The unteachable ignorance of the red states.


Has No Life - Lives on TB
" always appeal to reason and common sense..."

You have got to be kidding me. The liberal appeal is almost always to ego and emotion, as far as I can see.

Night Breeze

Veteran Member
For the young at heart out in blue land I remember the first JFK not Kerry yes Kennedy and the bitter fight with Nixon. He was a moderate Democrat that had National appeal as opposed to the elitist Nixon and the post McCarthey Communist scare. Many Republicans crossed the line and voted for the war hero and young Democrat from Mass. His world immediately became a crisis and the strength of his presidency was his ability to bridge the gap of the political aisle to unite the country against the threat of that era. What Bush lacks in intelligence has been made up for by surronding himself with good advisers for the most part and I don't envy the decisions he has had to make. He has reached out to the other side and yet guys like Daschal and Charlie Rangold have fought him tooth and nail. Alas Bush has a great deal to do yet for his second term but it is now going to be easier to do hsi job. And to the liberals he tried to work with them the last 4 years and now he can do what he wants without their help or interference.


Paranoid in Los Angeles
"I was a lifelong Oregonian until 1994."

Really? Me too, only I left in 1984. Born in La Grande.

"That being said, I agree to what you said about Bush & Company's thinking. OTOH, Bush is NOT a conservative. So in that regard, his thought processes (or lack thereof) can certainly be considered abnormal."

I think we can both agree on this point.

"However, tarring "real" conservatives with the brush of "abnormal thought" is arrogant and elitist."

Please look at my post again. I do not mention either conservatives or liberals.

"So - is it OKAY for liberals to be intolerant of conservatives, as long as they're tolerant of everyone else...? "

Are you blind to the slams on this forum directed to anyone even slightly left of Ghengis Khan? Or how about you jumping to conclusions to make a personal attack at me because YOU perceive me to be a liberal? Would it matter to you that I am a conservative Democrat, and far, far more conservative on traditional conservative values, such as limited government and limited governmental spending than probably ANYONE in the Bush cabinet? I can state for a fact that I am usually offering the most conservative point of view when I address the City Council that I work for, in a largely (moderate) Republican municipal administration.

"You know Green, your position is racist....."

I hope this is just a feeble attempt at misplaced humor. If not, than you are grossly out of line and you owe me a personal apology, big time.

Dennis, I do not have a beef with you. But for you to call me "racist" for merely making comments far less derogatory than what is directed by the “right” to Democrats on this forum is truly a cheap shot.

Dennis Olson

Chief Curmudgeon
I was trying to make a point. If you take out "bush" and "conservatives" from your statements, and insert the word "******s", you'll see my point. Racism is the ultimate slam that liberals use against folks who don't think like them. By using that accusation, I'm attempting to get you to think about what you're saying about conservatives AS A CLASS (just like a race).

I really want you to sub-out the words as I suggested, and re-read your own posts on this subject. Your eyes may well be opened a bit. In addition, if you think the board is conservative NOW, you should been here a coupl'a years ago. Ask BWD about the place back then. I think that we've gained a great deal of additional PoV's in the past couple years. But you should remember that this place started life as a VERY conservative forum (as in RABIDLY).

By that yardstick, this place is absolutely LIBERAL ;) today....

Narrow-mindedness and bigotry - not just for conservatives.... Dig?

Bearded Weirdo

Green, Los Angeles is not exactly an utopian society. It might be normal by your standards, but I think that most of the country hopes for better (and actually achieves it). That includes liberals, conservatives, republicans, democrats, normal folk and abnormal folk.


Paranoid in Los Angeles
Dennis, I think you miss the mark.

Resorting to outrageously inflammatory remarks, like calling someone a racist without cause, is like accusing someone of being a pedofile or a wife beater without cause. There are far better ways to make a point without stooping to such depths, for the same reason one does not yell fire in a theater without the presence of immediate danger.

Frankly, I'm a Ford man. I make no apologies for liking Fords. I've tried Chevies and I admit that a Chevy will get you from point A to point B, but I prefer the ride, handling, performance and looks of a Ford. In my case, a big bad assed Ford Excursion.

Frankly, I do think that Ford owners are better looking, more sophisticated, intelligent, and discerning consumers. Mopar guys, feel free to flame away.

And if I insist on saying that I still prefer Fords after Chevy wins out on race day, that does NOT make me a racist.

It makes me a Ford man.

That is the better analogy.


Paranoid in Los Angeles
And to show how your comments re replacing certain offensive words can cut both ways, I post for your viewing irritation a short essay I wrote last summer on GLP which attempted to make the exact same point, from the opposite direction.

Please accept my apologies in advance if I offend, but that was the point with this excercise.


Replace the term “****** lover” for “liberal” and you will understand what conservatives really mean

I ran across an article on the net in the last few weeks, where I no longer remember, which suggested that the vile with which conservatives spit out the term “liberal” can best be viewed in the context of the racial hatred left over from the U.S. fifties and sixties. I was taken back by this idea on first glance. Yet, when I read the headlines today about Kerry’s announcement of Edwards as his running mate, it all starts to sink in.

Just replace a few shelved terms from the sixties, and it all makes sense.

I grew up in Oregon in the sixties. White, working class, hard working, hard drinking, hard living Oregon. Where everyone was white, unless you, for some reason, went against the grain. Then you were a hippy, ****** lover, long hair, commie . . ., well, you get the drift. You were still white, yet somehow tainted.

Hippies and ****** lovers were considered, at least in my neighborhood, as one and the same. Rock and roll was, to put it simply, considered ****** music. Nothing more.

Hippies and ****** lovers. And, of course, if you fell in the hippy and ****** lover camp, there was that third category of redneck. Or pig. I’m sure there are a few more choice terms I’ve left out, but you get the drift.

And today? Where are we today?

Well, we no longer use those terms above, now square like groovy. Instead, in our kinder and gentler politically correct mode, the moral right claims the conservative high ground, kicking to the curb anyone they perceive as “liberal.”

Liberal. At least that’s what they say.

But you know what they really mean. Take any sixties term now politically death, plug that term in instead of the word “liberal,” and prepare to hit the bulls eye.

Now, just for fun, what you REALLY think that Jeb Bush meant when he says that Kerry and Edwards are too liberal?

Dennis Olson

Chief Curmudgeon
I take no offense. I enjoy reasoned debate. Yes, I understand what point you're trying to make in the above post. However, the point I think YOU miss is that both sides do this, and each accuses the other of being "unfair" when doing it. But it's OKAY for THEM (whichever side the THEM refers to) to do it to the other side.

It's not right when either side does it. And it wasn't right when YOU did it earlier in this thread. You called convervative thinking "abnormal". I did take some offense to that, though not for the reason you might expect. I took offense because God (or whatever deity you may/not believe in) did NOT make Liberals any more "right-thinking" than conservatives.

For you to say they ARE is arrogance in the extreme. But arrogant people never see themselves that way. Do they....?


Paranoid in Los Angeles
Ah, but how do Ford people see themselves?

"It's not right when either side does it."

I think we should agree to the above and leave it at that.


For now.


Paranoid in Los Angeles
Clem, nice music from Johnny Cash. :D

However the video seems every bit as slanted and biased as anything Michael Moore would put out for the other side.

Remember, friends don't let friends do W. :kk2:

Be a friend. The life of someone you love may count on it.


Membership Revoked
you make me laugh

fruit loop said:
Conservatives want everybody to look alike, think alike and never disagree. Seig Heil.


We Libs believe that govt is to run the business of the country - BUSINESS being the key word. Fund the highways, keep the water dept pumping, defend the country - but private lives are THAT. PRIVATE.

I don't care what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom (and I stress the words consenting and adult). That's between them and God.

I don't care what decisions a woman and her doctor make her about her body. I may not like it or agree, but that's her business

Schools should teach kids to read and write and quit trying to socially engineer them into little drones.

Church stays in church and private homes, although I fail to see how a public nativity display "hurts" anyone

The Dems and Reps are both full of crap and neither party really represents its people

Ha ha ha, you don't know and you don't know that you don't know. Libertarians and Liberals are bipolar extremes of each other. Libertarians see the government running NOTHING. Libertarians would let the local communities define their own laws, including keeping gays from being recognized if that is their preference. Libertarians see no use for public schools that indoctrinate our children with PC crap that fisting is normal sexual behavior. It's liberals that have subtracted reading and writing for indoctrination, It's liberals that have litigated that a public nativity display is "hurtful." Libertarians may not be anti-abortion, but neither would they fund abortion clinics as liberals would. Libertarians would never make a statement that the rich don't deserve a tax break, but somehow liberals thrive on such speech. Libertarians would never support affirmative action set-asides or special recognition, but liberals thrive on racial differences.

I could go on and on why Libertarians are NOTHING like liberals, but I just don't think you'll get it.


Membership Revoked
Tweakette said:

The difference between Bush (51%) and not-Bush (49%) is 2%. If you want to split hairs, yes, it's 3% between the 2 main contenders *only*.

But 49% of the voters voted against Bush, whoever they voted for.


Actually it may as well just be said that 52% voted AGAINST Kerry. Makes just as much sense as saying that the 3rd party votes were all anti-Bush votes.