Perverted, God-Hating Frenchies vs. Inbred, Sex-Obsessed Yokels

[Coyote]

Perverted, God-Hating Frenchies vs. Inbred, Sex-Obsessed Yokels
Why can't liberals and conservatives get along? Because they fundamentally misunderstand each other.
Steven Waldman

I was waiting to go on a conservative talk radio show and heard the host say that John Kerry and his supporters "have no God" because they don't stand up to evil. He went on to claim that "even the mention of God terrifies them." As for religious people who go to church regularly but vote Democratic, he said, "I see them as sort of phonies."

Then I came on, and his question to me was, "Why do secular people think we're all a bunch of intolerant people?"

I've heard similarly clueless statements from liberals who simultaneously talk about the need for fairness then compare the Bush administration to the Taliban or the Nazis.

I'm not going to attempt to bring peace to the land right now but thought it might be worthwhile to sketch the top ways that liberals misunderstand well-meaning religious conservatives, and vice versa.

TRUTH ABOUT LIBERALS #1
They're Just As Moral As Conservatives

We've seen a wave of commentary suggesting that George W. Bush's re-election was a victory of people who cared about morality over those who didn't. "As a class, liberals no longer are merely the vigorous opponents of the Right; they are spiteful enemies of civilization's core decency and traditions," writes Mike Thompson, in Human Events Online. Columnist Ben Giles spelled out liberal depravity with greater specificity. "I'm sure the Kerry cabal has a lot to say regarding...conducting an orgy, the preeminent natural herb for curbing the side effects of herpes, how to pick out the right stripper and midget for a ménage à trois, how to redistribute someone else's wealth to pimps, whores and welfare brats, how to rid one's nation of Judeo-Christian ethics..."

The idea that this was a victory for people who care about morality over those who don't is galling to liberals because, for many of them, the number one issue in this election was Iraq -- and their opposition to the incumbent administration was almost entirely grounded in moral concerns. It's not like liberals objected because their own family members were dying. Rather, they believe that launching any war unless absolutely justified is profoundly immoral, a position also articulated by the Pope. One can disagree, but I would love the opportunity to watch Anne Coulter tell the Pope his opposition to the war isn't based on morality. Liberals also believe that a morally indefensible policy was sold dishonestly - a gross moral breach compounded by another.

Conservatives ask why the opposition to Bush seems hateful. The answer: liberals believe that what Bush did is worse than what other presidents, Democratic or Republican, have done because it involves the unnecessary and therefore immoral shedding of human blood.


TRUTH ABOUT CONSERVATIVES #1
They're Just As Smart As Liberals

Liberals tend to view people who take the Bible very seriously as yokels opposed to science, knowledge and thinking. New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd said the Bush administration is about "replacing science with religion, and facts with faith. We're entering another dark age, more creationist than cutting edge." Novelist Jane Smiley declared the election a triumph for the forces of "ignorance." Privately, liberals friends have told me that Bush voters are "morons," "idiots" and "peanut heads." The idea that red state voters chose Bush because they're ignorant or uneducated is bigoted, not to mention inaccurate. The least educated voters, people with no high school diploma favored Kerry 50%-49%.

Conversely, most people who are highly educated are quite religious too: 72% percent of people with post-graduate degrees believed in miracles and 78% percent believe in the survival of the soul after death. Liberals can't mock religious people as dumb when they disagree with them but hail their wisdom when they're liberals like Jimmy Carter. This intellectual snobbery is a major reason why religious conservatives distrust liberal elites.


TRUTH ABOUT LIBERALS #2
Most Are Religious

A conventional wisdom has developed that almost all religious people voted for Bush and most people who voted for Kerry were secular or anti-Christian. The Republican Party sent out brochures in West Virginia and Kentucky saying liberals wanted to ban the Bible, Dr. James Dobson recently called a liberal senator a "Gods' people hater" and Republican convention keynoter Zell Miller's said of columnist Maureen Dowd, "You can see horns just sprouting up through that Technicolor hair."

However, not only are liberals not, by and large, Satanic or anti-Bible, they're mostly quite religious. Voters who went to church monthly split 50%-49% for Bush and Kerry. Those who go to church "occasionally" went for Kerry 53%-47%, while people who attend church weekly went for Bush 58%-41%. More important, 61% of Democrats pray daily, 59% are "certain" there's life after death, and most believe in God. The spiritual lives of Democrats are, statistically speaking, somewhat less based in houses of worship than those of Republicans but they are believers nonetheless.

When Democrats hear conservatives accuse them of being anti-religion it sounds like what they're really saying is that Democrats don't practice the right kind of religion -- that they are, as my talk radio friend put it, "a bunch of phonies." This is a direct attack on the nature of liberals' relationship with God or spirituality.


TRUTH ABOUT CONSERVATIVES #2
They Don't Want a Religious Dictatorship

Liberal columnist E.R. Shipp said conservatives wanted a "Christian Jihad." The Village Voice declared Bush had a "mandate for theocracy." Others have compared the current administration to the Taliban. This is profoundly insulting to most conservative Republicans in the same way it is insulting to liberals when they are called Communists or defenders of terrorism. Yes, religious conservatives want a greater role in public life -- perhaps more than liberals want or the Constitution allows -- but President Bush's faith based initiative is highly pluralistic and he has spoken out for religious tolerance. Equating him or his supporters with regimes that execute dissidents or blow up buildings is heinous.


TRUTH ABOUT LIBERALS #3
They Believe History Is On the Side of Tolerance

Conservatives contend that liberals believe in moral relativism, and, to be sure, there is a tendency for liberals to avoid accusing people of moral wrongdoing. Conservatives say this proves liberals are immoral or amoral. In fact, what's happened is that liberals have elevated "tolerance" as the value that trumps many others, an essential and ethical way of coping with life in an increasingly diverse nation. Most liberals who support gay partnership rights are not themselves homosexual but believe in the right of people to determine their own lives. Conservatives appropriately argue that it's OK to be intolerant of some things -- even liberals wouldn't tolerate, say, murder. But that means the debate is really over how to weigh one value (tolerance) over another value (traditional family) -- not over whether one side cares about values and the other doesn't.

There's something else that needs to be said. Liberals believe that historically red state conservatives were on the wrong side of the civil rights struggle (first as conservative Democrats and then as Republicans) and that they opposed much of the campaign for equal rights for women that enabled Condoleezza Rice to be National Security Advisor and Sandra Day O'Connor to be on the Supreme Court. So when conservatives oppose gay rights, liberals see history repeating itself. To grossly caricature both sides, liberals may have been wrong about the Soviet Union but conservatives were wrong about civil rights and women's rights. Liberals look at gay marriage opponents and say, to paraphrase Reagan, there they go again.


TRUTH ABOUT CONSERVATIVES #3
The Pro-Life Position Is Born of Compassion

Liberals tend to think that right to life activists are motivated by a desire to control women's bodies or sex lives, and to impose a religious doctrine. Whether you agree with it or not, the heart of the pro-life position is the belief that life begins at conception, and therefore abortion is murder. Liberals who don't share that the foundational assumption have a hard time understanding the passion of pro-life voters. Yet they easily admire the radical abolitionists of the 1860s -- who were as "rabid" and doctrinaire in their opposition to slavery as pro-lifers are today. Liberals should ask themselves, if they honestly believed that life began at conception, wouldn't they do exactly what the pro-life forces do?

Liberals sometimes claim that the anti-abortion movement is actually a religious movement aspiring to impose a particular theology. In fact, the anti-abortion side has tended in recent years to make secular arguments. They offer pictures of fetuses at different gestational ages, not Bible verses. You can say it's ghoulish but that approach - having values shaped by religion but making arguments in non-religious terms - is exactly the way faith should be inserted into the public debates.

PART ONE

[Coyote]

PART TWO




TRUTH ABOUT LIBERALS #4
Most Support Separation of Church and State to Protect Religion

There is indeed an outspoken group of secular liberals who oppose any manifestation of religion in the public sphere because they are suspicious of religion in general, and their views are Constitutionally protected. But most liberals (and many conservatives) fret about the separation of church and state because they want to protect the free expression of religious views. Conservatives might scoff at this as an over-reaction, and perhaps it is, but for most liberals it's a view born out of a love of religious freedom.


TRUTH ABOUT CONSERVATIVES #4
They Feel Under Assault

With conservatives controlling the House, Senate, White House, and Supreme Court -- and Christians accounting for 83% of the population -- it's hard for liberals to understand how conservative Christians can feel persecuted or under attack. But religious conservatives look at this way: they have clear beliefs about what is right or wrong. They think homosexuality is wrong, for instance. They turn on the TV and see it treated as morally okeedoke, and there's nothing they can do about it. They may have the numbers but they nonetheless feel powerless against a popular culture that doesn't seem to share their values, and in the face of aggressive judges who impose their will over the objections of state legislatures.


TRUTH ABOUT LIBERALS #5
Family Values Are Revered

Telling someone they are against "family values" is not far from telling them they're bad parents. Most liberal parents (like most conservatives) spend most of their days thinking not about politics but about how to raise good kids. It's probably not worthwhile to try to figure out who is better at it but these statistics ought to at least pour cold water on conservative self righteousness on this point: of the 10 states with the highest divorce rates, ten of them voted for Bush. Of the 10 states with the lowest divorce rates, 9 of them voted for Kerry. And the state with the lowest divorce rate in the nation? Massachusetts.


TRUTH ABOUT CONSERVATIVES #5
They Believe American Culture Has Become An Insult to God

Liberals look at the fervor of the anti-gay marriage movement and wonder: why do they care so much? Are they just obsessed with sex? What that fails to understand is that for many religious conservatives the stakes could not possibly be higher. They believe that in condoning legalized abortion or gay unions or even out of wedlock heterosexual sex, America is messing with morality as outlined in the Bible and so attacking God. As anyone who takes the Old Testament seriously knows, the consequences of that could not be more enormous.


On both sides, discourse now moves swiftly from disagreement into demonizing, from contrast to caricature. The worst motives are always assumed. Both camps have polemicists who win popularity, ratings, and book sales by devising ever more clever ways of ripping the eyelids off their opponents. We all know the visceral satisfactions of hanging out with our home-team blogs and watching the TV or radio stations that fit our worldview. Our politicians and pundits happily supply us with the voodoo dolls and the pins. But we'd be smarter not to use them.

I'm not saying the conflicting values aren't profound and important. But I am saying that if we choose to find the legitimate underpinnings of our ideological opponents' arguments, we can. It may not be as much fun, but it is more patriotic.

[9sublime]

This is so true. Justinian, for one, always accuses me of wanting to destroy the moral fabric of our society and make some kind of atheist satanic orgy. Actually, I want religion to be a private matter, and I want my rights upheld, whilst keeping a high sense of morality for other human beings.

Not that much to ask is it?

[USMC the Almighty]

Nice posts. I don't really have a lot of commentary on it, but I thought it was a worthwhile read.

[DrWho]

PART TWO




TRUTH ABOUT LIBERALS #4
Most Support Separation of Church and State to Protect Religion

There is indeed an outspoken group of secular liberals who oppose any manifestation of religion in the public sphere because they are suspicious of religion in general, and their views are Constitutionally protected. But most liberals (and many conservatives) fret about the separation of church and state because they want to protect the free expression of religious views. Conservatives might scoff at this as an over-reaction, and perhaps it is, but for most liberals it's a view born out of a love of religious freedom.


TRUTH ABOUT CONSERVATIVES #4
They Feel Under Assault

With conservatives controlling the House, Senate, White House, and Supreme Court -- and Christians accounting for 83% of the population -- it's hard for liberals to understand how conservative Christians can feel persecuted or under attack. But religious conservatives look at this way: they have clear beliefs about what is right or wrong. They think homosexuality is wrong, for instance. They turn on the TV and see it treated as morally okeedoke, and there's nothing they can do about it. They may have the numbers but they nonetheless feel powerless against a popular culture that doesn't seem to share their values, and in the face of aggressive judges who impose their will over the objections of state legislatures.


TRUTH ABOUT LIBERALS #5
Family Values Are Revered

Telling someone they are against "family values" is not far from telling them they're bad parents. Most liberal parents (like most conservatives) spend most of their days thinking not about politics but about how to raise good kids. It's probably not worthwhile to try to figure out who is better at it but these statistics ought to at least pour cold water on conservative self righteousness on this point: of the 10 states with the highest divorce rates, ten of them voted for Bush. Of the 10 states with the lowest divorce rates, 9 of them voted for Kerry. And the state with the lowest divorce rate in the nation? Massachusetts.


TRUTH ABOUT CONSERVATIVES #5
They Believe American Culture Has Become An Insult to God

Liberals look at the fervor of the anti-gay marriage movement and wonder: why do they care so much? Are they just obsessed with sex? What that fails to understand is that for many religious conservatives the stakes could not possibly be higher. They believe that in condoning legalized abortion or gay unions or even out of wedlock heterosexual sex, America is messing with morality as outlined in the Bible and so attacking God. As anyone who takes the Old Testament seriously knows, the consequences of that could not be more enormous.


On both sides, discourse now moves swiftly from disagreement into demonizing, from contrast to caricature. The worst motives are always assumed. Both camps have polemicists who win popularity, ratings, and book sales by devising ever more clever ways of ripping the eyelids off their opponents. We all know the visceral satisfactions of hanging out with our home-team blogs and watching the TV or radio stations that fit our worldview. Our politicians and pundits happily supply us with the voodoo dolls and the pins. But we'd be smarter not to use them.

I'm not saying the conflicting values aren't profound and important. But I am saying that if we choose to find the legitimate underpinnings of our ideological opponents' arguments, we can. It may not be as much fun, but it is more patriotic.

Hear Hear!

[Coyote]

This is so true. Justinian, for one, always accuses me of wanting to destroy the moral fabric of our society and make some kind of atheist satanic orgy. Actually, I want religion to be a private matter, and I want my rights upheld, whilst keeping a high sense of morality for other human beings.

Not that much to ask is it?

I don't think so....

[DrWho]

This is so true. Justinian, for one, always accuses me of wanting to destroy the moral fabric of our society and make some kind of atheist satanic orgy. Actually, I want religion to be a private matter, and I want my rights upheld, whilst keeping a high sense of morality for other human beings.

Not that much to ask is it?

You want religion to be a private matter while some of the religious peopl want a persons sexual orientaton to be a private matter.

we just all have to accept that other peoples ideas and lifestyles cannot be divorced from who they are and they will all be public to a degree.

It actually scares me when you say you want it to be a private matter because when people like dawkins say that they want religion to be basically quarantined to homes and churces.

[Dave]

Good article. If I had one problem with it, I would have to say it uses the religious-right as a definition for what conservatism is.

[Segep]

Very good article. Thanks, Coyote :)

[9sublime]

You want religion to be a private matter while some of the religious peopl want a persons sexual orientaton to be a private matter.

we just all have to accept that other peoples ideas and lifestyles cannot be divorced from who they are and they will all be public to a degree.

It actually scares me when you say you want it to be a private matter because when people like dawkins say that they want religion to be basically quarantined to homes and churces.

Where else does religion need to be apart from a church and a home? And if a person is gay, they will be activley seeking out a partner, so they will need to show some kind of sign that they are homosexual. And I'm sure you wouldn't ban a man and a woman kissing in public, but you would have an issue with a man and a man?

[dls]

Good read.
In a nutshell we have far right and left propaganda with the greatest majority of us being moderates caught in between with no good place to turn.
With both sides refusing to find middle ground we the people are stuck in the quagmire called politics.

[vyo476]

In light of the recent rash of partisanship on the board, I thought it'd be a good time to bring this thread back up. It really is a great post and I'm hoping it'll help certain members of the board realize that conservatives aren't evil.

[Popeye]

In light of the recent rash of partisanship on the board, I thought it'd be a good time to bring this thread back up. It really is a great post and I'm hoping it'll help certain members of the board realize that conservatives aren't evil.

I thought that political debate, by definition, required some partisanship. Also, not all conservatives are evil, but the ones in the White House sure are.

[Reliant]

I always liked Roget's Thesaurus' version :D ......


http://www.politicalstrikes.com/images/liberalt.jpg

[USMC the Almighty]

LIBERAL: "generous" and "charitable" with other people's money

[vyo476]

Also, not all conservatives are evil, but the ones in the White House sure are.

I was kinda hoping you'd fall into that trap :p

See, the concepts of "good" and "evil" come form the core of the concept of dualism - which is an ideology invented by the Catholic church. It's one of the reasons the Church is looked at as encouraging narrow mindedness: they invented this ideology which supports the idea that absolute values for moral and ethical correctness can be attributed to one side of a given conflict.

In other words, every time you call something evil, you're exorcising conservative Christian rhetoric.

[Reliant]

LIBERAL: "generous" and "charitable" with other people's money

Using inference logic, does this mean that, in spending trillions of dollars on an idiotic war and giving billions in military aid to the fourth largest arms exporter in the world (Israel), that Bush Republicans are "Liberal"?
Something just doesn't add up.;)

[vyo476]

I always liked Roget's Thesaurus' version :D ......


http://www.politicalstrikes.com/images/liberalt.jpg

LIBERAL: "generous" and "charitable" with other people's money

That's good, guys, let's make the problem worse.

This is how it always goes...one side attacks, the other side counters, and so begins the cycle. The whole point of this thread is to get people to understand that the differences between us are not so great.

[top gun]

That's good, guys, let's make the problem worse.

This is how it always goes...one side attacks, the other side counters, and so begins the cycle. The whole point of this thread is to get people to understand that the differences between us are not so great.

What you are saying here is true vyo (nice original post by coyote by the way) but their are basic "planks" that make up a Party's position that almost inevitably create this friction.

The truth is there is a lot of money available... I mean more money than a regular person can really imagine.

The problem is finding the correct balance. I'll give some examples:

Everyone wants a strong enough military that we are always well protected. But that doesn't mean we need a military so large that it overwhelms our country financially to a point we can't afford other very important things.

No one wants to see people suffer from old age, poverty or illness. But you have to be responsible on how you pay for these programs.

Then you get to things like abortion and the divide grows even larger... although I really do wish on this issue we could all just agree to disagree and just learn to live with individual choice as nothing is being mandated in either direction and taxpayer money is not financing it.

But I do agree to some extent. If we took abortion out of the equation and mandated that we operated on a "pay as you go" no deficit spending strategy we could come to a point where we could say together... This is how much we have to spend let's work together to divide it up in the best way.

[Popeye]

That's good, guys, let's make the problem worse.

This is how it always goes...one side attacks, the other side counters, and so begins the cycle. The whole point of this thread is to get people to understand that the differences between us are not so great.

I don't know about you, but the differences between myself and the sheep who believe the right-wing dribble from such paragons of virtue as, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, etc. are very, very great.

[vyo476]

I don't know about you, but the differences between myself and the sheep who believe the right-wing dribble from such paragons of virtue as, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, etc. are very, very great.

It's funny you should say it like that, since they'd probably call you a sheep, too. See? Not so different.

[Popeye]

It's funny you should say it like that, since they'd probably call you a sheep, too. See? Not so different.

How is that "not so different"? People on the Left don't recite, nearly verbatim, Republican hate-speech spewed forth by right-wing talk radio and Fox News.

[Reliant]

How is that "not so different"? People on the Left don't recite, nearly verbatim, Republican hate-speech spewed forth by right-wing talk radio and Fox News.

I have to agree with that. It's like a lot of Republicans can't think for themselves anymore. They need someone to tell them what to think and the likes of "Pills" Limbaugh have been very successful at steering the GOP in the wrong direction. They have been running damage control for so long they have lost touch with mainstream America.

[USMC the Almighty]

You two are hopeless. Both sides have mindless "sheep" who parrot what their respective talking heads say. Both sides also have educated people who think for themselves and consider their positions carefully.

[Reliant]

You two are hopeless. Both sides have mindless "sheep" who parrot what their respective talking heads say. Both sides also have educated people who think for themselves and consider their positions carefully.

What does the left have that can even begin to compare to Ann Coulter? I just shudder to think it may have been my tax dollars that paid for her gender reassignment treatment.

[Popeye]

What does the left have that can even begin to compare to Ann Coulter? I just shudder to think it may have been my tax dollars that paid for her gender reassignment treatment.

Not only that, but what does the Left have to compare with the hypocrisy of Rush Limbaugh, railing against the so called drug taking Left, while stuffing in oxycontins with both fat hands?

[vyo476]

What does the left have that can even begin to compare to Ann Coulter? I just shudder to think it may have been my tax dollars that paid for her gender reassignment treatment.

Well, for starters we have the two of you. Your virulent (and one-sided) dislike of all things conservative has been made plenty clear.

[USMC the Almighty]

What does the left have that can even begin to compare to Ann Coulter?

Lefties like this supporting their troops:
http://www.villainouscompany.com/vcblog/home/cassandr/public_html/vcblog/images/ShootOfficers3.gif

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/179/428346157_a9b6a09a89.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/167/428346177_e65f6d5056.jpg

[USMC the Almighty]

Not only that, but what does the Left have to compare with the hypocrisy of Rush Limbaugh, railing against the so called drug taking Left, while stuffing in oxycontins with both fat hands?

HAHAHAHA. For starters, flying their private jets and driving their SUVs all over the place to talk about the dangers of global warming.

A book "Do as I Say, Not as I Do: Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy" exposes the raging hypocrisy of many on the left, including the Clinton's, Nader, Chomsky, Michael "I own a good deal of stock in Halliburton" Moore, Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, Barbara Streishand, Al Franken, the list goes on and on.

Of course you won't read it though because you'd rather hold on to your faulty belief that hypocrisy only lies on the right side of the aisle despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

[Popeye]

HAHAHAHA. For starters, flying their private jets and driving their SUVs all over the place to talk about the dangers of global warming.

A book "Do as I Say, Not as I Do: Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy" exposes the raging hypocrisy of many on the left, including the Clinton's, Nader, Chomsky, Michael "I own a good deal of stock in Halliburton" Moore, Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, Barbara Streishand, Al Franken, the list goes on and on.

Of course you won't read it though because you'd rather hold on to your faulty belief that hypocrisy only lies on the right side of the aisle despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Ah yes, the book by Peter Schwiezer, he of a conservative think tank, he who has been praised by Bill O'Reilly of Fox News. I'm quite sure it's equally "fair and balanced".

[USMC the Almighty]

Ah yes, the book by Peter Schwiezer, he of a conservative think tank, he who has been praised by Bill O'Reilly of Fox News. I'm quite sure it's equally "fair and balanced".

So you won't read the book because it's written by a conservative individual? It still contains facts (such as pictures of Michael Moore's tax returns).

[Irishone21]

I know political forums have done a farely good job at discrediting me, but I have something to say that needs to be taken seriously. I saw Hilary and Obama reading (rather pessimistic) excerpts out of the Bible in a cloudy room on a television program... The smoke is similar to the smoke I see from time to time, especially when I pray... Nobody ever talked about this, and it pretty much occured under the radar awhile back... I connected this to the fact the Obama claimed that he thinks being saved by "Jesus" is too easy, and now the fact that he changed him mind and all the sudden turned christian brings about suspition, well at least to me... Is it possible that he could be the antichrist? I am not against him... but I'm rather concerned. Think about it... don't just laugh it off.

[Popeye]

So you won't read the book because it's written by a conservative individual? It still contains facts (such as pictures of Michael Moore's tax returns).

Why would I want to read a book that's slanted to the right? I'm already sure it's filled with half-truths and outright lies. The right has been trying to discredit Michael Moore for years and has been wholly unsuccessful, Fahrenheit 9/11 really stuck in their craw. The fact that the right dislikes him so much, shows that his films have hit them in numerable vulnerable spots.

[Reliant]

So you won't read the book because it's written by a conservative individual?

Conservatives are crazy and dangerous. There is quite a lot of psychological research done and published. Stanford did a study titled "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition".

A brief summary.....

"These things are strongly correlated
male sex
Conservative politics
adherence to right-wing ideology
homophobia
authoritarianism
cognitive rigidity
opposition to gender equality
traditional gender-role orientation
racism
variety of personal and interpersonal difficulties
intolerance to ambiguity
lack of intimacy in friendships with other men
misogyny
detesting femininity in men
exclusive masculine identity
greater rigidity and conflict in attempts to adhere to male gender norms
violence towards gays
arousal by gay male sex images
paranoia
chronic anxiety about personal achievement, competence, failure, and career and financial success
sexual coercion
hostility towards women
impaired intimacy
negative attitudes towards help seeking
low self-esteem
marital dissatisfaction
depression
authoritarian personality style
general psychological distress
psychotic thinking
obsessive-compulsive behavior
dogmatism
perception of threat by social change and instability
acceptance of relationships of domination between social groups
decreased cognitive complexity
higher need for order and structure"

When you look at the listed characteristics and observe Republican personality tendencies, you certainly see a strong correlation. I believe that conservatism is pretty closely associated with selfishism. I think the illness is selfishness and the manifestation is conservatism.

[palerider]

You want religion to be a private matter while some of the religious peopl want a persons sexual orientaton to be a private matter.

we just all have to accept that other peoples ideas and lifestyles cannot be divorced from who they are and they will all be public to a degree.

It actually scares me when you say you want it to be a private matter because when people like dawkins say that they want religion to be basically quarantined to homes and churces.

I was about to say the very same thing. Those who want religion to be a private matter should review the first amendment, especially the part about not prohibiting the free exercise of one's religion.

One thing that I noticed about the "truths" listed above is that most of the things conservatives think about liberals can be quite successfully argued and corroborated and substantiated with mountains of fact and while we have all heard the things liberals say about conservatives few of us have ever seen a liberal corroborate any of it with fact.

On another thread I saw a liberal equate the patriot act with fascism. It is clear that to him, fascism is just a word that he knows means something bad so he uses it to describe the actions of republicans but he has no idea what fascism is as a political philosophy. Any conservative, on the other hand, can draw clear parallels between modern liberalism and socialism, communism, and fascism as all three are liberal in nature.

[palerider]

Where else does religion need to be apart from a church and a home? And if a person is gay, they will be activley seeking out a partner, so they will need to show some kind of sign that they are homosexual. And I'm sure you wouldn't ban a man and a woman kissing in public, but you would have an issue with a man and a man?

The Bible calls on Christians to take the Word to all the people of the world. Not just preachers, but all Christians. Your wish to have Christians be unseen and unheard leads me to wonder to what legislative lengths you, and others who think like you would go to have your wish become reality.

[palerider]

How is that "not so different"? People on the Left don't recite, nearly verbatim, Republican hate-speech spewed forth by right-wing talk radio and Fox News.

Interesting. On another thread, you equated the patriot act with fascism. I have heard any number of liberals repeat the same thing but to date, I have not heard one liberal succesffully draw a parallel between fascism and the patriot act. I challenged you to do so on the other thread and you repeated almost verbatim, the standard liberal response to the question. You did not, however, rise to the challenge as none of the parallels you attempted to draw had anything to do with the political philosophy, or political reality of fascism.

You simply repeated, verbatim, liberal hate speach spewed forth by left wing media.

[palerider]

Ah yes, the book by Peter Schwiezer, he of a conservative think tank, he who has been praised by Bill O'Reilly of Fox News. I'm quite sure it's equally "fair and balanced".

Logical fallacy. Circumstantial Ad Hominem. Information is either true or it is not. If you are unable to prove it false, then you are logically required to accept it. The inability to effectively argue your positions is one of the greatest difference between liberals and conservatives. Most conservatives don't say things about liberals that they can't substantiate.

[palerider]

I know political forums have done a farely good job at discrediting me, but I have something to say that needs to be taken seriously. I saw Hilary and Obama reading (rather pessimistic) excerpts out of the Bible in a cloudy room on a television program... The smoke is similar to the smoke I see from time to time, especially when I pray... Nobody ever talked about this, and it pretty much occured under the radar awhile back... I connected this to the fact the Obama claimed that he thinks being saved by "Jesus" is too easy, and now the fact that he changed him mind and all the sudden turned christian brings about suspition, well at least to me... Is it possible that he could be the antichrist? I am not against him... but I'm rather concerned. Think about it... don't just laugh it off.

No. If you believe scripture, revalation in particular, the antichrist will come out of rome (or part of the old roman empire).

[palerider]

Conservatives are crazy and dangerous. There is quite a lot of psychological research done and published. Stanford did a study titled "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition".

You obviously didn't read the paper very well or were unable to comprehend what you read if you did.

As the "researchers" went merrily along their way describing these characteristics to right wingers, one of their most famous examples and case studies was one Joseph Stalin. If the most prominent communist of the 20th century was right wing, exactly what constitutes left wing? They actually called Stalin, politically right wing. That, in and of itself is sufficient to discredit their findings as they (the researchers) obviously have no clear knowledge of political philosophy.

When trying to define what conservativism is, they apparently went to a couplle of dictionaries, and asked some of their liberal cronies, but I saw nowhere in the study or in its references where they actually spoke to any conservatives. Exactly how does one do a credible psychological profile of a group without ever talking to members of that group?

The scales the researchers used were to determine which people were rightists and which were leftists sere the "F"scale, put together in the late 1940s by the (Marxist) Adorno and his group, and the RWA scale put together by Altemeyer. In general population samples using these scales, however, leftist voters are just about as likely to get high scores on both scales as Rightist voters. Isn't it interesting that when these scales are applied, Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, Musllini, and Mao all turn out to be right wingers? This would lead any rational reader to the conclusion that the traits you describe actually belong to leftists since the above people were most assuredly leftist.

If the paper accurately measures traits of any group of people, it appears that it "may" measure the traits of authoritaritan dictators and the majority of that group will certainly fall on the left.

[vyo476]

Here's something curious I just picked up off Yahoo.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070909/hl_afp/scienceneuroscience_070909173324

[USMC the Almighty]

The fact that the right dislikes him so much, shows that his films have hit them in numerable vulnerable spots.

I could say the same thing about Ann Coulter.

The left goes absolutely crazy over the very mentioning of her name. Most don't know anything about her, her columns, or her books and the ones that actually have taken the time to read some of her writing know that she's way smarter than they could ever be. Instead they resort to namecalling and vitriol on a level that I have never seen before.

[USMC the Almighty]

Conservatives are crazy and dangerous. There is quite a lot of psychological research done and published. Stanford did a study titled "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition".

And I'm sure this was extremely objective, right? :rolleyes: I shudder to think about what such a study would reveal about the libs.


When you look at the listed characteristics and observe Republican personality tendencies, you certainly see a strong correlation. I believe that conservatism is pretty closely associated with selfishism. I think the illness is selfishness and the manifestation is conservatism.

Selfish? That's why studies confirm that conservatives both give more total money and a higher percentage of their incomes to charity.

[USMC the Almighty]

And I'm sure this was extremely objective, right? :rolleyes: I shudder to think about what such a study would reveal about the libs.

I stand corrected. That was a study about lefties. Thanks palerider.

[Popeye]

Selfish? That's why studies confirm that conservatives both give more total money and a higher percentage of their incomes to charity.

Though some conservatives are charitable,the main reason the majority of right-wingers give to charity is so they can claim a tax deduction.

[Reliant]

Though some conservatives are charitable,the main reason the majority of right-wingers give to charity is so they can claim a tax deduction.

Correct. The only reason to vote republican is because conservatives are notoriously selfish and can't stand the thought of parting with any money that might be used for a charitable cause or to help a fellow American. But when it comes to their war-mongering ways, well, the sky is the limit! They will spend your cash, and the cash of your children and grandchildren to perpetuate their selfish ways.

And perverts.... well they take the cake on that one too.

"Republican anti-abortion activist Howard Scott Heldreth is a convicted child rapist in Florida.

Republican County Commissioner David Swartz pleaded guilty to molesting two girls under the age of 11 and was sentenced to 8 years in prison.

Republican judge Mark Pazuhanich pleaded no contest to fondling a 10-year old girl and was sentenced to 10 years probation.

Republican anti-abortion activist Nicholas Morency pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography on his computer and offering a bounty to anybody who murders an abortion doctor.

Republican legislator Edison Misla Aldarondo was sentenced to 10 years in prison for raping his daughter between the ages of 9 and 17.

Republican Mayor Philip Giordano is serving a 37-year sentence in federal prison for sexually abusing 8- and 10-year old girls.

Republican campaign consultant Tom Shortridge was sentenced to three years probation for taking nude photographs of a 15-year old girl.

Republican racist pedophile and United States Senator Strom Thurmond had sex with a 15-year old black girl which produced a child.

Republican pastor Mike Hintz, whom George W. Bush commended during the 2004 presidential campaign, surrendered to police after admitting to a sexual affair with a female juvenile.

Republican legislator Peter Dibble pleaded no contest to having an inappropriate relationship with a 13-year-old girl.

Republican activist Lawrence E. King, Jr. organized child sex parties at the White House during the 1980s.

Republican lobbyist Craig J. Spence organized child sex parties at the White House during the 1980s.

Republican Congressman Donald "Buz" Lukens was found guilty of having sex with a female minor and sentenced to one month in jail.

Republican fundraiser Richard A. Delgaudio was found guilty of child porn charges and paying two teenage girls to pose for sexual photos.

Republican activist Mark A. Grethen convicted on six counts of sex crimes involving children.

Republican activist Randal David Ankeney pleaded guilty to attempted sexual assault on a child.

Republican Congressman Dan Crane had sex with a female minor working as a congressional page.

Republican activist and Christian Coalition leader Beverly Russell admitted to an incestuous relationship with his step daughter.

Republican governor Arnold Schwarzenegger allegedly had sex with a 16 year old girl when he was 28.

Republican congressman and anti-gay activist Robert Bauman was charged with having sex with a 16-year-old boy he picked up at a gay bar.

Republican Committee Chairman Jeffrey Patti was arrested for distributing a video clip of a 5-year-old girl being raped.

Republican activist Marty Glickman (a.k.a. "Republican Marty"), was taken into custody by Florida police on four counts of unlawful sexual activity with an young girl and one count of delivering the drug LSD.

Republican legislative aide Howard L. Brooks was charged with molesting a 12-year old boy and possession of child pornography.

Republican Senate candidate John Hathaway was accused of having sex with his 12-year old baby sitter and withdrew his candidacy after the allegations were reported in the media.

Republican preacher Stephen White, who demanded a return to traditional values, was sentenced to jail after offering $20 to a 14-year-old boy for permission to perform oral sex on him.

Republican talk show host Jon Matthews pleaded guilty to exposing his genitals to an 11 year old girl.

Republican anti-gay activist Earl "Butch" Kimmerling was sentenced to 40 years in prison for molesting an 8-year old girl after he attempted to stop a gay couple from adopting her.

Republican Party leader Paul Ingram pleaded guilty to six counts of raping his daughters and served 14 years in federal prison.

Republican election board official Kevin Coan was sentenced to two years probation for soliciting sex over the internet from a 14-year old girl.

Republican politician Andrew Buhr was charged with two counts of first degree sodomy with a 13-year old boy.

Republican politician Keith Westmoreland was arrested on seven felony counts of lewd and lascivious exhibition to girls under the age of 16 (i.e. exposing himself to children).

Republican anti-abortion activist John Allen Burt was charged with sexual misconduct involving a 15-year old girl.

Republican County Councilman Keola Childs pleaded guilty to molesting a male child.

Republican activist John Butler was charged with criminal sexual assault on a teenage girl.

Republican candidate Richard Gardner admitted to molesting his two daughters.

Republican Councilman and former Marine Jack W. Gardner was convicted of molesting a 13-year old girl.

Republican County Commissioner Merrill Robert Barter pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual contact and assault on a teenage boy.

Republican City Councilman Fred C. Smeltzer, Jr. pleaded no contest to raping a 15 year-old girl and served 6-months in prison.

Republican activist Parker J. Bena pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography on his home computer and was sentenced to 30 months in federal prison and fined $18,000.

Republican parole board officer and former Colorado state representative, Larry Jack Schwarz, was fired after child pornography was found in his possession.

Republican strategist and Citadel Military College graduate Robin Vanderwall was convicted in Virginia on five counts of soliciting sex from boys and girls over the internet.

Republican city councilman Mark Harris, who is described as a "good military man" and "church goer," was convicted of repeatedly having sex with an 11-year-old girl and sentenced to 12 years in prison.

Republican businessman Jon Grunseth withdrew his candidacy for Minnesota governor after allegations surfaced that he went swimming in the nude with four under-age girls, including his daughter.

Republican director of the "Young Republican Federation" Nicholas Elizondo molested his 6-year old daughter and was sentenced to six years in prison.

Republican benefactor of conservative Christian groups, Richard A. Dasen Sr., was charged with rape for allegedly paying a 15-year old girl for sex. Dasen, 62, who is married with grown children and several grandchildren, has allegedly told police that over the past decade he paid more than $1 million to have sex with a large number of young women."


You hear about another Republican conservative molesting a child or soliciting sex in a bathroom nearly every month. Yes, the Stanford study certainly hit the nail on the head, conservatives are crazy and dangerous.

[palerider]

You hear about another Republican conservative molesting a child or soliciting sex in a bathroom nearly every month. Yes, the Stanford study certainly hit the nail on the head, conservatives are crazy and dangerous.

Your stafford study has been thoroughly discredited and debunked.

And am I to gather from your list that there are no democrat sex offenders or have you simply presented a biased list?

[Popeye]

Your stafford study has been thoroughly discredited and debunked.

And am I to gather from your list that there are no democrat sex offenders or have you simply presented a biased list?

Democrats don't pass themselves off as the party of "family values". The hypocrisy of the Republicans is amazing, they can't wait to do, what they claim to disdain.

[Reliant]

Your stafford study has been thoroughly discredited and debunked.
That's "Stanford":D , and it has certainly not been "debunked". It is an accepted study printed in many Journals.

And am I to gather from your list that there are no democrat sex offenders or have you simply presented a biased list?

Perhaps you could provide one with such an extensive lineup and disgustingly perverted behavior. No?

[Coyote]

In politics, like bad beer - scum rises to the top.

It doesn't matter whether it is the Republicans or Democrats, there is a direct correlation between the entrenched party in power and the increase in scandals within it.

So...power plus complacency corrupts?

[palerider]

That's "Stanford":D , and it has certainly not been "debunked". It is an accepted study printed in many Journals.

Sorry, I guess the sarcasm was too subtle for you.

As to your "study". I already brought up some relavent points with regard to it but you, in standard liberal fashion, completely dodged them and went on with your spew. I will reiterate.

As the "researchers" went merrily along their way describing these characteristics to right wingers, one of their most famous examples and case studies was one Joseph Stalin. If the most prominent communist of the 20th century was right wing, exactly what constitutes left wing? They actually called Stalin, politically right wing. That, in and of itself is sufficient to discredit their findings as they (the researchers) obviously have no clear knowledge of political philosophy.

When trying to define what conservativism is, they apparently went to a couple of dictionaries, and asked some of their liberal cronies, but I saw nowhere in the study or in its references where they actually spoke to any conservatives. Exactly how does one do a credible psychological profile of a group without ever talking to members of that group?

The scales the researchers used were to determine which people were rightists and which were leftists sere the "F"scale, put together in the late 1940s by the (Marxist) Adorno and his group, and the RWA scale put together by Altemeyer. In general population samples using these scales, however, leftist voters are just about as likely to get high scores on both scales as Rightist voters. Isn't it interesting that when these scales are applied, Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, Musllini, and Mao all turn out to be right wingers? This would lead any rational reader to the conclusion that the traits you describe actually belong to leftists since the above people were most assuredly leftist.

If the paper accurately measures traits of any group of people, it appears that it "may" measure the traits of authoritaritan dictators and the majority of that group will certainly fall on the left.

You are a typical liberal. You have a ready bucket of spew that you are more than willing to spread around at the drop of a hat, but you, like damned near every liberal I have ever encountered are completely unable to defend any of it on an intellectual level.


Perhaps you could provide one with such an extensive lineup and disgustingly perverted behavior. No?


Personally, I am not interested enough in the sex lives of individual democrats to even consider putting together such a list. Don't you find it ironic, however, that some democrat was interested enough considering that democrats claim that such things are private matters?

Aside from that, considering the facts that groups like nambla find acceptance and support in the democrat party, and that democrats are far more keen on registering guns than sex offenders, and that democrats work hard to assure that porn is available on public library computers, and that democrats give standing ovations to their sex offenders on the floor of the house (Gerry Studds, who admitted to having sexual relations with a 17-year-old male page), it may be that your list represents the only sex offenders who are not democrats.

[Popeye]

Personally, I am not interested enough in the sex lives of individual democrats to even consider putting together such a list. Don't you find it ironic, however, that some democrat was interested enough considering that democrats claim that such things are private matters?



That's because you can't put together a list anywhere near that extensive. One thing for sure, where there's a Republican who professes "family values", sooner or later you'll find him in a hotel room or bathroom stall with his boyfriend.

[Coyote]

Aside from that, considering the facts that groups like nambla find acceptance and support in the democrat party,

This is one thing that really bugs me - NAMBLA is always trotted out when conservatives argue with liberals.

NAMBLA does not find acceptance nor support in the Democrat party nor I believe - in any other party. I defy you to show me a single example where it is supported.

NAMBLA is a tiny group who's membership - at most - numbers 1000 members. It's supposed influence on politics and social policies is blown way out of proportion simply because it is so disgusting it makes a perfect example for the Right to trot out every so often.

What the Right will typically bring up is that the ACLU (icon of "the left") supports NAMBLA - ie - supports their agenda and their activities. This is a total lie. What the ACLU argued in a very narrow and specific case - is that NAMBLA (disgusting as they are) have a right - like the KKK, the Westboro Baptists, and Neo-Nazi's - to free speech. In particular - in this case - a horrendous crime was committed. NAMBLA literature was found in the perpetrators apartment. People wanted to sue NAMBLA for shared responsibility in the crime. This is no different then trying to sue gun manufacturers for crimes committed with guns. Free speech is not the same as free action and you may despise the message but once you start clamping down, where do you stop and still retain a free society?

[palerider]

This is one thing that really bugs me - NAMBLA is always trotted out when conservatives argue with liberals.

NAMBLA does not find acceptance nor support in the Democrat party nor I believe - in any other party. I defy you to show me a single example where it is supported.

NAMBLA is a tiny group who's membership - at most - numbers 1000 members. It's supposed influence on politics and social policies is blown way out of proportion simply because it is so disgusting it makes a perfect example for the Right to trot out every so often.

What the Right will typically bring up is that the ACLU (icon of "the left") supports NAMBLA - ie - supports their agenda and their activities. This is a total lie. What the ACLU argued in a very narrow and specific case - is that NAMBLA (disgusting as they are) have a right - like the KKK, the Westboro Baptists, and Neo-Nazi's - to free speech. In particular - in this case - a horrendous crime was committed. NAMBLA literature was found in the perpetrators apartment. People wanted to sue NAMBLA for shared responsibility in the crime. This is no different then trying to sue gun manufacturers for crimes committed with guns. Free speech is not the same as free action and you may despise the message but once you start clamping down, where do you stop and still retain a free society?

Are you going to argue that the democrats didn't give Gerry Studds a standing ovation on the floor of the house? This congressman admitted a sexual relationship with a 17 year old boy and suggested that everyone should butt out as it was a matter between him and the boy. Excuse me, but isn't that sort of thing what nambla is all about?

[palerider]

That's because you can't put together a list anywhere near that extensive. One thing for sure, where there's a Republican who professes "family values", sooner or later you'll find him in a hotel room or bathroom stall with his boyfriend.


Like I said, considering the sorts of things the left supports, it may very well be that those on the "list" are the only sex offenders who are not democrats.

[Reliant]

As to your "study". I already brought up some relavent points with regard to it but you, in standard liberal fashion, completely dodged them and went on with your spew. I will reiterate.

Did you mean "relevant".

If the paper accurately measures traits of any group of people, it appears that it "may" measure the traits of authoritaritan dictators and the majority of that group will certainly fall on the left.
"Authoritarian" views are certainly not liberal views, they are a trait of conservative ideology.

Personally, I am not interested enough in the sex lives of individual democrats to even consider putting together such a list.
Because there is no list. Perversion, child molestation, and depravity seems to be another trait of conservatives.

Aside from that, considering the facts that groups like nambla find acceptance and support in the democrat party,
Up until last year one would be hard pressed to see a difference between the Republican Congress and NAMBLA. In fact, Republicans probably make up the majority of NAMBLA membership. All one needs to do is look at Republicans like Mark Foley to see correlations between NAMBLA ideology and conservatism.
Now, you seem to be a good Republican. Just out of morbid curiosity, what's your preference, little boys or little girls?

[FRYandBENDER]

It is pretty disheartening to see where this thread started and where it ended up. Any one who says that "this" or "that" group is x, y, or z whether talking about conservatives or liberals is more a part of the problem, and less a part of the solution. Both ideologies have their good points, but overwhelmingly both ideologies are becoming less and less lucid. I'm still waiting for the normal people who just want to live their lives to stand up, get involved and take the blanket that the left and right are tugging on away from them so we can take care of business.

You ever notice how the issues that are fought over never seem to go away? Our politicians are useless and we have people complaining about TV personalities and authors like they're the real problem. Who gives a rat's ass what Anne Coulter says? Oh, she hurt your feelings? So what? Same with Moore, Chompsky, or Rosie O'Donnel. Its like they've given us a whole new set of people to get upset about and take the focus off of them, our government.

Partisan bickering is a dead give away that maybe you shouldn't be involved in helping this country decide on how to handle issues and that you are only interested in seeing things run how you see fit, without consideration for others who have a different point of view.

[palerider]

Did you mean "relevant".

Maybe you could find some punctuation errrors as well? I guess you score your points where you can.


"Authoritarian" views are certainly not liberal views, they are a trait of conservative ideology.

Explain then, how it is that the most notorious authoritian despots of the 20th century have all been leftists.

Because there is no list. Perversion, child molestation, and depravity seems to be another trait of conservatives.

Like I said, considering the sort of things the left supports, your list probably represents the only sex offenders in the country who are not democrats.

Up until last year one would be hard pressed to see a difference between the Republican Congress and NAMBLA. In fact, Republicans probably make up the majority of NAMBLA membership. All one needs to do is look at Republicans like Mark Foley to see correlations between NAMBLA ideology and conservatism.

Mark Foley sent emails. Gerry Studds (D) admitted to a sexual relationship with a 17 year old boy to which he was given a standing ovation by his fellow democrats on the floor of the house. nambla would be proud.

We probably shouldn't forget the gay whore house that was operating out of Barney Frank's home either.

Now, you seem to be a good Republican. Just out of morbid curiosity, what's your preference, little boys or little girls?

Once again, you demonstrate that you don't have a clue. I am not a republican. And my preference is rather limited. My preference is the woman I have been married to for the past 40 years.

[Popeye]

Once again, you demonstrate that you don't have a clue. I am not a republican. And my preference is rather limited. My preference is the woman I have been married to for the past 40 years.

You're not a Republican? You know, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck....

[vyo476]

It is pretty disheartening to see where this thread started and where it ended up. Any one who says that "this" or "that" group is x, y, or z whether talking about conservatives or liberals is more a part of the problem, and less a part of the solution. Both ideologies have their good points, but overwhelmingly both ideologies are becoming less and less lucid. I'm still waiting for the normal people who just want to live their lives to stand up, get involved and take the blanket that the left and right are tugging on away from them so we can take care of business.

You ever notice how the issues that are fought over never seem to go away? Our politicians are useless and we have people complaining about TV personalities and authors like they're the real problem. Who gives a rat's ass what Anne Coulter says? Oh, she hurt your feelings? So what? Same with Moore, Chompsky, or Rosie O'Donnel. Its like they've given us a whole new set of people to get upset about and take the focus off of them, our government.

Partisan bickering is a dead give away that maybe you shouldn't be involved in helping this country decide on how to handle issues and that you are only interested in seeing things run how you see fit, without consideration for others who have a different point of view.

This was an outstanding post.

[Reliant]

You're not a Republican? You know, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck....

LOL.... it's definitely a duck!

We probably shouldn't forget the gay whore house that was operating out of Barney Frank's home either.
Definitely not. I heard some of his best customers were Republican Senators and Congressmen.

Update:
A NYC escort writes on her experiences with Republican clients during the RNC, read as well the comments, including one about an escort who never takes Republicans as "....invariably they were fat, BAD about paying and almost all of them had a kink too wierd to deal with. Usually the 'mommy spank me, beat me, "F" me' kind- to the extreme".
Yes, they all seem to be "Grand Old Perverts"

[USMC the Almighty]

Just out of morbid curiosity, what's your preference, little boys or little girls?

This is innapropriate and I am giving you a warning for it. Arguing about ideology is fine, but do not accuse another member of personally being a pedophile.

[Reliant]

This is innapropriate and I am giving you a warning for it. Arguing about ideology is fine, but do not accuse another member of personally being a pedophile.

What??? Where did I accuse anyone of being a pedophile? Please point out where I said palerider, or anyone else for that matter, was a Pedophile.

Now I understand that the right has no regard for individual rights such as Freedom of Speech or Freedom of Expression, but I am curious to see if you will demonstrate your loathsome propensity to exhibit these injustices. And if you really cared about all members of your forum you would have chastised palerider for his personal attacks on just about everyone who doesn't fall into lockstep with his, and obviously your, right-wing ideology.

[Coyote]

Are you going to argue that the democrats didn't give Gerry Studds a standing ovation on the floor of the house? This congressman admitted a sexual relationship with a 17 year old boy and suggested that everyone should butt out as it was a matter between him and the boy. Excuse me, but isn't that sort of thing what nambla is all about?

Not quite. According to Wikipedia:

Gerry Studds was a central figure in the 1983 Congressional page sex scandal, when he and Representative Dan Crane (Republican) were censured by the House of Representatives for separate sexual relationships with minors — in Studds' case, a 1973 sexual relationship with a 17-year-old male congressional page who was of the age of legal consent. The relationship was consensual (which made it legal, in accordance with state law) but presented ethical concerns relating to working relationships with subordinates.

During the course of the House Ethics Committee's investigation, Studds publicly acknowledged his homosexuality, a disclosure that, according to a Washington Post article, "apparently was not news to many of his constituents." Studds stated in an address to the House, "It is not a simple task for any of us to meet adequately the obligations of either public or private life, let alone both, but these challenges are made substantially more complex when one is, as I am, both an elected public official and gay." He acknowledged that it had been inappropriate to engage in a relationship with a subordinate, and said his actions represented "a very serious error in judgment."

The House voted to censure Studds, on July 20, 1983, by a vote of 420-3. While Studds has often been reported as having "turned his back on the House" as the House read its censure motion aloud, contemporary reports made it clear that in contrast to Crane, who faced the House as the motion for his censure was read, Studds faced the Speaker who was actually reading the motion, with his back to the other members. Also in contrast to Crane, who left the chamber after his censure, Studds rejoined the other members of the House after his censure was read. In addition to the censure, the Democratic leadership stripped Studds of his chairmanship of the House Merchant Marine Subcommittee. Studds was later appointed chair of the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. Studds received two standing ovations from supporters in his home district at his first town meeting following his congressional censure.

You imply that the Democratic party gave him standing ovations. They did not. His consituents did.

In addition, NAMBLA advocates the legalization of sexual relations between adult males and under-aged boys.

Underaged. It's a disgusting organization. And again - please provide an example that indicates the Democratic party in any way accepts or supports them.

This is like saying that the Republican party endorses racism because it doesn't support affirmative action or any number of other misleading but passion-provoking statements.

[9sublime]

Just out of morbid curiosity, what's your preference, little boys or little girls?

Right there Reliant.

For lack of a better word, "Kudos" to FryandBender for that post!

[Reliant]

Right there Reliant.

Understood. Even though I did not "accuse another member of personally being a pedophile" as the Almighty clearly stated. As long as I take the bull from the right, cower in the corner, and get "thicker skin" as top gun was told to do, everything will be fine. I have been here only a few days and have seen two people complained about palerider. If he is your bud, and therefore can do no wrong, just say so. I will avoid his ignorant ad hominem attacks and dirty politics as he doesn't have much to offer anyway, except insults. You should make him a Moderator.;)

[USMC the Almighty]

Now I understand that the right has no regard for individual rights such as Freedom of Speech or Freedom of Expression, but I am curious to see if you will demonstrate your loathsome propensity to exhibit these injustices. And if you really cared about all members of your forum you would have chastised palerider for his personal attacks on just about everyone who doesn't fall into lockstep with his, and obviously your, right-wing ideology.

I'll ignore your silly partisanship right here and address your concerns.

(1) This is a privately run board. You agreed to certain rules when you joined here and the Administrators and Moderators reserve the right to warn and ban posters who do not follow the rules. If you are so worried about "infringing" on your Freedom of Speech, you are welcome to take it back to the Democratic Underground.

(2) 9sublime has showed you where you implied that palerider was a pedophile. Though you did not explicity call him one, that was clearly your intent and intent matters a lot.

(3) Palerider calling top gun "top dog" and goading him for not substantiating his posts does not constitute breaking any rules. The Moderators here prefer debating out in the forums to moderating and wasting ouir time with people making petty, ideology-driven complaints.

Everyone needs to relax. We're just talking politics on a stupid internet forum. It's okay to be civil.

[palerider]

You're not a Republican? You know, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck....

Shallow and flawed thinking. Should I be surprised?

[palerider]

This is innapropriate and I am giving you a warning for it. Arguing about ideology is fine, but do not accuse another member of personally being a pedophile.

If I am allowed, may I ask that the warning be rescinded. Placing an opponent on the horns of a false dilemma is both a childish logical fallacy and a prime indicator of very shallow thinking; and it illustrates exactly how shaky his position is. On top of all that, he really doesn't need to have a warning mark against him as well.

[USMC the Almighty]

Sorry, palerider. His comment was over the line. It's only a warning and the mark against him will expire in 9 days.

[palerider]

"Authoritarian" views are certainly not liberal views, they are a trait of conservative ideology.

I may be wasting my time, but I am prepared to enter into a genuine grown up philosophical conversation with you to demonstrate beyond a doubt that liberalism is indeed authoritarian in nature.

Are you up to a grown up discussion or is the juvenile spew that you have posted so far the best you have?

[palerider]

Coyote,

Was 17 the age of consent in DC at the time that studds was invoved with the boy or did the age of consent change sometime between the time the relationship broke up and the investigation happened? Or was 17 the age of consent in the boy's home state?

[Coyote]

Coyote,

Was 17 the age of consent in DC at the time that studds was invoved with the boy or did the age of consent change sometime between the time the relationship broke up and the investigation happened?


Actually, I was wrong - it isn't seventeen. Sixteen is the legal age of consent sexual acts in the District of Columbia and has been since at least 1901 from what I can determine. I can not find evidence of it having changed.


Or was 17 the age of consent in the boy's home state?

In his home state, which I think is Massachussetts, sixteen is the “age of consent,” because sex with a person under sixteen is prohibited by MGL c.265 s.23.

[palerider]

Actually, I was wrong - it isn't seventeen. Sixteen is the legal age of consent sexual acts in the District of Columbia and has been since at least 1901 from what I can determine. I can not find evidence of it having changed.

From the DC statutes:

Subchapter I. General Provisions. (Refs & Annos)
§ 22-3001. Definitions.

For the purposes of this chapter:

(10) "Significant relationship" includes:
(A) A parent, sibling, aunt, uncle, or grandparent, whether related by blood, marriage, or adoption;
(B) A legal or de facto guardian or any person, more than 4 years older than the victim, who resides intermittently or permanently in the same dwelling as the victim;
(C) The person or the spouse or paramour of the person who is charged with any duty or responsibility for the health, welfare, or supervision of the victim at the time of the act; and
(D) A teacher, scout master, coach, recreation center leader, or others in similar positions.


§ 22-3020. Aggravating circumstances.

(a) Any person who is found guilty of an offense under this subchapter may receive a penalty up to 1 1/2 times the maximum penalty prescribed for the particular offense, and may receive a sentence of more than 30 years up to, and including life imprisonment without possibility of release for first degree sexual abuse or first degree child sexual abuse, if any of the following aggravating circumstances exists:

(1) The victim was under the age of 12 years at the time of the offense;

(2) The victim was under the age of 18 years at the time of the offense and the actor had a significant relationship to the victim;

(3) The victim sustained serious bodily injury as a result of the offense;

(4) The defendant was aided or abetted by 1 or more accomplices;

(5) The defendant is or has been found guilty of committing sex offenses against 2 or more victims, whether in the same or other proceedings by a court of the District of Columbia, any state, or the United States or its territories; or

(6) The defendant was armed with, or had readily available, a pistol or other firearm (or imitation thereof) or other dangerous or deadly weapon.

(b) It is not necessary that the accomplices have been convicted for an increased punishment (or enhanced penalty) to apply under subsection (a)(4) of this section.

The statutes define "signifigant relationship" as:


Now I am no lawyer, but I believe that I could successfully argue that a US congressman to a congressional page constitutes at least as signifigant a relationship as between a recreation center leader and a child who comes to play some b-ball.

So Gerry Studds did break the law and did get a standing ovation from his fellow congressmen (I saw the video but have been unable to find it on the internet) on the floor of the house.

[Coyote]

From the DC statutes:

Now I am no lawyer, but I believe that I could successfully argue that a US congressman to a congressional page constitutes at least as signifigant a relationship as between a recreation center leader and a child who comes to play some b-ball.

So Gerry Studds did break the law and did get a standing ovation from his fellow congressmen (I saw the video but have been unable to find it on the internet) on the floor of the house.

I'm no lawyer either but I think that is a very vague area to make a call. This is not the same as a child and scout leader or a teacher. It was certainly highly inappropriate but illegal? More - it was clearly consenting and they stayed together until Studds died. If it was that clearly illegal you know darn well it would have been prosecuted. He should have resigned - same as Foley and same as others, but he didn't and his constituency supported him.

NAMBLA defines it's relationships as one with young boys, in fact 8 - 15 seems to be their goal if arrest records are anything to go by.

You are clearly stretching to make a case that the Democratic Party supports in any way the activities of NAMBLA. One could likewise claim the same of the Republicans since Foley's activities were known to the leadership for two years prior to being exposed in the media. So, is it only "wrong" once it becomes public?

I would be interested in any clear confirmation of "standing ovation". I can find no solid record of it except "hearsay" in blogs - it is not mentioned in wiki even though other insulting acts are by Stubbs towards Congress are and the fact that he recieved multiple ovations from his constituency.

There is plenty of corruption and scandal plaguing both major parties to make good cases from but I think in this you are wrong.

[USMC the Almighty]

There is plenty of corruption and scandal plaguing both major parties to make good cases from...

That's what I've been trying to get across.

[Coyote]

That's what I've been trying to get across.

Stop it now damnit! We seem to be agreeing. This is not good for our partisan hack ideologue images!

It's Bush's fault.

[USMC the Almighty]

Stop it now damnit! We seem to be agreeing. This is not good for our partisan hack ideologue images!

It's Bush's fault.

Bush lied, people died.

[Popeye]

Bush lied, people died.

Congratulations! I'm glad to see you have finally bridged the gap between blind loyalty to a corrupt administration and true discerning patriotism.

[palerider]

I'm no lawyer either but I think that is a very vague area to make a call. This is not the same as a child and scout leader or a teacher. It was certainly highly inappropriate but illegal? More - it was clearly consenting and they stayed together until Studds died. If it was that clearly illegal you know darn well it would have been prosecuted. He should have resigned - same as Foley and same as others, but he didn't and his constituency supported him.

Well you are correct in that this is not the same as a child and a scout leader. Since the child, as a page to congress, clearly had political aspirations of one sort or another, the good graces of gerry studds could have an impact on his future within polics as opposed to a scout leader who has no impact on a child's future employment.

And the law is the law coyote. You can apologize for gerry studds as much as you like, and twist logic and reason in an attempt to relieve him of guilt (which is dissappointing) but you can't change it.

And would it have been prosecuted? You know as well as I that a great deal of illegal activity in DC goes unprosecuted even though much of it is public knowledge.

You are clearly stretching to make a case that the Democratic Party supports in any way the activities of NAMBLA. One could likewise claim the same of the Republicans since Foley's activities were known to the leadership for two years prior to being exposed in the media. So, is it only "wrong" once it becomes public?

Actually, it is more of a statement on the results of the moral relativism that is required of all good liberals. And with regard to foley's activities, high ranking democrats knew as well and didn't do a thing. Anyone who knew should be prosecuted for aiding and abeiting a child molester but once again, it was just a case of politics as usual. Although there is no evidence that foley actually crawled between the sheets with a minor. You also know as well as I that republicans who are caught in such activity are forced to resign. Hell, newt was forced to step down after having an affair. But democrats never resign and in fact, gain stature among their peers. Often they don't even resign when convicted of crimes and are technically still representatives even after they are serving their sentences in prision.

I would be interested in any clear confirmation of "standing ovation". I can find no solid record of it except "hearsay" in blogs - it is not mentioned in wiki even though other insulting acts are by Stubbs towards Congress are and the fact that he recieved multiple ovations from his constituency.

I saw the video on the news. CNN I believe. Those were not constituents standing on the floor of the house. And wiki is hardly a credible source for anything.

There is plenty of corruption and scandal plaguing both major parties to make good cases from but I think in this you are wrong.

Wrong about what? That studds broke the law by having sex with a minor? The law is what is and a congressman to a congressional page is a signifigant relationship.

[palerider]

Congratulations! I'm glad to see you have finally bridged the gap between blind loyalty to a corrupt administration and true discerning patriotism.


Exactly which lie did Bush tell. I hear that from liberal ideologues often, but they don't seem to be able to produce quotes from him that constitute lies.

Maybe you can provide a couple?

[USMC the Almighty]

Palerider...anyone who reports good news from Iraq is lying. Whether it's the President, the General, or some Marine Lt.

[Popeye]

Exactly which lie did Bush tell. I hear that from liberal ideologues often, but they don't seem to be able to produce quotes from him that constitute lies.

Maybe you can provide a couple?

WMD's? How about the yellowcake uranium the Bush regime claimed was purchased by Iraq, yeah that was the truth. The whole lead up to the war was punctuated with lies, half truths, and fear-mongering, something that has become a constant with this sorry administration.

[Coyote]

Exactly which lie did Bush tell. I hear that from liberal ideologues often, but they don't seem to be able to produce quotes from him that constitute lies.

Maybe you can provide a couple?


A lie is a lie whether it is overt or covert - in other words if they know the truth, but keep silent on it, it is still a lie.

Prior to invading Iraq rumors were allowed to spread (encouraged perhaps?) that there were direct links between Saddam and 9/11. Before invading Iraq the majority of the American public believed this. 6 months after invading Iraq, the Administration (Bush) finally came out and said there was no link and never had been.

That is a lie - and a lie of the worst magnitude possible because it was allowed to perpetuate to gain public support for war.

[palerider]

WMD's? How about the yellowcake uranium the Bush regime claimed was purchased by Iraq, yeah that was the truth. The whole lead up to the war was punctuated with lies, half truths, and fear-mongering, something that has become a constant with this sorry administration.


Did bush fabricate that claim or did he repeat intelligence that a large number of top level democrats also had access to and believed? The brit's spy agencies still stand by their claim on the yellowcake and no credible proof has been offered up to refute the claim. And a large amount of radioactive materials were removed from Iraq but the discovery and transfer recieved very little notice from the media. Here is a short article from CNN.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/07/07/iraq.nuclear/

Tell mE, when you repeat liberal ideology and sound bytes like the one above, that you can't defend on an intellectual level, are you deliberately lying, or just repeating what you have heard based on your faith in the one who told it to you?

[palerider]

A lie is a lie whether it is overt or covert - in other words if they know the truth, but keep silent on it, it is still a lie.

Prior to invading Iraq rumors were allowed to spread (encouraged perhaps?) that there were direct links between Saddam and 9/11. Before invading Iraq the majority of the American public believed this. 6 months after invading Iraq, the Administration (Bush) finally came out and said there was no link and never had been.

That is a lie - and a lie of the worst magnitude possible because it was allowed to perpetuate to gain public support for war.


These are the stated reasons for invading Iraq. Kindly show the lies. Rumors are rumors and can hardly be attributed to anyone.

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq





Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235);

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to "work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge" posed by Iraq and to "work for the necessary resolutions," while also making clear that "the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable";

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

(continued)

[palerider]

(continuation)

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region;

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq".

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to


(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.

In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS. --


(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS

(a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 2 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).

(b) To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of Public Law 93-148 (the War Powers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) To the extent that the information required by section 3 of Public Law 102-1 is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of Public Law 102-1.

[jb_1430]

Thats a lie. September 13,2001 78% of Americans believed Saddam was likely involved in 9/11. That percentage declined after that. Likely due to the Bush administrations repeated statements that they had no evidence of his involvement.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/vault/stories/data082303.htm

A lie is a lie whether it is overt or covert - in other words if they know the truth, but keep silent on it, it is still a lie.

Prior to invading Iraq rumors were allowed to spread (encouraged perhaps?) that there were direct links between Saddam and 9/11. Before invading Iraq the majority of the American public believed this. 6 months after invading Iraq, the Administration (Bush) finally came out and said there was no link and never had been.

That is a lie - and a lie of the worst magnitude possible because it was allowed to perpetuate to gain public support for war.

[jb_1430]

Joe Wilson told them and THEY BELIEVED HIM!!!!

http://www.factcheck.org/bushs_16_words_on_iraq_uranium.html

Did bush fabricate that claim or did he repeat intelligence that a large number of top level democrats also had access to and believed? The brit's spy agencies still stand by their claim on the yellowcake and no credible proof has been offered up to refute the claim. And a large amount of radioactive materials were removed from Iraq but the discovery and transfer recieved very little notice from the media. Here is a short article from CNN.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/07/07/iraq.nuclear/

Tell mE, when you repeat liberal ideology and sound bytes like the one above, that you can't defend on an intellectual level, are you deliberately lying, or just repeating what you have heard based on your faith in the one who told it to you?

[Coyote]

Thats a lie. September 13,2001 78% of Americans believed Saddam was likely involved in 9/11. That percentage declined after that. Likely due to the Bush administrations repeated statements that they had no evidence of his involvement.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/vault/stories/data082303.htm

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/062103A.shtml

CLARK: "There was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001, starting immediately after 9/11, to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein."

RUSSERT: "By who? Who did that?"

CLARK: "Well, it came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, 'You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.' I said, 'But--I'm willing to say it, but what's your evidence?' And I never got any evidence."

and, 6 months into the War, the first official statement from Bush on this:

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties," the president said. But he also said, "We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11 attacks"

Why wasn't this clarified before the invasion? Why were people allowed to believe what was patently false?

Lies.

[Coyote]

These are the stated reasons for invading Iraq. Kindly show the lies. Rumors are rumors and can hardly be attributed to anyone.


I'm not talking about all the many reasons for invading Iraq. I am talking about one specific rumour that the Administration knew was false, most likely started but most certainly allowed to propegate and did not publically deny until well after the start of the war.

I hope you won't pretend that this is honesty.

[jb_1430]

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/062103A.shtml
and, 6 months into the War, the first official statement from Bush on this:

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties," the president said. But he also said, "We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11 attacks"

Why wasn't this clarified before the invasion? Why were people allowed to believe what was patently false?

Lies.


Evidently youve avoided latter versions of Wesleys silly story.

[Coyote]

Evidently youve avoided latter versions of Wesleys silly story.

It doesn't change the fact that the rumor was propagated and allowed to continue until well after the start of the war.

Try again.

[jb_1430]

It doesn't change the fact that the rumor was propagated and allowed to continue until well after the start of the war.

Try again.

Nonsense, the belief was there on 9/11. That belief had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the Bush administration, AND IN fact you can look at the first 9 months of the administration and there simply isnt any statements even made regarding the topic. The 1990s are why so many immediately suspected Iraq was involved in 9/11.

[Coyote]

Nonsense, the belief was there on 9/11. That belief had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the Bush administration, AND IN fact you can look at the first 9 months of the administration and there simply isnt any statements even made regarding the topic. The 1990s are why so many immediately suspected Iraq was involved in 9/11.

The belief could have been squashed by the truth.

Why wasn't it?

[Coyote]

In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11.

Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html

[palerider]

I'm not talking about all the many reasons for invading Iraq. I am talking about one specific rumour that the Administration knew was false, most likely started but most certainly allowed to propegate and did not publically deny until well after the start of the war.

I hope you won't pretend that this is honesty.

Rumors are irrelavent. The stated reasons for the war were all put in black and white. The very democrat leaders who lie through their teeth when they say that bush misled them wrote, voted on, and signed into law the document that I provided. Anyone who bases their stance on an issue on rumor when legal documents are available that can put the rumor to bed is, quite simply, stupid.

That document was signed and available to everyone who cared to look long before we ever had boots on the ground in iraq. Anyone who was influenced by rumor or claimed to be misled when the documents were available for review is simply not very bright (or a blatant liar which would encompass every democrat and rino republican who is now claiming to have been misled).

[Popeye]

Rumors are irrelavent. The stated reasons for the war were all put in black and white. The very democrat leaders who lie through their teeth when they say that bush misled them wrote, voted on, and signed into law the document that I provided. Anyone who bases their stance on an issue on rumor when legal documents are available that can put the rumor to bed is, quite simply, stupid.

That document was signed and available to everyone who cared to look long before we ever had boots on the ground in iraq. Anyone who was influenced by rumor or claimed to be misled when the documents were available for review is simply not very bright (or a blatant liar which would encompass every democrat and rino republican who is now claiming to have been misled).

True, the Democrats who voted for the war were stupid. It just shows how successful the Republican fear machine was during those days. The entire Bush administration has been built on one thing, fear. I wouldn't be surprised if there were not a small number of Republicans hoping for a terrorist attack before the 2008 elections, fear is really the only issue they have.

[USMC the Almighty]

And what do liberals run on? Optimism? Hell no, they play to people's fears at least as much as conservatives do. The only different is we're concerned about actual evil, human enemies like Islamic fascists while your camp gets whipped into hysteria about the impending doom caused by global warming.

[Popeye]

And what do liberals run on? Optimism? Hell no, they play to people's fears at least as much as conservatives do. The only different is we're concerned about actual evil, human enemies like Islamic fascists while your camp gets whipped into hysteria about the impending doom caused by global warming.

"Actual evil"? Oh yes, how could I forget, the infamous "axis of evil". More Republican talking points ingrained with fear and more nonsense. Nobody likes the Jihadists but you don't have to cower in fear either, something the fear-mongering right wing would have us do. As for global warming, Republican policies have made that worse, much as their policies have been a recruitment poster for Al Qaeda.

[Coyote]

Rumors are irrelavent. The stated reasons for the war were all put in black and white. The very democrat leaders who lie through their teeth when they say that bush misled them wrote, voted on, and signed into law the document that I provided. Anyone who bases their stance on an issue on rumor when legal documents are available that can put the rumor to bed is, quite simply, stupid.

Rumors are not irrelevent when they are used to sway public opinion to support a war that is on shaky footing. Why do you think we couldn't do much of anything about terrorism before 9/11? The pubic wouldn't go for it, and Congress was taking an isolationist stance towards foreign intervention. The public supported Afghanistan because of 9/11. They were hesitant on Iraq. Having the public behind him puts pressure on Congress to go along with it as well. And don't think I don't blame the cowardly Congress for going along with it.

It also doesn't make it any less of a lie.


That document was signed and available to everyone who cared to look long before we ever had boots on the ground in iraq. Anyone who was influenced by rumor or claimed to be misled when the documents were available for review is simply not very bright (or a blatant liar which would encompass every democrat and rino republican who is now claiming to have been misled).

Why was the rumor allowed to propogate until 6 months into the war when it was finally, officially squashed by Bush?

T