Posted on 01/24/2008 4:42:42 AM PST by Kaslin
Walter Cronkite, when asked whether he agreed that liberals dominated the major news media, told me, "Yes -- if by liberal you mean open-minded."
Are liberals more "open-minded" than conservatives?
To find out, a biennial survey conducted by the University of Michigan's American National Election Studies uses a scale from 0 to 100 -- 0 meaning shoot-the-person-on-sight hatred, and 100 meaning find-a-place-for-him-on-Mount-Rushmore adoration. The 2004 survey then asked 1,200 adults to define themselves politically.
Using this 0-to-100 scale, the survey asked those who described themselves as "conservative" or "extremely conservative" to rate "liberals." Average score -- 39. "Liberals" and "extreme liberals" gave "conservatives" a similar score -- 38.
But the survey then asked respondents to apply the scale to specific people. How did "extreme conservatives," in 1998, rate then-President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore? "Extreme conservatives" gave them both an average reading of 45. Twenty-eight percent gave Clinton a 0, with 10 percent giving that score to Gore.
How did "extreme liberals" rate President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney in 2004? That group gave Bush and Cheney an average temperature of 15 and 16, respectively. Sixty percent of these extreme liberals gave Messrs. Bush and Cheney a 0. In other words, six out of ten Americans on the far left found that no evil, heinous person in the world could be worthy of more hatred than Bush and Cheney. For a little perspective, the then-alive Saddam Hussein received an average score of 8 from all Americans.
Dick Morris, a former aide to Bill Clinton, described how Clinton berated his 1996 Republican opponent, former Sen. Bob Dole. President Clinton said, "Bob Dole is not a nice man. Bob Dole is evil. The things he wants to do to children are evil. The things he wants to do to poor people and old people and sick people are evil. Let's get that straight."
After Republicans took control of the House in the mid-'90s, Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., compared the newly conservative-controlled House to "the Duma and the Reichstag." Dingell referred to the legislature set up by Czar Nicholas II of Russia and the parliament of the German Weimar Republic that brought Hitler to power.
Comparing Republicans to Nazis remains a favorite pastime of some Democrats. Billionaire Democratic contributor George Soros said the Bush White House displays the "supremacist ideology of Nazi Germany," and that the administration uses rhetoric that echoes his childhood in occupied Hungary. "When I hear Bush say, 'You're either with us or against us,'" Soros said, "it reminds me of the Germans."
Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean characterized the contest between Democrats and Republicans as "a struggle of good and evil. And we're the good."
Last week at my local barbershop, the barber working at the chair next to mine, and his customer, discovered that I voted for George W. Bush. Shocked! Shocked! The customer stammered, "Why?"
Not particularly interested in a political discussion, I said something about keeping the country safe, opposition to big government, and support for low taxes.
"But how, how can you support somebody who pulled off 9/11?"
"Excuse me?" I asked.
"I believe 9/11 was an inside job."
"You mean Bush murdered 3,000 people on American soil?" I asked.
"He did it to get black people."
"Most of those killed in 9/11 were white," I said.
"They were in the way."
"Explain to me why people like Bush and Cheney run for public office in order to commit murder."
"Because that's what they do."
"For what reason? To get rich?" I asked. "They already were."
I then learned that somebody intentionally ruptured a levee in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina; that Bush simply serves as a puppet for others; and that "they" wish to "destroy" the little people in the middle class.
Finally, I sighed and simply asked, "How do you function day by day?"
"What do you mean?"
"How do you get up in the morning thinking that somebody in Washington, D.C., wants to murder you?"
I started to ask him where he places Bush on that thermometer, but I think I already knew. So I switched the conversation to the NFL playoffs.
Bottom line: Conservatives consider liberals well-intentioned, but misguided. Liberals consider conservatives not only wrong, but really, really bad people.
Actually, there aren't many debates. She doesn't like the questions I raise. She's part of the Kum-ba-yah Krowd. None of them would hurt a fly, or each other, and they think that nearly all people think like they do; probably because they avoid discussing ideas with people like myself. So she thinks there is something wrong with me because I could abide the deaths of millions of Islamic Swine, many of whom I would have to admit have never done anything remotely wrong in their lives. But I've read the uncomfortable history.
ML/NJ
Not many any more, but then I don't listen to many conservative commentators either. I still listen to Rush. I used to watch the Crossfire type shows, and more often than not I thought the Michael Kinsleys were much sharper than the Pat Buchanans. Eventually I realized these shows are full of sound and fury, signifying nothing; and stopped. Certainly Sean Hannity is an empty suit too. Just because some arise to be commentators doesn't necessarily mean that they will be coherent, left or right.
ML/NJ
Ain’t it the truth! LOL!
You and I are of the same mind on today’s commentators.
I listen to a bit of Rush and Boortz when I can catch them. Even these two can turn me off blathering about nothing sometime.
Orson Scott Card, while a confessed Democrat is not a mindless liberal and is often very thought provoking, although entirely too wordy. Bill Whittle always makes me think. http://www.ejectejecteject.com/
Some form of determinism has always been part of the stew. The liberalism of the brightest and most thoughtful of the Left has plenty of blatant contradictions. They are not contradictions to someone who believes the world is just the way you think it.
I have a rabidly anti-Republican/Bush co-worker who one day at work last week started exclaiming about how Bush should be impeached. (yes, there are rules against talking politics in the workplace).I asked him why. He said for numerous reasons. I said name one. He said bugging private citizens homes. I said has your phone been bugged? He said no but thousands of private citizens have had their phones bugged. I asked him to name some. He couldn't. He got progressively agitated, and asked me if I believed there are twenty thousand terrorists in the U.S. I said maybe. He then walked away.
He had to run away because he couldn’t prove the opposite
The leftist dichotomy is well explained here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1922149/posts
My similar analysis uses the terms “take care of me sheep and the we know better shepherds”.
I’ve never been able to corner a lib into a logic trap that caused a meltdown,
because they are immune to logic.
You can show them a logical contradiction that blows their viewpoint out of the water, and they’ll ignore it.
That's my own personal belief. I'll bet Bobby Fischer's IQ was very high. But who would have wanted to take his advice on anything other than chess?
Heard an EXCELLENT analysis this morning. The above falls into one of the categories of analysis. Given the reasoning above, then someone with less experience is somehow less human than others, and therefore can be mistreated at will?
Four differences between a "fetus" and a "toddler":
(SLED)
Size: So, bigger humans are more human than smaller ones?
Level of Development: So, a four year old with a less developed brain is less human than a 25 yr old with a fully developed brain?
Environment/Location: Someone in one location is a different person, or less of a person than someone in another location?
Dependency: So, someone who is dependent on drug manufacturers for their medicines is less human than someone who isn't?
” Try it some time, it’s good fun getting their feathers all ruffled.”
It’s great fun. I’ve have a reputation for pizzing off libs that spans almost 4 decades. However, I noticed a change that started in the 80s and accelerated during the era of KKKlinton to present day. It started with libs losing the ability to debate the issues and moved swiftly to character assasination. In the 70s and 80s you could debate things like affirmative action, gun control, environmental laws etc. The debates were heated but were largely fact based. During the Reagan era they stopped arguing fact and argued motive. If you were against affirmative action you were racist, etc. In the 90s, it intensified to opponents of liberal policies being evil. Now all rational argument is gone. All principle is gone. They no longer care about free speech, censorship, govt control of what you eat, what you do in your home, how you raise your kids, respect for religion, American soverignty and numerous other things. It’s all emotion and if you oppose them you are evil. Don’t kid yourself. The modern lib hates you and if given the opportunity would have you locked up or worse.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.