Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Friday, March 09, 2007
John Hawkins :: Townhall.com Columnist
Shattering 3 Myths About Liberals
by John Hawkins
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


1) Conservatives are more racist than liberals.Although you will find racists on the left and the right, the left is much more racist on the whole. That's why we still have to create majority black districts in order to get significant numbers of black Americans elected to Congress -- because even though blacks vote overwhelmingly for the Democratic Party, a large percentage of white liberals won't return the favor and vote for black candidates running on the Democratic ticket. According to a study at Yale, "(W)hite Republicans nationally are 25 percentage points more likely on average to vote for the Democratic senatorial candidate when the GOP hopeful is black...In House races, white Democrats are 38 percentage points less likely to vote Democratic if their candidate is black." That 25% of Republicans has nothing to be proud of, but as you can see, the Democrats are far worse.

Meanwhile, another study from a professor at Stanford showed that Democrats were prejudiced about whom they chose to donate money to after Katrina,

"But for Democrats, race mattered -- and in a disturbing way. Overall, Democrats were willing to give whites about $1,500 more than they chose to give to a black or other minority....(While Republican) responses to the assistance questions are relatively invariant across the different media conditions. Independents and Democrats, on the other hand, are more likely to be affected by racial cues."

No big surprise there. Republicans were formed as an anti-slavery party and they believe in a colorblind society, while Democrats supported slavery and were the ones turning water hoses and dogs on black protestors in the sixties. Remember George Wallace? Democrat. Bull Connor? Democrat. But, what about the revolutionary Civil Rights Act of 1964? 82% of Republicans in the Senate voted for it while only 64% of Democrats did. Even today, the driving force behind policies like Affirmative Action is the liberal belief that American blacks are too inferior to make it in America without help from the left. That's why it's too bad so many black Americans have bought into the liberal propaganda about conservatives hating black people. Neither the left nor the right has a monopoly on bigots, but far more of them are on the left than the right.

2) Liberals are more compassionate than conservatives. Just as robbing Peter to pay Paul isn't compassion, taking tax dollars from one person and giving that money to another isn't compassion either. Giving your own time and your own money to help other people? That's real compassion and liberals just don't measure up to conservatives in that area,

It turns out that this idea that liberals give more…is a myth. Of the top 25 states where people give an above average percent of their income, 24 were red states in the last presidential election.

Arthur Brooks, the author of "Who Really Cares," says that "when you look at the data, it turns out the conservatives give about 30 percent more." He adds, "And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money."

And he says the differences in giving goes beyond money, pointing out that conservatives are 18 percent more likely to donate blood.

3) Liberalism is the ideology of science. It has been said that if we ever have fascism here in America, it will be called anti-fascism. Similarly, it's liberals who politicize science to fit their ideological goals and then declare that their opponents are the ones who have rejected reason. Let's take a look at the two most prominent examples.

The first is stem cell research. The truth is that adult stem cells are far more promising than embryonic stem cells as a potential cure for disease. While adult stem cells have already been used to cure a significant number of diseases, embryonic stem cells haven't even made it to their first human trial yet. That's why there is such a push to acquire taxpayer funds -- because private companies don't think embryonic stem cells are worth the investment.

But, because the left can dupe desperate people like Michael J. Fox into accusing conservatives of withholding a cure from them for religious reasons, they're willing to keep pushing embryonic stem cells for the sake of politics, even though taxpayer money would be much better spent on adult stem cell research. Sure, there are conservatives who have objections to embryonic stem cells on religious grounds, but isn't the fact that embryonic stem cells don't merit taxpayer funding in the first place a much bigger issue?

Then, of course, there's global warming. The earth has always been warming and cooling and because of our limited understanding of the climate, we don't fully understand why. Moreover, our best scientists can't accurately forecast what the weather is going to be like a few months from now, or for that matter, next Friday, yet we have global warming alarmists making wild, absolutely unprovable predictions about what the temperature of the planet will be like in fifty to a hundred years. Additionally, they claim to be certain that mankind is responsible for the one degree temperature increase we've seen over the last century, even though from roughly 1940 to 1975, as man was pumping larger and larger amounts of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, the planet was cooling, not warming. As if all that wasn't enough, honest environmentalists will admit that even if man is responsible for global warming, there is no realistic way, with our current technology, to cut our greenhouse gasses enough to make a difference. Let me also add that there is a scientific theory that adequately explains the small increase in temperature we've had over the last century much better than anything Al Gore has ever come up with: that being, the sun, not man is primarily responsible (see here and here for more details).

When people point out all the flaws in the liberal "reasoning" about global warming, the response is almost inevitably an attempt to cut off debate. Scientists who fail to toe the liberal line have their reputations smeared and are compared to Holocaust Deniers.

Moreover, global warming alarmists continually try to claim that there should be more discussion of whether man causes global warming because "consensus" on the issue has been reached in the scientific community. This is despite the fact that there are more than 17,100 scientists who say that,

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."

Why is the left so hellbent on proving that mankind is responsible for global warming, if the facts don’t seem to point in that direction? Because it's a great way for them to attack big business, particularly oil and a wonderful excuse to raise taxes. Additionally, because America has the world's biggest economy, we'd be heavily damaged by ridiculous treaties like Kyoto and the opportunity to punish America for being so successful is a big motivator for the left. So, as you see, it is liberals, not conservatives, who are disregarding science in order to further their political concerns.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
John Hawkins is a professional blogger who runs Right Wing News, Linkiest, and Viral Footage.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
interesting
i didnt know alot of this stuff thou i of course being the critical thinker i am look for ways to prove these percetages and what not

hawkins hates his fellow americans
at least 50 million americans voted for the liberal john kerry in 04. there are millions of other liberals who did not vote.

everytime hawkins writes a column it is a hit piece on fellow americans. he is a hate americans firster.

how many liberals did he survey.
how were the questions in his survey worded.


these are questions you can't ask him because he bases his opinion on feelings not research and facts.

do david duke, pat robertson and haggard represent conservatives.

no, but hawkins always takes the most extreme liberal views and says that is what all liberals thing.

why does he want to cause a split in americans rather than find what we have in common.

because he and people like him thrive on hate.

religiouslib
He's just an idiot, religiouslib. Don't let him bother you. He's just writing articles to add fodder to keep the American people divided. It makes us a lot easier to conquer. I do not understand why so many keep falling for it.

3 myths about libs?
I only read two. The first myth was about conservatives. I don't think I learned anything here.

you're right wanda
I didn't learn anything new either as this has been widely known for a some time now

religiouslib & liberty
I read your posts, and was impressed by the intellectual acuity and insight you applied in your criticism of Hawkins's column. Your point-by-point refutation of his statements and positions was particularly impressive.

It's obvious to me that your skills at critical observation have been well honed, probably at one of our finer liberal arts universities. Berkley, perhaps?

?????
Did any of you look at the links the "hateful" John Hawkins provided? My guess is no, you prefer to remain ignorant.

You think the Stanford Professor is part of the big conspiracy too? As well as the Federal government eh?

The info on charity, Stossel gathered, is from your Imperial Federal Government, a bastion for Liberal thinkers. (Probably closet Republicans faking the data collected by various agencies in differing states, also part of the vast conspiracy !)

Al Gore is not a scientist. Shocked? Me too, especially after he invented the Internet!

The people who signed the petition, linked above, are indeed scientists, of the very variety who are qualified to give opinions on GW, unlike Mr. Gore.

I will base my beliefs concerning Global Warming on what data I can read, the opinions of qualified scientists and discern for myself. Unlike y'all.

The evidence points towards heightened solar activity as the most probable cause for the slight rise in Global Mean Temperature, not the burning of fossil fuels.

Add in that the 1991 volcanic eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in the P.I. put an estimated 23 times more CO2 into the atmosphere than what mankind has done in the last ten years.

Don't believe it? You can decipher the data yourself at jpl.gov and nasa.gov; you will have to dig but it is public knowledge.

Still don't believe it? Fine. I will be selling carbon offsets before the year is up so you can do your part to reduce green house gasses.

Al? Special rate for you !



Moronic
Here’s the thing about the following:

“Republicans were formed as an anti-slavery party and they believe in a colorblind society, while Democrats supported slavery and were the ones turning water hoses and dogs on black protestors in the sixties. Remember George Wallace? Democrat. Bull Connor? Democrat. But, what about the revolutionary Civil Rights Act of 1964? 82% of Republicans in the Senate voted for it while only 64% of Democrats did.”

Of course the above is nonsense and not worthy of TH. This was nonsense way back in the mid-80s when the above “myth” that Hawkins is “shattering” (thanks for the breaking news) was pummeled in my 7th grade debate club.

Perhaps Hawkins isn’t completely stupid, but he is certainly completely dishonest. No doubt about it.

Anyone else notice how the title of this slobbering includes the word “liberal”, yet the above point somehow manages to talk about “Democrats” and “Republicans?” Not an accident. Not an accident at all. Hawkins knows his silly and quite old non-point wouldn’t make sense if he used “liberals” and “conservatives.” You see, to be a valid argument, Hawkins would have to argue that Bull Connor and George Wallace were liberals. Hah! Hawkins doesn’t have the brainpower to pull that switcheroo off. So he doesn’t bother. (Smart move, smart guy!) Question: If we bring ‘em back from the dead, will these Southern charmers be votin' with that there Pelosi? Hah! Hawkins: You’ve got too much cotton candy between the ears.

What did Connor and Wallace actually have in common? Hint: Alabama. Not San Francisco. Not New York, not Boston, not (you get the pic). Now, if Hawkins wants to try it out (which the coward will not), he should tell us how that isn’t relevant. To prove his point, he must provide evidence that the South has been historically liberal and the North has been historically conservative. Don’t bother, Hawkins, you can never make that particular argument. Nobody can.

“But, what about the revolutionary Civil Rights Act of 1964”, Hawkins quite stupidly asks? What about it? Oh, I don’t know, take a listen to the LBJ tapes some time. You’ll hear Arch-Liberals Johnson and Humphrey trying to get conservatives on board. They had the liberals, but how on earth could they get a few of those pesky Southern Democrats! Boy, how conservative them could be!

Get real! Does TH need another anti-liberal? Why not boot Hawkins and get another conservative?

BrianR
You hit it, Brian. They went right after the messenger, not the message. Or notice how the message is 'hateful', 'moronic', etc.

The title, I suppose, brought all the leftist flies buzzing around right away. There is much in the way of insecurity with this bunch, me thinks.

Also, notice how sensitive they are to the historical record of the democratic party. The libs have actually talked themselves into taking credit for the Civil Rights Movement. Laughable.

Actually, I thought Hawkins did a rather precise job in such limited space of exposing liberal hypocrisy - in a general way and on only three issues. His very supportable thesis is more the subject of several, well documented books.

Seriously religiouslib, Hawkins is right
Look religiouslib, you've seemed fairly reasonable in previous posts, even though I totally disagree with your politics, so I'm going to be respectful to you here. I'm NOT trying to bash you, so I'm asking you to pay attention for a sec...

True justice is achieved when you balance the left leaning value of compassion with the right leaning value of accountability. The Left is overly focused on elevating compassion over accountability, usually for less fortunate groups, while true conservatives strive to maintain that balance for everybody. Sure, there are right wing extemists who overbalance accountability over compassion, but they don't represent true conservatism.

Look at the three issues Hawkins covered here. All of them show the conservative efforts to fight racism, poverty and misguided policies based on questionable science. You may disagree with the details of his arguments, but please be open-minded enough to see that the intentions behind the details are to fight these issues that the Right and the Left both agree are evil.

If you can agree with that, you'll see that conservatives are not the selfish, intolerant people that most of the Left, and I assume you too, believe most of us are. Then we can discuss the validity of our arguments like rational adults, as long as we first agree on the intentions we have in common.

The only thing Liberals and
Conservatives have in common is we are human beings living on the same earth.

I keep hearing
about this term "compassion". Compassion is a trait that people have, not government. It's not compassion when you take property from one group of people and give it to another group of people at the point of a gun. Normally it's called socialism or, it's more extreme cousin, communism.

What I wouold like to see is all of the people who expouse this kind of sleazy government to move to a country that is already practicing it, like Cuba. Go live there for a while and see how you like it. See why people are packing their bags and heading this way.

Reason and Townhall
I'm glad reason and others articulated how non-sensical John Hawkins column was, and a waste of the Townhall platform.

Because I was left with my jaw hanging open after reading it. That's how bad it was.

RACISM IS THE WRONG WORD
and I can see why some of the posters here are getting all bent out of shape.
But I'll tell you this, I've never met a liberal that didn't have an inordinate,illogical and ultimately an irrational fear of black people. Personal events which have borne this out in my life are just too numerous to mention here but more than enough to seal my belief in this.
In fact, Thomas Sowell in several articles in the past has touched upon this very thing in some of his articles in the past. Such ideas as the preservation of land for non-developement. Most of which just happen to be arouund enclaves of rich liberals.
Yeah, I can hear it now. I'm so racist that I think of them as people.I think they can raise themselves out of their own situations without being condescended to. I think they can and should throw off the shackles of well meaning liberal thought which has contributed more to the disintegration of the black family in the past 40 years than all of the injustices that were perpetrated on them in the previous 250. I think they're being hustled. I think they're being bamboozled.
But I don't give a s##t what the lib posters here think.
It's important what I think.

Global Warming???
Did any of you see Glen Beck last night on CNN? I guess a part of the UN's letter about global warming that hasn't been made well known was the the United States production/raising of livestock produce more CO2 and methane gas then all the cars trucks and SUV's combined.

http://www.glennbeck.com/steakoutourfuture/

I personally don't believe in "global warming", the planet has been warming ever since the last ice age. But I find it interesting that this same information was in the UN's study on global warming yet the global warming alarmists were "choosing" to ingore it. I don't usually agree with PETA but I'm glad they let this cat out of the bag.

Liberal Understatement:
"I (we brilliant, annointed ones) know what is best for you (ignorant boobs), and we are going to force you to do it in any way we see fit."

Conservatives: "Let me decide what is best for me and show you why it works."

Lynne
Ha! Check out my post on Lorie Byrd's column.I said the same thing in different words.

Fletch
The psychologists have an answer for it:

PROJECTION

Some libs hate science
The statement that Newton's "Principia" was a rape manual was made by a leftist and not a conservative. There's a very strong anti-science streak among liberals and leftists who are in the humanities which everyone, including Hawkins, ignores.

A hit peice on fellow Americans????
No, an exposure of false perception and the showing of the conseqences of following a "harmful" ideology, LIBERALISM! It, is extolled by the main stream media which has brought WRONG misconseption of Conservatives!. Hawkins sets the record straight with, yes facts, and as a result of actual, reliable RESEARCH. Liberalism, is nothing more than robbing ones freedom, by those who have the delusions of "elitism" (we know more than you unfortunate little plebes), and we "Americans" believe the lies and put these people in power, in many cases! Conservative thought looks at the "big picture" conseqences, engenders responsibility for ones actions, gives, without coercion, individually, to those less fortunate, and takes a strong stand and action aginst "evil" that would destroy us AMERICANS, no matter what ideology we might hold!

more from me
I personally don't believe in "global warming", the planet has been warming ever since the last ice age.

huh that is confusing

sigh why do people get so angry about stuff that really should not matter.

When and what do you believe
Hawkins dismisses the full weight of the vast majority of the world's scientists to deny global warming. On the other hand, he accepts a single unconfirmed study by a single professor of communications (i.e. not a scientist) to conclude that Democrats are racist. Five minutes with google would have led Hawkins to a torough debunking of the "Democrats are racist" study

http://magicstatistics.com/category/united-states/hurricane-katrina/

The sample size is too small and the rusults are not statistically significant.

excuse me
I should have stated that I don't believe man is causing global warming. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Helping the poor.
Give a man a fish.....teach a man to fish.....
Liberal Democrats can't seem to tell the difference.

LGM

Try reading this about global warming "science" and the opposing views.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/01/16/1073878029212.html

Hint: Sometimes they eat their own

Maybe this isn't representative
but it is a true story. Once I was having a political discussion with a friends mother (a lifelong yellow dog Democrat). I attempting to persuade her why some GOP candidate was preferable to that of the Democrat. She told me (and has repeated it a couple times over the years) that she was born and raised a Democrat in a Democrat family and would never vote for a Republican. As she tells it, and I quote "my mother always told me that the only thing worse than a "niggger" is a Republican".

Having known this woman well for over 20 years I am aware of most of her views. She is pro-abortion, pro-union, pro-gay marriage, etc, so this isn't some legacy dixiecrat holdover. It is a truly held hierarchical stratus that slots categories of people into their proper level.

All of the Republicans I know, and granted they are all of the college educated variety, tend to take people as individuals and not judge them by what group they belong to. They are judged by their actions.

Just a strange story I wanted to pass along.



facts
If there is anything liberals hate, it's facts. They retaliate by saying the author is "moronic", we conservatives are "imbeciles", they like to believe fairy tales told by icons like Fat Al Gore and Al Sharpton, the sharp reality of facts is too much for their dainty brains to absorb, denial is much easier on their psyches.

Another Scientist kills AGW

Liberalgoodman?
It makes no sense. Good liberal is...you know. One only has to analyze the legislation introduced by democrats to see racist overtones. Affirmative action, equal opportunity, hate crimes. These are not enabling laws.

libgoodman, et al
Most of the credibility of GW alarmists is based upon some 'concensus' that suspiciously parallels their political agenda, not science.

Until GW is proven to be manmade, its source and solution are pure conjecture. Those hundreds of dissenters who are brave enough to question the issue are not evil and should be proven wrong (or right), not subject to condemnation by lib elitists.

After all, the 'cause de jour' of many of these same libs was nuclear winter not so long ago. Can you see how credibility is not the liberal long suit?

Charity
The other myth I like is - Republicans don't care about poor people.

I think the difference is that Republicans give to charities and the poor with their own money. Furthermore, they don't wait for the cameras or reporters to arrive to see them do it. They don't announce their contribution to the world so that they can feel good about themselves.

Democrats "care about poor people" by giving them other people's money. They make sure that everyone knows who "compassionate" they are and how the Republicans voted against the bill.

Darek
You forgot Social Security.

Designed to keep the lower classes living on dribs and drabs, chained to that monthly check, while the rich liberal socialists like Gore, Edwards, etc, work to make themselves rich and stay that way. In fact, it took about FORTY YEARS for the liberals to finally be forced to include THEMSELVES in Social Security but who needs THAT when you can marry rich widows like Hanoi John did, miss 70% of the votes over 20 years, and STILL get paid!?

bporter
Nor do we wear ribbons to prove that we 'care'.

Ahh yes.
The scientific community at universities are overwhelming being taught by conservatives, ran by conservatives and therefore liberals are the party of science ideology.

Oh, wait. Is this the LDS party?

Did I step into the wrong room?

Sorry, my apologies.

Wouldn't want to interrupt the liberal derangement hysterics.



you know
In many ways Hawkins is right. He’s not very good writer or he would have noticed the poor structure in his first ‘myth’; and that’s too bad because it weakens the overall presentation. But a greater point should still be revealed. Myths exist and they are not truths but rather what some people believe are truths. I blame youth and inexperience for the fact that Hawkins overlooked that it goes both ways. If I were philosophical about it, I’d say that he should look to his own faults before pointing out others, but as I’m a realist, I have to accept that that’s not the style at TH. Consider accept reality comment. That statement could be applied equally to certain elements of the conservative movement. general Macarthur’s comment shows another aspect of this. He tells us how liberals retaliate, yet fails to acknowledge that numerous conservatives do the same thing every day, over and over again right before our eyes. That in itself is a form of ignoring facts if not outright hating them.

BrianR
I have listed more points in the vast majority of my posts than you have, you jerk. Tell me, how many points refuting or agreeing with the article were in YOUR post? None, you say? I thought so.

By the way, I am a real conservative. You might remember, those folks that actually believe that our Constitution should be followed and believe in:

- limited constitutional government
- personal privacy
- personal responsibility
- strong national defense
- fiscally responsible government
- individual liberty

Do you remember? Or, did you EVER know?

Look at RESULTS
Put aside the motivations, whatever they are, driving "liberals" and "conservatives". Look at results and consequences instead. How many "liberal" programs and efforts are successful in reaching their goals? The War on Poverty? An abyssmal failure. Government schools? An abyssmal failure ever since the 1960's when liberal precepts were introduced into the system. Affirmative Action? An abyssmal failure. Socialist health care? Inferior wherever in the world it is tried. Tax hikes? Inevitably result in reduced revenues to the government.

Results matter. Liberal policies have not achieved much in the way of success. Does this mean liberals are filled with hate? Of course not, we all have our humanity in common. Which leaves only one possible conclusion about liberals - they are not very smart (to put it mildly!).

Grubby
The problem I have with the article is that we are not discussing ISSUES, we are categorizing people. It serves to keep everyone divided. Why not just talk about the real issues in the articles?

Jabelson
So, your point about racism is this - only groups that admit that they are racist are truly racist?

I think you're being awfully simplistic here.

I find it interesting
that because I comment to liberalgoodman about the divisiveness of the article, several of you group me right in as a liberal. I have been around here long enough now that you know very well, that I am not. Why is that exactly?

No, I am not like many of YOU. I happen to believe that our Constitution ought to be followed. I also believe that maintaining our liberty should be our most important focus. We should not relinquish this liberty for the fallacy of man-made global warming, OR the plan for nation-building called the "War on Terror".

Hey, if we ever get done with the "war on terror", maybe we should then declare war (for a change) against "badness". We could call it the "War on Badness". It would make every bit as much sense.

Global Warming
It's become almost comical how politicized this issue has become, to the point that the debate is polarized.

Liberals believe global warming is a definite reality and conservatives believe it is a liberal conspiracy with no basis in reality.

Black and white.

The push that all conservatives must deny global warming and all liberals must promote it is assinine. Hawkins is no better than Gore in his position, in that he just repeats a mantra without displaying a willingness to look objectively at the issue and realize that there is a middle ground that is being ignored in the interest of partisan politics.


Dr who ?!
Your dropping jaw, as evidence of the worthlessness of the article by Hawkins, is nullified by my jumping and cheering reaction to the truth of Mr Hawkins piece. So much for our reactions as a standard of proof!

Good article for further thought Mr Hawkins!

stem cell
It seems that liberals and democrats are more pro-choice (read pro abortion). The embryonic stem cell research issue with them as I see it is this: If embryonic stem cells can be used in medicine to provide all these wonderful supposed cures, why who could be against that? If you are pro life then you must not want people to be cured by embryonic stem cell research. It supports abortion.

Jabelson:
"Okay, so we know the left has a hard on for race - it permeates their thinking - from art to history to politics - but is this racist?"
-- according to liberal ideology, yes. Against affirmative action? You're racist. Don't like Obama? Racism. Congressman should be investigated for keeping $90,000 in his freezer? Racism. Katrina problems can be traced to governer? Racism. Get the idea yet?Its not what logical people call racist from a Klan or Aryan nation standpoint, but leftists have never been big on logic.

Your compassion rebuttal is not even worth refuting. Nobody ever said only conservatives donate, or that writing a check gets you to heaven. Leftists expect the government to impose the charity on the rich as wealth redistribution, and so they do not contribute as much because they are "already paying for it" via taxes. Conservatives donate more to charities on average, even though they still have to pay the same taxes liberals do. Furthermore, show me one government program to help the poor and I'll show you 20 private charities that are more effective.

"Again, Hawkins twists the argument, ignoring that facts: on stem cells, it's the right who OPPOSES RESEARCH based on their religious views"
-- No, we oppose government funding of it. Big difference.

"All one has to do is talk evolution with a right winger and you know you're talking to a primitive - not much advanced over those who look for truth in tea leaves and burnt bones."
-- I'll be happy to discuss that with you anytime. Stop on by my blog.

"if they weren't so worried about their bank accounts - and cared a whit about their children, conservatives would at least be OPEN to discussing possible solutions to or causes of global warming."
-- we are open to discussing global warming. We just don't accept the same conclusions the left does. How does drawing a different conclusion from the same evidence mean we aren't open?

Jabelson, the shallowness of your rhetoric is appalling.

nanarae
posted, "Give a man a fish.....teach a man to fish.....
Liberal Democrats can't seem to tell the difference."


Quite right, nanarae! Give a man a fish and the Democrats will add sales tax to it and then send the man to a PETA re-education camp.

Teach a man to fish and the Democrats will claim he's destroying the ecology and killing endangered species.

All on the nail!
(1) This was applied even in Canada to the erstwhile Reform (now part of the ruling Conservative) Party against the Liberal Party. The ratio of visible-minority MP's (2 South Asian Liberals vs. THREE Reformers--and this was when the Liberals held a MAJORITY in Parliament) binned that myth.
(2) I've never seen a compassionate liberal
(3) The only "science" of liberalism is that of conning the people with their OWN hard-earned money!

Not really
>we are open to discussing global warming. We just don't accept the same conclusions the left does.<

When you say "we", who, besides yourself, are you speaking for?

There aren't any conclusions to be drawn at this point, something you radicals share with the global warming hysteria crowd.

Jabelson / Liberty
Jabelson - good post.
Liberty - you are one of the few free spirits who post on Townhall... don't ket them get you down.

To Libertybob
First you have to establish that Global Warming is occurring.

Second you have to establish that humans are causing it.

Then you have to come up with a proposed fix, that does not absolutely bankrupts the humans are it will never happen.

So far, all that has been established is that GW may be occuring. That's a MAY, because there is a lot of evidence that we have gone into a cooling phase now In other words we are in a typical cycle in which the temperatures have peeked and we are now going the other way.

No study has PROVEN that human activity is the cause of Global Warming regardless of what the politicians from the last UN report said.

What you have is CONMEN like Albore and tinpot dictators from third world countries looking to get money from the average American in a great swindle. That's right an outright scam.

If you want to save the world so bad, contact me. I have some GW carbon credits for sale. I'll not mow my rad this summer if you pay be $10,000.00.

shattering Myths and Jabelson
excellent article Mr Hawkins. Jabelson, I suggest that you blow into a paper bag and see if that helps.

Liberal success

.....is based on the ignorance ...apathy ...and 30 second attention span of its followers ...Bill Clinton was succesful because he never overestimate the intelligence of the masses .....COLOSSUS

Conservative love for blacks
So, white conservatives are more likely to vote for an African-American candidate than white liberals. Of course, this is exemplified (get ready for sarcasm) by the abundance of black conservatives (or republicans) in both Houses of Congress.

Note: Until someone can refute Reason's 1:39 A. M. post, this discussion is essentially mute. Reason made ole John Hawkins look like a lightweight on his own blog.

Global Warming Questions
To Vic and Utahnotmormon:

First, when I say "we" I mean those who refute what Jabelson was purporting. Don't get so tied up in argumentation that you grab hold of every semantic nuance you can find... I thought you were smarter than that?

Vic, I'll go further than you, there are 7 questions we need to ask:

1) is the earth getting warmer?
2) if so, why?
3) is warming bad?
4) if so, why?
5) if its bad, can we stop it?
6) how?
7) can we afford the proposals?

The way this issue has been politicized, the left will answer yes to 1 and skip right ahead to 7 and ask "can we afford not to?" only giving cursory recognition of the other 5 questions. Conservatives are tending to wonder about all of them. Simply put, there is no scientific "consensus" about any of the 7.

Why Liberals are more racist

.....Conservative want a level playing field with equal oppertunity for all ...

.....Liberals want a biased playing field that treats minorities as inferior and therefore in need of assistance in order to compete ...

.....so which is more racist? ...Conservatives who want to treat minorities as equals? ...or Liberals who want to treat minorities as inferior? .....COLOSSUS

Baseball doc
Why do you always end your tags with COLOSSUS? I don't get it...

To be a Democrat you have to believe...
1. Racism: conservative vs. liberal. To make the above claims you have to believe in your "heart" that the following historical facts do not exist: the party of Lincoln (Republican) did not free slaves; that most Democrat politicians did not oppose Civil Rights, which they did - including Al Gores father; and that the above mentioned studies at Harvard and Yale (two liberal institutions) do not prove Democrats more stingy.
2. Compassion - To believe that Democrats are more compassionate than Republicans you have to believe that taking money from people who earn it and giving it to people who did not earn it is compassionate.
3. Liberalism & Science: A. Science shows that adult stem cells have been beneficial in fighting disease, and that embryonic stem cells have not. B. The evidence for Global Warming is not complete as some "expert" politicians would have you believe. Apparently most of the Liberals responding to this did not read the Petition Project in which 17,100 scientists in the related fields do not agree with the present "Global Warming" propaganda, or the Kyoto Treaty. Research data on climate change do not "prove" that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful.
All of the above facts are independently verifiable. If you choose to believe in your 'heart' that they cannot be, then so be it. If you choose name calling instead of debate, you lower yourself.

baseballdoc
……But the mob is Rome……
……SHAZAMUS…….

Clinton Fan

.....Conservative don't love blacks ...or any other ethnic group for that matter ...they just want to treat blacks fairly like anyone else ...

.....Republicans have nominated black Governors and Senators that were not elected because 75% of registered black Democrats voted against them ...Blackwell/Steele etc. ....

.....did your hero the Clintons love blacks? ...or did they just use them? ...do you love blacks? ...get up off your Clinton knee pads and give me a break .....COLOSSUS

baseballdoc
This is one of my main grievances with the Democratic Party, or liberals if you will.

Minorities deserve nothing more in the way of governance than anyone else. In the not too distant future, caucasians will be a minority in this country. How will liberals react when that is the reality? Should there be affirmative action for white males who, for decades, have been handicapped by federal programs designed to take from them and give to the new majority?

Libertybob

.....COLOSSUS is my computer and is programmed to post for me .....BBdoc

Lynne
I have spoken plenty about that, Lynne. I have said many times that we need to get our own house in order.

1. The illegal alien invasion that this administration has allowed and fostered.
- We need to get this practice stopped. We need to get our borders secured, stiffly penalize those who are hiring them and stop all handouts. If the Mexican government keeps encouraging its people to illegally enter our country and/or its military keeps crossing our border, I firmly believe it is a real, ACT OF WAR.

2. North American Union.
- our President signed an agreement with Canada and Mexico called the Security and Prosperity Partnership that is being used to "harmonize" our laws and regulations with the other countries. It has already been announced that Mexicans will establish their own customs office in Kansas City. It will be considered "their" port.
- the SPP is being used to merge our 3 countries into a North American Union. There are now plenty of documents released by FOIA where it is more than spelled out. I have posted links to these numerous times.
- if any of us values our country, perhaps we might want to stop this thing before it is totally completed. That date is scheduled as 2010.

3. I have made it quite clear that I believe we have shut our eyes to what the public servants in our government have done to our Bill of Rights and our liberty, ever since 9-11. It's like we just shut our eyes and let them do any d*mn thing they wanted, if they would only keep us safe. Once upon a time, conservatives knew better than this. Are we really such frightened children that we do not realize that national ID cards, complete with biometrics and national databases, in addition to unconstitutional practices such as "sneak and peak", wholesale wiretapping, reading our mail and checking every financial transaction of all Americans, with no probable cause, is VERY dangerous to our liberty and freedom? What part of the 4th amendment have we forgotten?

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

I will not speak at length here again about the Military Commission Act, because I have done it several times before. Suffice it to say, if you do not realize it can be used to pick up you or your neighbor, with just an accusation, and imprison you for years in a secret prison camp, well then, you need to read it again. While you're doing this, keep in mind that you do not have many rights if you are drug off to a secret prison camp and have no right to know the charges against you. I guess some of you do not believe it could possibly happen to you, because you are patriotic Americans. I wonder what the Jews thought in Nazi Germany or what Russians like Solzhenitsyn thought, before they were carted off. Actually, I guess we know, don't we?

Have you let your hate for the liberals and islamics cloud your eyes so much that you have forgotten that the greatest mass murderers in history have always been GOVERNMENTS?

4. We need to get our financial house in order. Our current national debt is around 9 trillion dollars. However, that number does not take into account future entitlements. If you add in that number it brings our debt to over 50 trillion dollars. According to a recent article, the entire net worth of American households is around 50 trillion dollars. See the problem?

Our dollar is in deep trouble. In addition to what we owe to the Federal Reserve, we have also borrowed huge sums of money from other countries, some of which have spoken about getting out of the dollar entirely. Do you also realize that the dollar has been used to buy oil across the world for quite some time. However, many countries have stated that they plan to end that practice. That means, they will no longer need to hold U.S. dollars.

Our dollar is backed by virtually nothing, but a wing and a prayer. We are in serious danger of it totally collapsing.

So, what do we do about it? For starters, here is what Ron Paul said and I agree:
" * Begin publishing the M3 statistics again. Let us see the numbers that most accurately reveal how much new money the Fed is pumping into the world economy.
* Tell us exactly what the President's Working Group on Financial Markets does and why.
* Explain how interest rates are set. Conservatives profess to support free markets, without wage and price controls. Yet the most important price of all, the price of money as determined by interest rates, is set arbitrarily in secret by the Fed rather than by markets! Why is this policy written in stone? Why is there no congressional input at least?
* Change legal tender laws to allow constitutional legal tender (commodity money) to compete domestically with the dollar."

In the long run, we need to get rid of the privately-owned and run Federal Reserve, back our currency with gold, and have our government take over creating the money. You do realize, right, that the Federal Reserve is about making a profit? Tell me exactly why we are paying exorbitant interest to a group of bankers to do a couple of accounting entries to increase the money supply? It costs them virtually NOTHING to do this, yet we are being raped, paying them interest FOR NOTHING. Do you realize that we did not have a central bank for years and many in our government thought they were a "nest of vipers", including President Andrew Jackson? He got the central bank thrown out and it stayed out until the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. If you doubt what I am telling you, I implore you to do a little research. This is a very good book on the subject: http://www.realityzone.com/creatfromjek.html
Here is a video about it from the Mises institute: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-466210540567002553&q=%22federal+reserve%22&hl=en

5. Then, I firmly believe we should take a good look at those laws that are unconstitutional and weed them out, one by one, and return our government to one that abides by the Constitution. Understand that this would result in GREATLY shrinking the federal government. Much of what they are doing now is unconstitutional and belongs to the states and the people. As you know, our government was setup this way, so that WE THE PEOPLE would be able to have much more influence on our government.

6. Get us out of the UN and get it the heck out of our country. This organization has been a socialist setup since its very founding. We have no business supporting it or any of its cousins, such as the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, World Court, etc.

This is not all, but it'll do for a start.

Bottom line, our most valuable possession as Americans is our liberty. We should not relinquish it to ANYONE, whether they be a terrorist OR a public servant in our government. If we lose our liberty, what will "safety" mean?





Liberty
Your sort of conservatism is what led to World War II. Appeasement, negotiations, treaties, and respect for national borders on works with fellow Libertarians. That is where your Libertarian party fails. The strongest defense is a good offense.

Thomas Jefferson believed in the offensive so much that he beat the tar out of Muslim pirates off of the coast of Africa. You may be right that the name War on Terror" is a misnomer but the answer IS NOT to sit back on our butts and hope that the Islamofascists will just play nice.

I left off under #4
We should stop the Medicare prescription drug plan. The "trust" is already badly in the red and we simply cannot afford it. It used to be that conservatives were against "entitlements". Anyone remember?

Deornwulf
Sorry, I'm not a libertarian. I do however agree with them on following the Constitution. It appears that you do not.

I believe in a strong national defense. I believe we should have bigger guns than everyone else. IF someone attacks us or IF they are an imminent threat, we should beat the tar out of them. Otherwise, we should trade with them and wish them all well. I fail to see where in the Constitution, or any of our Founding Fathers' writings where they advocated "nation-building" or policing the world. Perhaps I missed it. Could you please point it out in their writings for me?

Deornwulf
Since you do not believe our government should follow the Constitution, tell me please, what you think we should follow instead?

Hawkins has hit a Liberal nerve!
And you "AGW Deniers" better look out!
Death threats are coming from all over the world.
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed030807a.cfm?RenderForPrint=1

AND if this does not frighten you enough to stop debunking the AGW scam please consider Vic & I still have a bunch of Carbon Offset Certificates to sell the AGW Libs.

Liberty
These myths do indeed have a direct impact on issues. Liberals foster the myths that they are more compassionate, more racially sensitive and adhere more closely to scientific rigour than others to mask the fact that their policies do not work and cannot be logically defended.

It's much easier to declare that opposing the welfare state, socialized health care or their Marxist income redistribution schemes is de facto evidence of greed and lack of compassion than to address the fact that these policies invariably have a devastating effect on those they are supposed to help.

Why look at the impact of racial quotas or open borders when it's so much easier to just declare your opponents racist?

It's hard to get past the massive holes in the theory of man-made global warming. Then there's the "inconvenient truth" that none of their previously predicted "scientifically certain" disasters has come to pass. So why not just declare that there can be no argument and that anyone who opposes expending trillions, crippling our economy and ceding sovereignty to global socialists is a backwoods baboon?

The liberal mind is a miasma of churning emotions, bereft of logic. Purity of intent ALWAYS trumps empirical results in the Church of Liberalism. Their policies can only be enacted by spreading that fog into the minds of the electorate (or failing that, judicial fiat). And those policies are diametrically opposed to the principles you state.

A final note: it's amusing how the left constantly tells us that conservatives are racist, homophobic fascists, that Christians are more dangerous than Al Qaeda and that Bush is Hitler, then howl that it is "divisive" to point out the factual holes in the CoL mythos.




Liberty
Thank you for a well thought out post. I hope others notice that they don't have to result to name calling and half truths to get their point across.

John Galt
I agree, John, but we are getting so caught up name-calling that we are not focusing on the issues themselves.

Limbaugh clone
Hawkins must be a disciple of Rush Limbaugh who also pushes the line that the problems with America have to do with liberal (Democrats) vs conservaties (Republicans).

Unfortunately both men are 20 years in the past. The issues of today are between Globalists and Nationalists, those who are pushing for a New World Order, and those who want to keep America as is. All the rest is confetti used to confuse and/or entertain the masses so they will not realize what is really going on right under their noses.

WANDA GAG
WANDA GAG ,
TWO REASONS WHY YOU DIDN'T
LEARN ANYTHING :

1. YOU ARE NOT FAMILIAR WITH LEARNING .

2. MORE IMPORTANTLY , YOU ARE
STUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUPID
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Liberty re: your post to me
You wrote: "I have listed more points in the vast majority of my posts than you have, you jerk."

And that has exactly what to do with the nonsense you had written to which I responded? Further, are you familiar with my writings on this site, or is that just another unsubstantiated ad hominem attack? I invite you to visit my blog if you want to get a flavor for my writings, or look up any of my other 3400+ postings on this site. I think your use of the word "jerk" says volumes about your debating skills. Very impressive.

You wrote: "By the way, I am a real conservative... Do you remember? Or, did you EVER know?"

Again, totally irrelevant. You claim to be conservative. Good for you. I have no reason to doubt you. That doesn't address my point. As a matter of fact, it seems to me your hysterical post kind of confirms exactly the point I was making.

Thanks.


walking heaters
Has anyone taken into consideration that the world population has increased from 2.5 billion in 1950 to 6.4 billion plus in 2006. Thats 4 billion new 98.6 degree heaters walking around. Perhapse that may have an effect?

inkling revival
Gee, I am so sorry that you had to walk away from your computer. I don’t see how I can moderate what I say as I’m probably the most moderate person on TH. I admit that now that I’m in my 60s I don’t get out as much as I used to, but I did spend more than 30 years in the public venue and I’ve never been attacked. Of course, I don’t swear, I don’t use derogatory language, I don’t call people names and I don’t make threats. This too enhances my uniqueness at TH.

Now let us examine these terrible comments I made that sent you into vapors. First, I have no bizarre sense of “moral equivalence”. In fact, I made no “moral” judgment at all. I observed that there are many similarities in Ann’s style and youmakemelaugh2’s style. I did not offer right or wrong, but said that when two people do the same thing, they are either both right or both wrong. That is the opposite of hypocrisy. Your comment that there are no similarities is strictly opinionary as you are addressing the quality of each one’s comments not the content of the comments. I actually agree that youmakemelaugh2’s comments are not as good as Ann’s, but stylistically they are similar.

Next, I commented on your desire to divide the country into two separate nations. In doing so, you failed to recognize the homogeneous qualities of the people. You advocate destroying the system instead of struggling to make it work. That is cowardly and all too similar to what the Islamo-facists are attempting now. Furthermore, to accomplish this task, you will have to overthrow the federal government in those states. That is treason. As to your question regarding Jews in 1930’s Germany, the answer is no. They were leaving to avoid persecution in the form of overwhelming force. They were not going to one part of Germany in an attempt to establish their own country.

When you write of “practical matters” you are showing incredible naivety coupled with a thorough lack of understanding of just who the people really are. And of course, this is backed up by the idea that calling me names actually has any affect on the situation or enhances your reasoning.

Yes, you have encountered me before and I have no need for your respect as I see very little value in respect coming from one who employs insults and has such poor powers of reasoning. Perhaps you can seize control of TH and demonstrate your concept of how conservatives are better than liberals by silencing anyone who disagrees with you.

folks.
I am so sorry. I posted on the wrong thread. Please forgive me for not paying more attention.

ODDIE
ODDIE ,
YOU ARE THE ODD MAN , OR WOMAN OUT.

baseballdoc
Baseballdoc states: ".....Republicans have nominated black Governors and Senators that were not elected because 75% of registered black Democrats voted against them ...Blackwell/Steele etc. ...."

Baseballer, what a transparent attempt to deceive. I'm sure you, being as politically astute as you are, realize that African-Americans
vote roughly 90% Democrat. Republicans generally are in the single digits when it comes to black political support.

By your own admission, Blackwell/Steele received about 25% of votes from registered black democrats, and though you don't say, I would assume probably a solid majority from registered black conservatives.

BD, this is a republican candidate's dream come true. Nearly 100% (my opinion) of conservative candidates would give an arm and a leg for 25% of the African-American vote. According to you baseballer, Blackwell/Steele got this. And you know what? They still lost.

So Nostradamus, would you care to surmise where Blackwell/Steele probably lost support. My guess would be from the same conservative white voters that Mr. Hawkins claims are so willing to vote for a black candidate. I'm not saying that these voters pulled a caper and voted for the democratic candidate. I'm just saying when these conservative voters were faced with the dilema of voting for a white democratic candidate or a black republican one, maybe they saw a lose-lose situation and decided to stay at home.

At any rate, if you want to blame someone for the failures of the aforementioned candidates, blame the white citizens of Maryland and Ohio that didn't vote for them.

ok a couple quick comments
lets ask african-americans and hispanics which party is racist.

of course according to most conservatives they have been duped by liberals because they are stupid.

which leads to compassion
lets ask the soldiers in building 18 at walter reed if this bush administration is viewed as compassionate.

as far as science

lets talk about the editing and changing of scientific reports that this administration has done to scientists.
lets talk about the "blue sky act" passed by the republican congress. which allowed more pollution and why the first head of the EPA under bush- todd-whitman quit.
or lets talk about the "healthy forest act" which allowed more logging in old growth forests.


yep conservatives this is why you are the minority in congress, you sit around and tell each other lies but claim they are the truth.


Worthless People's Opinion
Yup, I grew up in a different era.

I was raised that worthless people's opinions are worthless. Who cares what liberals say about you?

Jesus tells us the way. And that way is not to give creedence to devil. When the devil spits at you it should be like water off a duck's back.

The reason the devil's insults may hurt you is if you are not being the Christian example.

Perhaps if the Republicans were as busy at being the Christian example as they were busy at paying attention to the devil's insults, things would be getting done.

Don't let the devil distract you.

How does Jesus teach us to reach out to those who are lost?

Answer? Set the example.

There was a President who once said that he would not knowingly hire a staff person who had cheated on his wife. A fellow who would lie to his wife would lie to anyone.

What kind of examples are Republicans setting these days?

That should be the primary concern. Being the example that people would be attracted too and then the charges the devil hurls at you will be like water to a back's duck.

Wothless people's opinions are worthless people.

Grow some skin.




BrianR
Let me make this simpler for you.

The only thing I had posted in this thread, before you posted your little insult, was the following to religiouslib

"religiouslib
He's just an idiot, religiouslib. Don't let him bother you. He's just writing articles to add fodder to keep the American people divided. It makes us a lot easier to conquer. I do not understand why so many keep falling for it."

You responded with, when quite frankly, you had nothing whatsoever to do with my post, as I was speaking about the author of the article:

"religiouslib & liberty
I read your posts, and was impressed by the intellectual acuity and insight you applied in your criticism of Hawkins's column. Your point-by-point refutation of his statements and positions was particularly impressive.

It's obvious to me that your skills at critical observation have been well honed, probably at one of our finer liberal arts universities. Berkley, perhaps?"

To which I responded,
" BrianR
I have listed more points in the vast majority of my posts than you have, you jerk. Tell me, how many points refuting or agreeing with the article were in YOUR post? None, you say? I thought so.

By the way, I am a real conservative. You might remember, those folks that actually believe that our Constitution should be followed and believe in:

- limited constitutional government
- personal privacy
- personal responsibility
- strong national defense
- fiscally responsible government
- individual liberty

Do you remember? Or, did you EVER know?"

------------
Finally, you came back with this:

"Liberty re: your post to me
You wrote: "I have listed more points in the vast majority of my posts than you have, you jerk."

And that has exactly what to do with the nonsense you had written to which I responded? Further, are you familiar with my writings on this site, or is that just another unsubstantiated ad hominem attack? I invite you to visit my blog if you want to get a flavor for my writings, or look up any of my other 3400+ postings on this site. I think your use of the word "jerk" says volumes about your debating skills. Very impressive.

You wrote: "By the way, I am a real conservative... Do you remember? Or, did you EVER know?"

Again, totally irrelevant. You claim to be conservative. Good for you. I have no reason to doubt you. That doesn't address my point. As a matter of fact, it seems to me your hysterical post kind of confirms exactly the point I was making.

Thanks."

---------------------------

First of all, Brian, my initial post did not require a response by you, as it was a personal message to religiouslib. But, you felt the need to do so, for whatever reason. That's fine, Brian, but it doesn't explain why you felt the need to be antagonistic and insult me for no reason, whatsoever. Quite frankly, it p*ssed me off. You go on and speak of my initial post being nonsense. Actually, Brian, I thought I was quite clear. What part exactly do you not understand?


Worth repeating...
Dr. North said,
"Limbaugh clone
Hawkins must be a disciple of Rush Limbaugh who also pushes the line that the problems with America have to do with liberal (Democrats) vs conservaties (Republicans).

Unfortunately both men are 20 years in the past. The issues of today are between Globalists and Nationalists, those who are pushing for a New World Order, and those who want to keep America as is. All the rest is confetti used to confuse and/or entertain the masses so they will not realize what is really going on right under their noses."

HE IS RIGHT!

Well, Lib
You post here, it's public and anyone can read and comment. This isn't your private email center.

Whether or not you thought it "required" a response by me is also irrelevant. It's on the thread, it becomes fair game, just like mine and anyone else's.

If you want to send personal/private messages, you may want to consider finding another way to do it. This surely isn't the venue.

Now, as to your other question, you disagreed with the column (I'll do everyone a favor and not copy/paste everything here) and did so on a solely ad hominem basis. I felt that deserved to be noted. Refer to your own post of March, 09, 2007 12:33 AM.

I hope that answers your questions.

BrianR
If you want to own the content of a message board and set the rules of posting, I recommend that you start one of your own. Last time I checked, this one did not belong to you.

Cheers ;-)

scratching head
well, I am a black person, and can someone please explain to me why whenever I go on "conservative" sites, there are posts claiming that blacks are "taking over" or that there is some genetic component to crime or education levels...

and that doesn't exist when I go on leftist sites.

PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY THE RIGHT WING ATTRACTS STONE-COLD RACISTS!!!!!!

That was a rhetorical question
the truth is... I already know.

Each side has a certain M.O. for manipulating folks.

While the left can be blamed for fuzzy, warm "Kumbaya" rhetoric and an inattention to detail...

The right-wing manipulates through fear. Usually the fear of change. The basic Right-wing logic goes like this... "If "x" happens... then YOU KNOW THAT THE REALLY BAD THING CALLED "y" WILL HAPPEN"

This is why the American people need to wake up, and stop being manipulated by partisan politics. Demand accountability from ALL your politicians. Get the FACTS, ask for examples...don't live in fear.

Wow
Lynne, congratulations. You actually get it. Now just convince a few others...

Why is it
that most of the columns and posts on this site never talk about genuine ideas they just bash liberals, usually with misinformation and sheer malice. You are marginalizing yourselves by your sheer foam-at-the-mouth hatred, and although I consider myself a conservative, I am crawling out of the sewer before I become identified with this hate-fest.

You don't want to make the country better, you just want to further divide it in half, you don't want true ideas and observations, you can't seem to do anything but hurl insults and epithets.

It's self-destructive, to conservatives and to your personal well-being.


phxvet
is "conservative site" a codeword for "racist?"
{wink wink}

If you want an example that raised my eyebrows, you can find "Robert E. Lee"s post on the Obama in Selma piece.

Why is it
that most of the columns and posts on this site never talk about genuine ideas they just bash liberals, usually with misinformation and sheer malice. You are marginalizing yourselves by your sheer foam-at-the-mouth hatred, and although I consider myself a conservative, I am crawling out of the sewer before I become identified with this hate-fest.

You don't want to make the country better, you just want to further divide it in half, you don't want true ideas and observations, you can't seem to do anything but hurl insults and epithets.

It's self-destructive, to conservatives and to your personal well-being.


Off subjecy, but important to share!
Please share this with others.
IF YOU NEVER FORWARDED ANYTHING IN YOUR LIFE, FORWARD THIS SO THAT EVERYONE WILL KNOW!!!!!!.. She really was a traitor

This is for all the kids born in the 70's that do not remember, and didn't have to bear the burden that our fathers, mothers and older brothers and sisters had to bear.

Jane Fonda is being honored as one of the "100 Women of the Century." by Barbra Walters

Unfortunately, many have forgotten and still countless others have never known how Ms. Fonda betrayed not only the idea of our country, but specific men who served and sacrificed during Vietnam

The first part of this is from an F-4E pilot named Jerry Driscoll. In 1968, the former Commandant of the USAF Survival School was a POW in Ho Lo Prison the "Hanoi Hilton." Dragged from a stinking cesspit of a cell, cleaned, fed, and dressed in clean PJ's, he was ordered to describe for the visiting American "Peace Activist" the "lenient and humane Treatment" he'd received. He spat at Ms. Fonda, was clubbed, and was dragged away. During a subsequent beating, he fell forward on to the camp Commandant’s feet, which sent that officer berserk. In 1978, the Air Force Colonel still suffered from double vision (which permanently ended his flying career) from the Commandant's frenzied application of a wooden baton.

From 1963-65, Col. Larry Carrigan was in the 47FW/DO (F-4E's). He spent 6 years in the "Hanoi Hilton", the first three of which his family only knew he was "missing in action". His wife lived on faith that he was still alive. His group, too, got the cleaned-up, fed and clothed routine in preparation for a "peace delegation" visit. They, however, had time and devised a plan to get word to the world that they were alive and still survived. Each man secreted a tiny piece of paper, with his Social Security Number on it, in the palm of his hand. When paraded before Ms. Fonda and a cameraman, she walked the line, shaking each man's hand and asking little encouraging snippets like: "Aren't you sorry you bombed babies?" and "Are you grateful for the humane Treatment from your benevolent captors?" Believing this HAD to be an act, they each palmed her their slivers of paper. She took them all without missing a beat. At the end of the line and once the camera stopped rolling, to the shocked disbelief of the POWs, she turned to the officer in charge and handed him all the little pieces of paper. Three men died from the subsequent beatings. Colonel Carrigan was almost number four but he survived, which is the only reason we know of her actions that day.

“When Jane Fonda was in Hanoi, I was asked by the camp communist political officer if I would be willing to meet with her. I said yes, for I wanted to tell her about the real treatment we POWs received... and how different it was from the treatment reported by The North Vietnamese, and parroted by her as "humane and lenient." Because of this, I spent three days on a rocky floor on my knees, with my arms outstretched with large steel weights placed on my hands, and beaten with a bamboo cane. I had the opportunity to meet with Jane Fonda soon after I was released. I asked her if she would be willing to debate me on TV. She never did answer me. These first-hand experiences do not exemplify someone who should be honored as part of "100 Years of Great Women." Lest we forget..." 100 Years of Great Women" should never include a traitor whose hands are covered with the blood of so many patriots.

There are few things I have strong visceral reactions to, but Hanoi Jane's participation in blatant treason, is one of them. Please take the time to forward to as many people as you possibly can. It will eventually end up on her computer and she needs to know that we will never forget “.

RONALD D. SAMPSON, CMSgt, USAF
716 Maintenance Squadron, Chief of Maintenance
DSN: 875-6431 COMM: 883-6343

Newflash (x2)
Dinesh DiSouza is a columnist on THIS site. He's not on the leftist sites.

Why is that? hmmm.

Liberty
Well, that's exactly my point, isn't it?

It belongs to TH, and all who post are fair game.

If only one of the regular moonbats...
...would post an incomprehensible cowpie with a link to a web site run by a liberal fringe group...then we'd have all our answers.

I haven't quite figured out why it is hate speech against "fellow Americans" for Hawkins to point out certain FACTS pointing to liberals racism, but I have lower expectations for liberals' ability to think critically. I suppose we should lower SAT, GMAT, and LSAT requirements for them.

At least the part about trying to paint the Southern racists as "conservative" because of their racism directly addressed a point in the column. I suppose the Southern racists are the conservative wing of the Democratic party, along with the gaybashers and an occasional Christofascist.

I've raised the point about the vote totals on the civil rights legislation in previous threads and have NEVER received a response or an explanation from a liberal. Never. Ever. If there is some explanation other than the obvious one then let's hear it!

On science by lists
The list of "scientists" to show that there is a contraversy about global warming is reminiscent of the similar list about evolution. In that case serious scientists then generated a list of scientists named Steve (or Stephanie to be fair to the women) that did not have such doubts. A lot of people in this country have the credentials to make a list like that. Although I am no expert on climate change, I have them. But when the list of doubters is shorter than the list of non-doubters with a single name, and not the most common one at that, one can see that the contraversy is somewhat manufactured. (Steve was picked in honor of the biologist Steven Gould).

Out of curiosity I googled the Beckers on the list because it is a noble name, and I didn't realize there would be as many as there turned out to be. But for the purposes of investigation is a random name. There is no reason to think that the Beckers would be any better or worse credentialled than the others.
I did not find one climate scientist among the bunch. There were scientists associated with some of the names, but no papers that seemed vaguely related to the area of climate change. Although admittedly half of them I didn't find at all. If you google my name, you get obscure talks I gave from years ago, so it is certainly surprising that so many scientists would show up with no publications or university positions. One seems to be a man who made a fortune with a computer company. He is entitled to the label scientist, but there is no reason to believe he is an expert on global warming.

In fact in many cases their presence on this list seems to be the height of their scientific careers. My guess is if one did the same with the list of scientists who put out the UN report, the same thing would not occur.

Liberty --
you're an idiot, as proved conclusively by your last post.

(Yep -- I'm butting in.)

my liberal colleagues
As an active member of NEA and an "educator" still teaching in the "school reform" wars--remember school reform started with Bill Bennett in 1983, I see daily liberal so-called ideals and practices. 1) They are misinformed, don't know it, and facts won't change their beliefs. At a party where several were reminiscing about all their friends drafted by the Marines in 1966 and dying in Vietnam, when I told them the Marines never drafted anyone, nor the Air Force nor the Coast Cuard nor the Navy, yadda yadda, that only the army infantry drafted, they were flabbergasted and positive I must be wrong. I said, "Google it." 2) They really believe only the rich are Republicans. They have, esp. if married, over the years often managed to generate $70-$80-even $90,000 annual teaching salaries--with a spouse a the same level--a household income of $150,000-c. $200,000--w/out considering among their assets that they have vacation condos and time shares, Navigators and Hummers, have had the opportunities to inherit often significant estates, and as retirees, now have opportunities for almost perpetual travel and leisure. I, on the other hand, have been a single earner-parent--homeowner only by inheritance--and still work part time teaching, tutoring, and coaching, which my colleagues find baffling, as they will often say of their former schools, "I would never set my foot inside the door, again." 3) Their compassion often doesn't extend to generosity in volunteering or monetary contributions. I need to fundraise perpetually for a sport I coach, and the most personal of friends can usually be counted on to contribute regularly, but many, many simply cannot be bothered, as they are leaving for FL soon or will be in the Poconos for the holiays or just don't have "time." Numerous close friends do give days for Meals on Wheels, Care Givers, or Red Cross activities, but many more move between several residences and their next cruise nearly monthly and have "no time" to donate. They aren't using up others' money or taxes, but one who has never "given" since she retired is a perpetual moaner and groaner about the state of health care in the US, which should be nationalized, because she is sure "someone needs federal health care," and we don't offer it. If she ever drove some leulemia-afflicted child to dr.s' app't's or helped wheel-chair-bound srs. make outpatient dates, she might have at least an imperical experience of a real person who might use national health insurance. 4) Numbers and statistics do not phase them. In talking one time about how 1/2 (50 percent) my salary was subject to deductions and reductions but my father in 1948 built his house without a mortgage because he only saw around 4 percent of his income taxed or encumbered, a math teacher said to me, "I'm really no good at computing differences like that." If you quote them that under Bush, minorities have made the largest move into home owning, 4.6 percent unemployments means virtual full employment, and interest rates have been practically zero for a decade, they'll tell how their lawyer son can't get hired anywhere (as if that means unemployment is a real issue) or their dr. daughter can't find a house she likes (the housing market is out of control). 5) They base all judgments on personal feelings. When Ward Churchill first burst into the news cycle, I was teaching a First Amendment unit that used college speech codes and the Cohen-California case that convinced the Sup. Ct. to justify the f**k word as protected by the COnstitution as class examples. I added Churchill to the course, as the ACLU and acedemia in general had all rallied to his "cause"--calling the dead of the Twin Towers Hitlers and Eichmanns. He was then teaching at the U. of CO. in an ethnic studies program as an American Indian, although no US tribe recognized his standing. While talking to a Ph.D.'d fellow teacher about Churchill, I said, "He got tenure at a university in a year, something unheard of(tenure usually takes at least seven years and is voted on by a department) in colleges. he never attained a doctorate (usually minimal for full-time univ. employment and a requisite for tenure consideration), and he's not an Indian." My "opponent" replied indignantly, "But he looks like an Indian." I rest my case.

Justone,
I'm sorry you've had a different experience than I have had. I have visited many, many conservative blogs and I can't think of a single example of what you are describing.

This includes even the saltier sites like Ace 'o Spades. What sites were you visiting? I'll go there with you and we'll give them a beatdown.

For the record, those attitudes are shameful.

You might try any of the sites linked at scappleface, michellemalkin, and some of the townhall blogs. But do let me know which sites where you've had those experiences. Thanks.

correction
empiical knowledge not "imperical"--sorry

persecution complex
"-- according to liberal ideology, yes. Against affirmative action? You're racist. Don't like Obama? Racism. Congressman should be investigated for keeping $90,000 in his freezer? Racism. Katrina problems can be traced to governer? Racism. Get the idea yet?Its not what logical people call racist from a Klan or Aryan nation standpoint, but leftists have never been big on logic"

Gee. I haven't opened the "liberal ideology" manual lately, but I don't remember the part where it's written that it's racist to prosecute criminals.

Could you show me where that is?

Affirmative action is a complex subject and is not in the same category. That's for another discussion.

As to the other fellow who asked me for an example, and then ridiculed me after I gave him one. Sorry, I don't have the time to scroll through each and every column. But I have read similar posts on this site in the past, and I did give one example from the FIRST PIECE I read today. It didn't take long, that's for sure.

But I will be more vigilant in the future about calling out such idiots. Perhaps some of you can do the same. That way you're not seen as being in cahoots with people who are racists. I don't see it as solely my job.

Lynne
Of course, were you a Conservative, you'd be hauled off to "pc-rehab" -- I'm really tired of conservatives whining about the limits put on their speech -- Here's a just a few comments collected from this website in just a few days, there were so many that it only took about 15 minutes (comments are separated by commas):

Do us a favor you worthless piece of dog excrement and go be the guest of honor at a single car fatality, Liberals want mass starvation and human devastation, it is worthy of pointing out the crass stupidity and immoral standard of the liberal left, Or if you're a Liberal and you're simply insistent upon your own slow suicide, please speed it up with a pistol in the mouth, and stop insisting that the rest of us have to be dragged into that same cold damp grave with you, Hooray for disease ridden illegal scum getting top quality health care while our brave veterans rot. Another reason to shoot illegals, kill them. bring back drawing and quartering PUBLICLY for these scum, there is no punishment severe enough,
you fascist. You should be ashamed of yourself , You represent everything that's wrong with America, Here's one for ya: Why don't you go back to the fridge, get another box of bon-bons, stuff your gullet and wash it down with petrouli (sp) oil, Fagg_t, fagg_t, fagg_t, Another reason to shoot illegals, They never give up their diabolic pursuit of evil. It must be in their blood or they must be possessed , If each of us, the properly oriented Americans were to go out and kill just one Kassandraplex, Kimberly or liberalgood(bad)man America would be a beautiful place once again.


When will they wake up and see that conservatives are not their enemy?

I don't think conservatives are in much danger of being quieted, or even decent, although it seems that they thrive on paranoia.