issues and embrace women and Latino voters and they can still be the small government guardians whose message would resonate with at least a third of minority groups and half of women.

        Our baggage was the anti-war movement and the desire to deal with the Soviets on their terms in the 1970s. More of the country was conservative then than it is now and McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis weren’t exactly shining lights of candidates. Given the meltdown of the GOP in the wake of Nixon it should have been Kennedy in ’76 and you would never have gotten to Reagan and we wouldn’t be having this conversation. But you know we could debate that one all day I’m sure.

      • neocon01 January 30, 2014 / 5:30 pm

        This man gets it….and the constitution is never mentioned…..but the TRUTH is laid out in spades.

        Black America: Stop The Insanity!
        By Lloyd Marcus

        “Remember that spiky-haired blonde fitness guru all over TV years ago? Her famous line was “Stop the insanity!” As a commonsense-thinking black conservative, I offer the same clarion call to fellow black Americans: “Stop the insanity!”

        Why do you continue sleeping with the enemy, voting for liberal Democrats whose policies imply that you are inferior, stupid, and culturally immoral? When the NAACP and Democrats claim that requiring a photo ID disenfranchises blacks, such implies we are stupid. For the life of me, I do not understand why millions of blacks are not highly insulted by this absurd claim. Do blacks fly? Do blacks drive cars? Do blacks cash checks?

        When Democrats and liberals accept over 70% out-of-wedlock births and fatherless households as a cultural norm in the black community, I am offended. And yet, I am called a sellout.”

        Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/01/black_america_stop_the_insanity.html#ixzz2rv4zjepX

      • Jeremiah January 30, 2014 / 8:37 pm

        “Why do you continue sleeping with the enemy, voting for liberal Democrats whose policies imply that you are inferior, stupid, and culturally immoral?”

        Well, two things.

        1. They have latched on to the government tit.

        2. And two, They have bought into the whole meme of “you owe me one because of your history of treating my race wrong”

      • Amazona January 31, 2014 / 12:56 pm

        ” It doesn’t matter to the average voter in America what the political definition of conservatism is or is not.”

        No, it doesn’t matter to you.

        Do not try to speak for “the average voter in America” because your relationship with anyone in the real world is so tentative and so tainted by your own overriding biases you could not process or understand any idea outside your tiny little bubble of fantasy.

  14. dbschmidt January 29, 2014 / 12:14 pm

    The tSotU, from our supposedly Constitutional scholar, like so many before, has nothing to do with the Constitution or good governance. In this case it was nothing more than a Progressive wishlist. Maybe the new saying should be something like: “Read and understand the Constitution before you attempt to govern or legislate.”

    ——
    Stolen in whole cloth from: https://blogsforvictory.com/2013/01/09/the-general-welfare-clause/

    If you compare the vision of our nation’s founders to the behavior of today’s Congress, White House and U.S. Supreme Court, you would have to conclude that there is no longer rule of law where there is a set of general rules applicable to all persons. Today, we are commanded by legislative thugs who, with Supreme Court sanction, issue orders commanding particular people to do particular things. Most Americans neither understand nor appreciate the spirit and letter of the Constitution and accept Congress’ arbitrary orders and privileges based upon status.
    –Walter E. Williams

    With consideration that the Framers were wary of a centralized government, they created a novel system of mixed sovereignty between duties of the national (Federal) government and those of the States.

    James Madison, the father of the Constitution, said, “If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one.” Madison also said, “With respect to the two words “general welfare”, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” Reiterating, Thomas Jefferson said, “Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.

  15. Amazona January 30, 2014 / 3:58 pm

    Just curious—-has anyone else noted that Freddy’s post are becoming, more and more, obvious indications that he is moving well outside the gravitational pull of sanity?

    He kind of tried, for a while, to sound relatively mentally competent, though clearly misguided, but as he goes on the goofiness takes over, the flights of fantasy become even wilder and more disconnected with reality, the forays into overt bigotry and regurgitation of the silliest of RRL slanders become more frequent, and it becomes more and more clear that the poor critter, no matter who or what he/she/it may be, in what parallel or not-parallel universe, is completely unhinged.

    There used to be a tiny nugget of an idea, no matter how wrong, buried somewhere in his verbiage, but lately there isn’t even an effort to pretend he has one. Now it’s just noise.

    • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] January 30, 2014 / 4:14 pm

      Deal with the question Amazona: Can the GOP win the White House without moderating its positions on social issues and opening the door to its tent for more women and minorities?

      It’s really a simple question.

    • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] January 30, 2014 / 4:17 pm

      I haven’t been bigoted at all and i have treated you courteously during our conversation here. If you want the no holds barred version where we can be who we really are you can feel free to comment at my place anything uncensored with no moderation and no repercussions. Otherwise, let;s stick to the subject at hand. I don’t care about political definitions I care about issues that are important to America. No conservative is going to win the White House ever again the way things are being run at the RNC today. How do you fix it. Here’s a hint not with shouting about the Constitution or political meanings. Nobody who works for a living and is under the age of 65 gives a crap about that.

      • neocon01 January 30, 2014 / 5:26 pm

        forker freddy this ISNT about a freeking “tent” it is about morality, legality, constitutionality and what one believes.
        It so nice to see a Christian hating jew bash Christianity that saved your azz in WW1, WW2, now sing the praise of barbaric islam…you know the jewish hating cult that videotapes cutting the heads off your fellow jews….but hey it is your tent so one day the muzzies burn it to the ground with you and your ilk in it ENJOY you got what you asked for.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] January 30, 2014 / 5:43 pm

        We do not allow the use of personal names or what some people think are personal names on the blog unless the person himself has used that name. //Moderator

      • neocon01 January 30, 2014 / 5:42 pm

        forker freddy

        It is sooooo heartening to see some lame brain, lunatic commie, leftist, give us conservatives advice on how to beat your rancid party in the next election…..become you!! BINGO!! ROTFLMAO.
        I used to think it was the donks favorite drug crack you were on, I now believe it is LSD. yer dreamin boy!!

    • neocon01 January 30, 2014 / 5:37 pm

      Just curious—-has anyone else noted that Freddy’s post are becoming, more and more, obvious indications that he is moving well outside the gravitational bounds of sanity?

      NO
      in mho they have always been the lowest of low, the dumber of dumb, racist, sexist, heterophobe, christophobic, platinum standard of stupidity…but HEY
      he IS a dead, demon, “journalist”, working out of hell with gumdrop computers, “chief” economists, and of course PAIN, with a title of 200+ lines of kindergarten level lunacy, fantacy, that would rival one flew over the coo coos nest of sanity.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] January 30, 2014 / 5:48 pm

        We do not allow the use of personal names or what some people think are personal names on the blog unless the person himself has used that name. //Moderator

      • M. Noonan January 31, 2014 / 1:58 am

        Yep, the inevitable march of History…oh, darn, seems that there’s a bit of a bump in the road.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] January 31, 2014 / 5:23 am

        Mark that’s nothing more than maintaining the status quo, not a bump in the road. Even if the GOP took the Senate this November it would do nothing more than delay the inevitable in 2016.

    • Amazona January 31, 2014 / 12:50 pm

      “The whole point of that is the perception among the young, women and minorities in America”

      Not, this is YOUR perception of “…..the perception among the young, women and minorities in America”.

      And your perceptions have been proved to be so consistently wrong that this fits right in with your record of bias presented as fact, with no relationship to reality.

      You may or may not have communications with real people outside your hive, but I am completely confident that you limit any contact you may have with real people to a few who are in your own little bubble of ignorance.

      “Deal with the question Amazona: Can the GOP win the White House without moderating its positions on social issues and opening the door to its tent for more women and minorities?”

      You really ought to at least try to keep up. I have been saying for many months that the Right needs to step away from all “social issues”, at least when talking about national offices such as Congress and the Presidency, and stick to government.

      And the “tent” of government philosophy is open to all Americans, regardless of personal “issues” or ethnicity or any other demographic.

      ” I don’t care about political definitions I care about issues that are important to America”

      Thanks for this latest contribution to the “Look how clueless Freddy is” archives. Only you, and people like you, can make a statement like this with any sincerity, and that is because you are so bone-deep ignorant. You just said, to engage in mild paraphrasing, “I don’t care how the nation is governed, all I find important is “issues” that appeal to my emotions”.

      “How do you fix it. Here’s a hint not with shouting about the Constitution or political meanings. Nobody who works for a living and is under the age of 65 gives a crap about that.”

      OK, the cat is out of the bag. We now know that the entire “Freddy” persona is a gag, a Dirty Tricks effort to sound like a Lefty while parroting profoundly stupid comments that can only serve to portray Lefties as total brainless morons.

      Even given the overall insanity proven to us by “Freddy” over the years, the claim that the only people who find the method of governing the nation important and worthy of attention are unemployed people over 65 is a new level of crazy.

      Oh, I think “FREDDY” believes this. But then Freddy is a joke, a construct, an invented persona designed to fit into a crazy person’s idea of what kind of person might have more credibility than the others that have been tried out. And no one who has to live in invented identities, in an invented country, who posts with an invented name followed by a string of invented “credentials”, who brags about having an invented job on an invented newspaper, who speaks (and includes in “his” posts) an invented language, who claims to have had invented conversations with other invented people (such as the apocryphal Moving-To-France-Because-Regan-Was-Elected story) and quotes an invented “28-year-old college graduate” with a concept of American politics that would be immature in a third grader, is likely to be tethered closely enough to rational thought processes to be concerned about rational ideas, such as political philosophy.

      Freddy’s “political” commentary is to actual political thought and discourse as the output of an Easy-Bake Oven is to a fine pastry shop. Kinda maybe a little bit similar, around the edges, as it does have some of the same ingredients, but all in all a sham.

      But you just go on bleating about your fantasy Right, supporting your fantasy Left, inventing fantasy conversations with fantasy people to shore up your fantasy world filled with your fantasy “tents” and your various “issues”. And I will keep archiving your nonsense because, although I don’t believe that many Lefties are as idiotic and brainless and clueless as you, you still offer some fine ammunition for the Right to us as an example of the Left.

  16. Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] January 30, 2014 / 5:52 pm

    We do not allow the use of personal names on the blog unless the person has used this name himself. We see this kind of thing as an effort to intimidate other posters and it will not be tolerated. // Moderator

    • neocon01 January 31, 2014 / 12:21 pm

      What I don’t want is for you to be able to have an arsenal in your home, force your religious beliefs on those who do not want them or to feel that business should not be regulated by the government.

      sux to be you eh freddy…….Ill tell you what YOU stay OUT of my country and you dont have to FEAR all the nonsense you listed.

    • Amazona January 31, 2014 / 1:03 pm

      Define “arsenal”.

      • Amazona January 31, 2014 / 1:04 pm

        Name one person who has advocated that business be unregulated.

      • Amazona January 31, 2014 / 1:05 pm

        Name one person (in 21st Century American politics) who has advocated the forcing of his personal religious belief on others—-aside from those whose religion is the State, in which case they all do.

      • neocon01 January 31, 2014 / 2:50 pm

        Define “arsenal”.
        in the pretend world of the left and forkers the following…..

        a, cap GUN, bb GUN, plastic GUN, finger GUN, paper GUN, sweet roll GUN, picture of a GUN, son of a GUN, and maybe a REAL “gun”

        seems ole forker freddy thinks Americans in chicago can shoot across the nation…..which brings on his FEAR!

  17. Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] January 30, 2014 / 5:53 pm

    In a nutshell all you really will lose is your unearned privilege of being able to feel smug in the notion that you can tell others how to live. That’s the real fear, well that and the fear of that great Unknown Inevitable, but I keep telling you it’s not as bad as you think.

    • neocon01 January 31, 2014 / 12:17 pm

      FOREIGN forker freddy………thats even more comical, another outsider preaching American politics to US ROTFLMAO….

      the criminal Clinton, reno and the MURDER of INNOCENT women and children in Waco AND Ruby Ridge was the outrage. McVeigh’s actions are academic to the big totally out of control government picture.

    • neocon01 January 31, 2014 / 12:18 pm

      foreign forker freddy……OOOOOHHHHHHH the ****FEARRRRRR!!!!!*****
      LOL X10,000

    • Amazona January 31, 2014 / 1:02 pm

      “… all you really will lose is your unearned privilege of being able to feel smug in the notion that you can tell others how to live.”

      This from the “guy” who passionately supports a political model based on giving the federal government the power to tell others how to live.

      Oh, and on some crazy fantasy that talking about one’s beliefs while passionately supporting a political model based on personal liberty and a federal government severely restricted as to size, scope and power is the same thing as telling others how to live.

      It is really quite odd to see someone expound so much and be 100% wrong in everything he says.

      • neocon01 January 31, 2014 / 3:21 pm

        It is really quite odd to see someone expound so much and be 100% wrong in everything he says.
        forker freddy has taken the term if you are going to be good at something be the best…he is 100%…..congratulations freddy boy!!

Comments are closed.