|you might be a CONSERVATIVE if.....||bluebianchi|
Jan 9, 2003 3:23 PM
|You hate big government and excessive spending, but favor a Dept. of Homeland Security, combining 17 federal agencies in the biggest bureaucracy ever, at a cost of $40 billion
You think tax cuts are the answer, regardless of the question
You loudly complain about every cent spent on education, health care, or social programs, but favor giving the Pentagon a blank check
You think a good vice president stays in an undisclosed location and only comes out of hiding to fundraise for Republicans
You think there is no connection between four months of war threats from the president, and the failure of the economy to recover
You think Jesse Helms was a model legislator
You've forgotten that Osama bin Laden is still on the loose- you just want to kick Saddam's butt. You don't need any evidence of weapons of mass destruction, or links to al-Qaeda.
You think that taxes don't provide any useful social services-- and would never admit it if you did
You think corporate welfare and tax breaks are good economic policy, but think poor people on welfare are ripping you off
You think the Monica Lewinsky scandal was a greater threat to democracy than the Iran-Contra scandal
You favor fiscal responsibility, but think Bush's deficit is a respectful tip of the hat to the Reagan era
You think Star Wars is a good idea, regardless of feasibility or cost
You think Iraq is a greater threat than North Korea
You know that only Congress can declare war, but it's OK if they hand that power over to the executive branch
You're elated by the rise of Iran-Contra figures like John Poindexter and Elliot Abrams, and hope Bush fires Colin Powell and appoints Ollie North as Secretary of State
You're bitter because some of your tax money is going to educate other people's kids
You think ANY action is justifiable, as long as it's in the name of "national security"
You took the president's public roundtable on "corporate responsibility" seriously
You think corporations always have the public's best interest in mind, and there's no such thing as a "good" government regulation
You think that any science which incorporates uncertainty is "junk science"
You think that cheap gasoline is every American's God-given right, and scream bloody murder when the price goes up a nickel- because your SUV only gets 10 mpg
You favor oil drilling on public land and cutting research funding for alternative energy sources
You think gays and lesbians chose to be that way, and that they can be "cured"
You think public transportation is a Communist plot
You're against abortion regardless of the situation, but in favor of capital punishment, even if it means the government kills a few innocent, falsely convicted people
You're an NRA member, and think NRA rallies following gun violence like Columbine are a good idea
You know that there must be reasons why gun violence is so much higher in the U.S. than in other countries, but none of those reasons has to do with guns
You think that civil liberties are for other people
You think posting the Ten Commandments in public buildings will improve "morals"-- despite the fact that 1-4 have nothing to do with civil law, and prohibition against killing comes in at a rather tardy #6
You think Bill Clinton is on the far left of the political spectrum
You think "under God" has been a part of the Pledge of Allegiance since the time of Moses
You think alternative energy is hopelessly unrealistic, but that Star Wars is almost ready
You think there's hard evidence for Creationism, and that it should be taught instead of evolution, which is just a "theory"
|Nice job. I was going to get to that this weekend, but...||cory|
Jan 9, 2003 4:21 PM
|you've pretty well covered it.|
|1 or 2 good ones, the others are weak............nm||chopper|
Jan 9, 2003 4:28 PM
|You might be a Conservative if you have a sense of humor ;-)||Alpedhuez55|
Jan 9, 2003 8:11 PM
|I agree with chopper, there were a couple of ones that were OK but most were pretty lame or just plain wrong. I liked the Pledge/Moses one the best. Most Liberals should be able to look at the list Doug posted the other day and laugh. Just like Rednecks can laugh at Jeff Foxworthy.
Also, I can give you Sen. John Kerry's home address if you want to spray paint "No Blood for Oil on it". If I had a dollar for every SUV with a Gore/Leiberman or other democratic Bumper sticker on it here in Massachusetts, I could buy a New Jersey Senate Seat. Also tell Ted Kenneddy to stop opposing the wind farm off the coast of Cape Cod if he is going to say were are to dependent on foreign oil. I guess alternative energy is ok unless it gets in the way of his yacht. On my drive to work this morning I got a chuckle out of a Hummer with a Greenpeace bumper sticker on it. Though it could have been a new Solar Prototype.
This was a weak response to a funny post. Try to tweak it a bit and I am sure you can get a few laughs out of everyone. Some from the other post will work better with minor teaking:
- If you think that the American Dream could have only been accomplished in the '80s.
- You believe the American Civil Liberties Union helps criminals while the National Rifle Association protects the innocent.
- If you refer to listening to Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly as "equal time".
- You think Jessie Jackson a racist but Trent Lott isn't.
- You think the middle class Tax Cut was a myth created by Bill Clinton. Wait, that really was a myth created by Bill Clinton.
If you tried to make us laugh, you could have done better. If you tried to convince us that your arguments hold water, you failed at that as well. Keep trying though. The world could use a funny liberal. Except the ones who are unintentionally funny unintentionally like Al Sharpton in a Jogging suit, Al Gore pitching a tent on a magazine cover or Barbara Streisand before we realize she is actually trying to be serious ;)
|You might be a Conservative if you have a sense of humor ;-)||mickey-mac|
Jan 9, 2003 8:27 PM
|"The world could use a funny liberal."
How about Al Franken for starters?
Jan 10, 2003 6:23 AM
|I think his conservative bashing stems from the "Al Franken Decade" becoming the "Reagan Years" ;) I used to like Frankin an Davis back in the the old SNL days. As for the last 15 years he has been OK. He did a dead on Paul Simon in 88 & Paul Tsongas in 92. The Stuart Smally was pretty funny for about 3 SNL skits in the 90's but was way overdone. I have not read his whole book "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot", just some bits and peices. Some of it was funny and insightful, but he cannot approach the level of P.J. O'Rourke. THat TV show he he did a few years ago was pretty weak though.
Yes there are funny liberals. Robin Williams is pretty funny politically. Whoopie Goldberg can be at times as well. Most of her political satire falls short though and she tends to just use too many insults. Gallagher is an underated political satirist and can be pretty funny without using the Sledge-o-matic. Though he is more antiestablishment than liberal. He makes some very good observations. I am sure I could come up with few others as well.
THe liberals have been trying for years to come up with an answer to Rush Limbaugh's mix of humor and politics but have not come up with one yet. People like Tom Leykis, Al Franken, Stephanie Miller, & Bill Maher have all tried in different mediums but they have not had anyone able to catch on.
Jan 10, 2003 6:41 AM
|I'm sorry, but there is absolutely NOTHING funny about Whoopie Goldberg. Almost everything she has done has been stupid, both as an actor and as an activist. She IS liberal though, that's for sure. As a person, she's almost as annoying as Richard Dreyfuss (also amazingly liberal), if that's possible. (The only movie he was ever good in was "What about Bob?" because you were SUPPOSED to hate him in that one...)
Now that I think about it, who in Hollywood ISN'T liberal? Off the top of my head, the only ones I can think of are Jerry Mathers, Tom Selleck (sort of), Charlton Heston, and Arnold Schwarzenegger (who is semi-conservative). Not a very long list. I would venture a guess that the list of conservatives in hollywood is about as short as the list of conservatives in the news media.
|Add Mel Gibson to the good guy list.||No_sprint|
Jan 10, 2003 8:02 AM
|Andy Garcia too I think.|
Jan 10, 2003 8:10 AM
|Personally, I think Whoopie's funniest moments were the days after her then boyfriend Ted Danson wore Blackface at her Friars Club roast. Nothing as fun as watching a couple of liberal hypocrits squirm. But she has done a couple of movies such as "Sister Act" that were OK and can be funny in small doses.
Alec Baldwin is the one who gets on my nerves. Wasn't he supposed to move to France when Bush won? Can we hold him to that? THough he is actually very funny on SNL. I love the Schwetty Balls & Weiner, Military Officer and gay scout troop leader skits he did. His best movie moment was when Canda bombed the Baldwin Mansion in the South Park Movie though but he was not really in that.
As for other hollywood conservatives, you can add Bruce Willis, Chuck Norris & Mel Gibson to the list to name a few. Cannot think of any others at the moment. Arnold is my favorite member of the Kennedy Clan and if he ran last year, would probably be Governor of California right now.
|it was a good attempt -- I'll try a few||DougSloan|
Jan 9, 2003 8:33 PM
|Hey, all I did was copy and paste. This takes work to be good.
You might be conservative if:
*You cried at Reagan's first inaugural speech.
*You think liberals only burn flags, and can't possibly be patriotic.
*You don't think Rush tells you what to think, but he just articulates it better.
*You don't understand why all minorities are not Republicans.
*You have a "Support your local police" sticker on your pickup bumper, right next to the NRA member sticker.
*You think the 2nd Amendment was divinely inspired (it must be in the Bible somewhere).
*You think "extremism in the defense of liberty" doesn't apply to Democrats.
*You think the military will make a man out of anyone.
*You have sworn off Jane Fonda movies since she committed an act of treason.
*You think AIDS is punishment for being gay.
*You think the whales really should be saved, but can't stand the people saving them.
*If you don't own a business, you're the enemy.
*You think G. Gordon Liddy and Ollie North sacrificed for their country.
*You think only Clinton would have bombed something to draw attention away from his failings.
*You think the sole purpose of the ACLU is to get criminals out of jail.
*You actually get mad when you see that Darwin/fish bumper sticker and consider ramming the car with your truck or SUV.
(No, I don't believe all these - just trying to poke fun at ourselves.)
Jan 9, 2003 6:03 PM
|Sorry, knee-jerk but ineffective. And to think, I was prepared to laugh.|
|More like "you might be a REPUBLICAN if.....||Matno|
Jan 9, 2003 8:45 PM
|Conservative and Republican are not interchangeable. Especially not when you consider liberal Republicans like our current president. Not even CLOSE to conservative. No true conservative would ever support a Homeland Defense agency.
Some of those fit for conservatives though. We could sure use more Jesse Helms's... :^)
|fascist - nm||MJ|
Jan 10, 2003 1:40 AM
Jan 10, 2003 6:34 AM
|Maybe you replied to the wrong post? Many people's view of the political spectrum has been distorted by the "right-left" spectrum. In reality, one end of the spectrum is anarchy, while fascism and communism are on the other end (in principle, they really are very close to the same).
Of course, you could have been referring to Bush's homeland security package, which could certainly be viewed as fascist. No true conservative would support that kind of a consolidation of power into one agency. Of course, I don't agree with the existence of most federal administrative agencies in the first place...
|don't know where this fascist thing comes from||DougSloan|
Jan 10, 2003 7:11 AM
|Fascism is totalitarian control by the state. Republicans/conservatives typically want less control by the state, and Liberals more. Trying to use the term as a slur against conservatives just doesn't make sense. I've heard a number of people refer to Rush as a fascist. Huh?? If anyone really listened to him, he's pretty far toward libertarian on the political spectrum. Goofy.
|Maybe because Mussolini said:||OldEdScott|
Jan 10, 2003 8:10 AM
|"Fascism, which is not afraid to call itself reactionary... does not hesitate to call itself illiberal and anti-liberal."
|Off the Web ...||OldEdScott|
Jan 10, 2003 8:19 AM
|"Fascism is reaction," said Mussolini, but reaction to what? The reactionary movement following World War I was based on a rejection of the social theories that formed the basis of the 1789 French Revolution, and whose early formulations in this country had a major influence on our Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights.
It was Rousseau who is best known for crystallizing these modern social theories in . The progeny of these theories are sometimes called Modernism or Modernity because they challenged social theories generally accepted since the days of Machiavelli. The response to the French Revolution and Rousseau, by Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche, and others, poured into an intellectual stew which served up Marxism, socialism, national socialism, fascism, modern liberalism, modern conservatism, communism, and a variety of forms of capitalist participatory democracy.
Fascists particularly loathed the social theories of the French Revolution and its slogan: "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity."
*** Liberty from oppressive government intervention in the daily lives of its citizens, from illicit searches and seizures, from enforced religious values, from intimidation and arrest for dissenters; and liberty to cast a vote in a system in which the majority ruled but the minority retained certain inalienable rights.
*** Equality in the sense of civic equality, egalitarianism, the notion that while people differ, they all should stand equal in the eyes of the law.
*** Fraternity in the sense of the brotherhood of mankind. That all women and men, the old and the young, the infirm and the healthy, the rich and the poor, share a spark of humanity that must be cherished on a level above that of the law, and that binds us all together in a manner that continuously re-affirms and celebrates life. (E
i For good or ill, centrists and liberals see the far right in this country as essentailly subscribing the the stuff above -- hence, 'fascists.'
|My favorite is...||Matno|
Jan 10, 2003 8:52 AM
|how liberals like to lump conservatives, fascists, and Nazi's together, while at the same time promoting socialists theories. They seem to forget that "Nazi" comes from "National Sozialisten" or the Socialist party in Germany. They try to justify the "difference" by saying that Nazi Germany fought against the Communists in Russia (also "Socialists"). The only real difference was who was in power. Fascism is really just a slightly distorted form of Communism, while Socialism IS communism to a slightly lesser degree. The Cold War may not have been ideal, but at least then most people realized that Communism is evil. How quickly we seem to forget. (My other favorite is when liberals say "Communism is dead" or refer to the "Fall of Communism." Tell that to the Chinese. Heck, tell that to any Russian who has tried to start a capitalist business. The same people are in control who were in control during the Cold War. They just put out a different image).
Also, keep in mind that "conservative" and "liberal" mean different things at different times and in different places. 150 years ago, you were "liberal" if you thought slaves should be free and women should vote.
|maybe a simple definition will help||DougSloan|
Jan 10, 2003 9:34 AM
|One entry found for fascism.
Main Entry: fas·cism
Pronunciation: 'fa-"shi-z&m also 'fa-"si-
Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control
While conservatives typically are for a strong defense, the "centralized autocratic government" aspect of the term is far more applicable to liberals.
Jan 10, 2003 9:43 AM
|As the definition says, fascism is racist, which liberals are not, it glorifies militarization, which liberals do not, is nationalistic, which we 'one-worlder diversity liberals' are not, and wants a dictator, which liberals absolutely do not.
A strong central government providing social services and promoting social equality (what liberals want) is hardly the same as a racist, militaristic dictatorship, for god's sake. The best we can manage is bungling bleeding heart bureaucracy!
Even when I disagree with you, which is often, I usually admire your logic. Here, though, you're way off base.
|No Liberal racists?||Alpedhuez55|
Jan 10, 2003 10:45 AM
|I wish I could find that picture of Ted Danson in Blackface. Also black liberals can be racists too. Is calling Colin Powell, J.C. Watts or Condie Rice and Uncle Tom a racist statement? Of course it is. And it is not racist for Bill Clinton to play golf at a "Whites Only" country Club because he is a Liberal.
Boston is one of the most liberal cities in the country, and was one of the most racist cities as well. Sure most of them will "Celebrate Diverstiy". That is until someone of a different color tried to move next door to them. Just visit the South Boston or Charlestown sections of Boston. I will say it has gotten a little better in the last decade though. Except it a gay Irishman wants to walk in a St. Patricks Day Parade.
There are racists & bigots on both the left and right wing. You are implying that only conservatives are racists and that statement is wrong and way off base. Racists come in all political affiliations, nationalities and colors.
|Implied, said, believe no such thing.||OldEdScott|
Jan 10, 2003 11:07 AM
|Where are the close readers today?
Was responding to a preposterous post from Doug that said the tenets of liberalism reflect the tenets of fascism. I pointed out that racism is a central tenet of fascism. Racism is NOT a central tenet of liberalism, and in fact as a political philosophy it abhors racism.
Obviously, there are racist liberals. There are racist nuns, Quakers and Zen priests too. But it's not in their core belief system to be so. Nor is it a core liberal belief.
Slam liberals if it makes you feel better, but that's not what I was arguing.
|Where are the close readers today?||DougSloan|
Jan 10, 2003 12:32 PM
|Now you are misreading; here is what I said:
>"Fascism is totalitarian control by the state. Republicans/conservatives typically want less control by the state, and Liberals more. Trying to use the term as a slur against conservatives just doesn't make sense. I've heard a number of people refer to Rush as a fascist. Huh?? If anyone really listened to him, he's pretty far toward libertarian on the political spectrum. Goofy."
That does not say "the tenets of liberalism reflect the tenets of fascism." I simply contrasted the "control" issue.
|I was responding to your 'definition' post, not this one.||OldEdScott|
Jan 10, 2003 12:59 PM
|You're not reading closely either! ;-)
You plucked the single tenet of autocratic control from the definition and tied it to liberalism. It seemed preposterous to tie the two together, since they are in almost all ways polar opposites. I simply pulled the rest of the tenets of fascism from the definition you provided, and showed they were wildly in opposition to liberalism.
If I misrepresented you, I certainly apologize.
Jan 10, 2003 1:07 PM
|That post refers to the same thing, centralized control. Seem my other post below.
My point was not so much concerning liberalism at all, but that conservativism is missing a critical element of fascism, a desire for "strong centralized control" (and that, incidentally, that characteristic is more associated with liberals). Make sense?
|Not to be contradictory...||Matno|
Jan 10, 2003 12:46 PM
|but, I guess this is...
"Reverse discrimination" seems to be a core tenet of liberalism. The most blatant (disgusting) racists in our country are Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. They have done more to widen the racial divide in our country than any white-supremacist groups could ever hope to.
As to Doug's "preposterous post," I think what he was pointing out (Doug, correct me if I'm wrong) was that both fascism and modern liberalism include major oppression of individual rights and freedoms. When you look at it from that point of view, Republican ideas like a homeland security agency are, in fact, liberal in the extreme and very dangerous if we wish to preserve individual liberties in this country. Yes, I think big gov't is bad, and yes, I'm conservative. But I also feel like we should make policy decisions based on long-term impact, not short-term relief. The only reason this country is as great as it is is because it went through decades of economic turmoil to achieve greatness. People seem to think that we can get out of the hole we've created (with our social security program, for example) without a major (temporary) downside. It's not possible, which is why I have little hope that we will ever get off this slippery slope. People aren't willing to sacrifice for the good of all when they can't see beyond their next handout/grant/subsidy/etc.
Jan 10, 2003 12:53 PM
|What I simply meant was that liberalism is more like fascism than conservativism is concerning the "strong central control" issue. Conservatives tend to be more federalist. That's not to equate liberalism with fascism, but in that respect it is closer.
Conservatives tend to support strong national defense. Until recently, that meant focusing almost solely on issues abroad. Now, the enemy has penetrated our borders and is using our own means against us. "Defense" means something different now.
I do agree that solutions are far too often too short term. I suppose that will necessarily be true, given our election cycles.
Jan 10, 2003 11:27 AM
|It looks to me like the political spectrum is a loop. The Libertarians look to me like they're so liberal they're conservative or maybe vice-versa.|
|It gets that way. True Libertarians are||OldEdScott|
Jan 10, 2003 11:35 AM
|pretty consistent. The want government off our backs, period. That means letting free enterprise rip, like the regular conservatives want. But it also means letting people take drugs and have any kind of sex they want, which the regular conservatives aren't real fond of. You can flip those last two sentences and insert 'liberals' and it's the same.
Liberals tend to be just 'lifestyle' libertarians. Conservatives tend to be just economic libertarians. Real libertarians combine both, so nobody in the mainsteam liberal-conservative spectrum knows what to make of them.
Jan 10, 2003 12:51 PM
|"Liberals tend to be just 'lifestyle' libertarians. Conservatives tend to be just economic libertarians."
Never seen anyone put it so clearly, but you're right on point. Of course, I agree with the Libertarians' economic policies (in spite of the fact that I majored in Econ). Too bad nobody will vote for politicians whose policy is "leave the economy alone," because that's really what we need.
On the other hand, the problem with the "liberal" side of Libertarianism is that it fails to recognize the harm that takes place from such unrestricted activity. For example, there is ample evidence that both porn and drug use have major negative effects (and not just to the people who indulge in them). Libertarian philosophy should, in theory, protect against that kind of thing, but many of them fail to see the secondary harms.
If only we lived in a world of perfect information. (Didn't somebody make a comment about Liberals always making assumptions? I thought that was economists...)
|I think you nailed it.||DougSloan|
Jan 10, 2003 12:56 PM
|If I could ask Rush to elaborate on one issue, it would be this: "How would you reconcile the libertarian and religious wings of the Republican Party?" It's a tough issue.
|re: you might be a Liberal if.....||rrodrigz|
Jan 10, 2003 7:28 AM
|*You automatically assume you are smarter than conservatives
*you automatically assume that you are a good person
*Therefore, if a a conservative disagrees with you he is either stupid or a bad person
*you automatically assume that wanting to help is the same as helping
*you automatically assume a lot of things ,which explains why you are so comfortable with your views, but so befuddled as to why conservatives "don't get it"
|two more||Duane Gran|
Jan 10, 2003 8:03 AM
|* You have ever used the phrase "moral fiber of this nation" in a sentence
* Ever said, "poverty, shmoverty"
Jan 10, 2003 8:20 AM
|Good ones, and you reminded me of an oldy but goody
* If you follow your moral compass
* If you refer to yourself as a Dittohead
|One for each side to consider||torquer|
Jan 10, 2003 9:07 AM
|I didn't find much wit in the original, "liberal" posting, but after a few promising zingers early in this one I felt disappointed (if not totally surprised) to see that progressives could be just as humorless and mean-spirited as those on the other side of the debate.
That said, let me repost an item from each message, which raise interesting issues:
For us "liberals" to ponder:
"If you think burning the United States flag should be Constitutionally protected but burning a cross should be outlawed."
And for you "reactionaries" to think about (concerning the posting of the ten commandments):
"prohibition against killing comes in at a rather tardy #6"
My question for your consideration:
Should a defendant accused of a capital crime in the courtroom of the Alabama judge who posted them rest assured that no death penalty will be imposed?
|Well, as what might be considered a liberal,||OldEdScott|
Jan 10, 2003 9:35 AM
|I think burning a cross on private property with the permission of the owner is protected speech. I do find it more personally offensive than flag burning, because flag burning is so clearly political and involves no personal threat of harm. Cross burning has a dark element of personal threat that I find troubling.
I concede it's a bit of a stretch to say cross burning is political, but it can be, and it's a close enough call that I'd tend to err on the side of the First Amendment.
As for the defendant, the argument will be that a death penalty arrived at through due legal process differs materially from murder -- and that the 6th Commandment is referring to murder. The Alabama judge would certainly feel so. I'm not sure it's a good question.
|Re: Well, as what might be considered a liberal,||torquer|
Jan 10, 2003 11:38 AM
|I realized after posting that, like you, that paradigm of liberalism, the ACLU, defends both flag- and cross-burning, so the original suggestion of hypocracy (or at least inconsistency) in "liberal" positions is somewhat off-base. Neither "liberalism" nor "conservatism" are monolithic, of course, so some inconsistencies or internal debates will always be available for the other side's rhetorical advantage.
As far as the ten commandments, I recall that the language was "Thou shalt not kill", at least as translated; does the original (Hebrew?, Aramaic?) differenciate between private and judicial killing? Does "thou" refer only to the laity, not the rulers? Were there some ammendments they skipped over in Sunday School?
Further, I chose "capital crime", not murder, as the offense. The only non-murder example I can think of is espionage/treason (i.e. the Rosenbergs), which of course would not be subject to Alabama justice, but who knows, everyone says Dubya could have some Supreme Court vacancies to fill, and what better way to mend fences with his angry white southern male power base after the Trent Lott drama than to nominate this yokel...
But I digress :=).
Apologies if I've offended any AWSM's.
Jan 10, 2003 1:08 PM
|The original Hebrew does distinguish between "judicial" killing and murder. The commandment in question clearly refers to murder. (Otherwise the Bible would be very contradictory in that the "judicial death penalty" was commanded under the Law of Moses).|
Jan 10, 2003 1:22 PM
|The ACLU is much more principled than liberals in general. Could you imagine Jesse Jackson pleading for the right of the KKK to march?
I do admire their consistency and intellectual honesty, even if not all their positions. They are very consistent and strong on freedom of speech issues, even if it pisses off the rest of the left.