Deep Thoughts

[BewareofNick]

>>Yes, TruthTeller, it's a "coincidence" that Reagan and Ford

>>are not very bright Republicans, while Democrat Carter is

>>compassionate

>> and hard-working (as well as intelligent).

>

>Can you name any smart conservatives or dumb liberals? Or

>are those phrases oxymoronic to you?

 

 

Smart conservatives? John McCain; Bob Dole

Dumb liberals? Jesse Jackson; Ted Kennedy

 

 

Oh and as dumb as Dubya really is (becasue I think that everyone knows that it's really Dick Cheney and George Sr. that are running the show) I can go you one better than Dubya:

 

Dan Quayle

[Guest Zach DC]

>Can you name any smart conservatives or dumb liberals? Or are those phrases oxymoronic to you?

 

Yes, TruthTeller, I can name smart conservatives and dumb liberals. One's sociopolitical beliefs are independent of his intelligence.

 

Zach DC

[Guest TruthTeller]

>Part of what makes conservatives seem so tyrannical and

>pompous

>--- aside from the belief, that conservatives (especially

>the religious "RIGHT") are bestowed with the devine ability

>to make decisions about what's best for other adults' lives

>better

>than those other adults can do for themselves -- is that

>conservatives think that anyone who doesn't ascribe to

>conservatism

>isn't just morally wrong (and going to hell), but is also

>stupid.

 

What you did in using my words was cute and all, but I think you'll find that conservatives do not typically equate liberals with stupidity. Particularly East Coast and West Coast liberals tend to perceive conservatives as being uneducated, middle-of-the-country imbeciles who are too primitive, too isolated and too stupid to understand the Unchallengeable Truths of Liberalism.

 

Conservatives may believe that liberals lack character or ethics, but they do not generally invoke "stupidity" as an accusation to explain why someone has different political views. That tactic is almost the exclusive province of liberals.

 

That's why virtually every public political figure who is widely castigated as being "stupid" by the liberal-filled media - George Bush, Dan Quayle, Rush Limbaugh, Ronald Reagan, etc. - are conservative. One virtually never hears attacks in public discourse or in the media on the intellect of any liberal icons, particularly of black liberals, due to the fear of being perceved as "racist" for calling a black person "stupid."

 

It's just another way that liberals try to stifle debate and demonize those whose views are different while self-righteously proclaiming themselves to be Paragons of Diversity and Freedom.

[Guest TruthTeller]

>Yes, TruthTeller,

 

I get so hot when you call me that.

 

>I can name smart conservatives and dumb

>liberals.

 

OK, good - please do so.

 

>One's sociopolitical beliefs are independent of

>his intelligence.

 

I agree completely. Are you sure you do?

[Guest WetDream]

Come on, TT, give us all a break. Stop twisting threads around and implying beliefs and thoughts to others. Why don't you just address one of Zach DC's original questions and name a president that is dumber than the current Mr. Bush? Or maybe you should just start your on thread instead of always shanghaing them.

[Guest TruthTeller]

>Come on, TT, give us all a break. Stop twisting threads

>around and implying beliefs and thoughts to others.

 

What are you talking about? Zach indicated that he thought that George Bush was the dumbest President, and he mentioned several other Republican Presidents as runners-up. That's what I'm discussing with him. How is that "twisting threads around?"

 

>Why

>don't you just address one of Zach DC's original questions

>and name a president that is dumber than the current Mr.

>Bush?

 

I already answered his question. You should review threads before pontifficating about them.

 

>Or maybe you should just start your on thread instead

>of always shanghaing them.

 

I generally assume that when someone starts a discussion, there is no reason to stay forever confined to the point that was originally raised. Discussions that don't evolve and expand into other points and perhaps even other topics are, by definition, stagnant and worthless. When adults (as contrasted with children) speak to one another, one thought often leads to another, so that the point where the discussion ends need not be identical to the point where it began.

 

90% of the threads here entail one person raising an issue, followed by a handful of other people spattering out some giggly joke, accompanied by a happy face, followed by the end of the thread. I tend not to participate in those threads, because I prefer threads that involve some actual discussion of something.

 

The giggly threads is usually where you can be found. You must have wondered here expecting some giggly faces, and are angry that you didn't find it. If you don't like certain discussions here, I suggest you just shove things up your hole and skip over them. That's what I do.

[Traveller]

>The giggly threads is usually where you can be found. You

>must have wondered here expecting some giggly faces, and are

>angry that you didn't find it.

 

T2, they are not giggly faces, but a small component of a vast rightwing plot - this piece being overseen by the Wal-Mart division of the military-industrial complex - to sell shoddy goods to God-fearing, honest-working union laborers and those fearless and dedicated champions of our National Parks and Monuments. Just moments ago I intercepted a notice that HiJinX had just purchased an extra-large, florescent butt plug, which although advertised to take 150 insertions, really can only hold up for 50.

 

Later.

 

PS. Whenever they mention Quayle, mention Teddy Kennedy. Met him many times and the only one stupider is his nephew Joe. To quote Ed McCormack, if your name was Edward Moore and not Edward Moore Kennedy, you'd be laughed out of this race.

[phage]

>Conservatives may believe that liberals lack character or

>ethics, but they do not generally invoke "stupidity" as an

>accusation to explain why someone has different political

>views. That tactic is almost the exclusive province of

>liberals.

 

Is there really any difference between the two tactics? In both cases someone is reaching for a reason to explain or demonize the beliefs of another person. It’s just the easy way out.

 

Many conservatives (mostly the religious ones) do appear stupid when they start harping on their version of morality and start wagging their fingers about others going to Hell. If you are a religious person you probably can’t relate to how stupid this appears to us non-believers. They might as well be wagging their finger and talking about the boogey man. It reflects poorly on the fiscal conservatives who I think much more highly of. (Because I happen to agree with them…go figure.)

 

This is certainly no more ridiculous than believing that liberals lack character or ethics based on the behavior of the Kennedy clan. As long as there are the two big camps – liberal and conservative – we are going to be colored by the behavior of the most extreme members.

[Guest JT]

>What you did in using my words was cute and all,

 

Why re-inventing the wheels when they'll do the jobs just fine.

 

 

>but I think

>you'll find that conservatives do not typically equate

>liberals with stupidity.

 

Well, IMHO, it's just a metter of differences in opinions and perceptions.

 

 

>Particularly East Coast and West

>Coast liberals tend to perceive conservatives as being

>uneducated, middle-of-the-country imbeciles who are too

>primitive, too isolated and too stupid to understand the

>Unchallengeable Truths of Liberalism.

 

Particularly the religious right in the Bilbe Belt tend to perceive

liberals as being stupid, coastal pagans who are too immoral, too wicked and too stupid to understand the "Forever Unchangable Truths of Conservatism".

 

 

>It's just another way that liberals try to stifle debate and

>demonized those whose views are different while

>self-righteously proclaiming themselves to be Paragons of

>Diversity and Freedom.

 

Conservatives have demonized and continue to demonize others whose views are different so that debate is stifled while self-righteously proclaiming themselves to be the Sole Chosen Ones of Divinity and Truth. Now, this tactic is almost the exclusive province of the conservatives.

 

 

JT

[Guest Zach DC]

>Can you name any smart conservatives or dumb liberals?

>>Yes

>OK, good - please do so.

 

TruthTeller, I can name that smart conservative in 3 notes.

 

But first, isn't Johnny suppose to show all the fabulous prizes in store for me?

 

Zach DC

[Guest CraigSF39]

>PS. Whenever they mention Quayle, mention Teddy Kennedy. Met

>him many times and the only one stupider is his nephew Joe.

>To quote Ed McCormack, if your name was Edward Moore and not

>Edward Moore Kennedy, you'd be laughed out of this race.

 

teddy kennedy has stood up for the rights of minorities and other opressed peoples for a long, long time. more than anyone can say about the idiot rasist Quayle or about the idiot rasist traveller. have you shot any muslims lately?

 

Peace

[Guest CraigSF39]

>It's just another way that liberals try to stifle debate and

>demonize those whose views are different while

>self-righteously proclaiming themselves to be Paragons of

>Diversity and Freedom.

 

nobody who is inteligent would be a racist fasist conservative. your tyring to say that conservatives are smart and liberals are dumb, but liberals have fought for equality and rights for everyone, not just for big corporations and whites. your posts in the war thread show how evil and rasist you are!!!!

 

conservatives want to move back to the 1800s and liberals want to be moern. Who are the dumb ones?

[Scorpio]

>nobody who is inteligent would be a racist fasist

>conservative. your tyring to say that conservatives are

>smart and liberals are dumb, but liberals have fought for

>equality and rights for everyone, not just for big

>corporations and whites. your posts in the war thread show

>how evil and rasist you are!!!!

>

 

I am intelligent. I am a conservative. I am white. However, I am neither a racist nor a fascist. This myopic view of yours that all conservatives are as you see them is both condescending and offensive. And quite frankly proves the point that TT was making several posts earlier.

 

 

Yes, some conservatives are racists, as are some whites. But this may SHOCK you so are some liberals and non-whites. Stupidity and backwardness is not the sole purview of conservatives nor is enlightenment the sole purview of liberals. Again, this may come as a SHOCK to you, but it's true none the less.

 

 

>conservatives want to move back to the 1800s and liberals

>want to be moern. Who are the dumb ones?

 

This conservative and most of the others that I know applaud the advances that have been made technologically, socially, racially, etc., since the 1800s, so I don’t think we trying to turn back the clock. And speaking of modern maybe you should ask some of the more liberal environmentalist how well they like this modern era. Talk about wanting to turn back the clock!

[Guest 7Zach]

This is a huge oversimplification, but in a nutshell, conservatives want less government and more individual freedom, and place emphasis on individual responsibility. The problem arises in conservative circles when they want to use the government to curtail individual freedoms for those things they are opposed to on religious or moral grounds. To my mind, it undercuts the argument of less government and more individual freedom.

Liberals typically believe that problems can be solved by the government, and in doing so, place less emphasis on the responsibility of the citizen to achieve such goals.

It is my impression that a lot of people on these boards are conservative in terms of economic policies, including taxation, and liberal in terms of social policy, much like southern liberals of the 20th century. That's the point that Clinton made in his first run, and received huge support. Unhappily, he changed after he was in office.

In regards to your comments about racism, a lot of conservatives are, or have been, racist, and were outspoken against any improvement in the lot or rights of various minorities. Liberals of the last 50 years sought to change that; however, do not be misled that they, in my opinion, often sought to do that, whilst maintaining their children in private schools and living in communities that were essentially, owing to economics, segregated.

 

Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, was the first president to order separate facilites for blacks and whites in federal buildings, and also the first to prohibit the hiring of blacks by federal agencies. The sole Cabinet secretary to refuse to honor this executive order was Herbert Hoover, a Republican. Prior to his being elected President, Hoover, more than once, was voted the most admired person in America for his public works, including that of his directing relief and aid to post WWI Europe.

 

Something else I have also found curious - Kennedy passed, at the time, the largest tax cut in history, and reduced the upper tax brackets from around 90%. It had been as high as 99% during WWII. (for every 100 you made, you kept $1 - hence the "dollar a year men", who worked for free. Yet he never truly pushed for an equal accomodations law, for medicare and medicaid. He submitted legislation, but never made an out and out try on it because he felt it would kill his chances for re-election in 64. Johnson, however, who is still essentially hated because of his "conservative" views on war and Vietnam, was the President, together with the leaders of the Republican Party, Dirksen [and was Ford GOP leader in 64?], the Voting Rights Act of 65; equal rights act of 64 for public accomodations, etc., and both medicaid and medicare. Not to mention Head Start and the huge housing and urban development programs under his "Great Society" program. And yet Johnson, for all of his belief in equal rights and equal opportunity, routinely used the "n" word and did not socialize with people other than whites.

 

Nixon, for all his faults and conservative views, opened up China, to the chagrin of conservatives, and, accomplished a lot in terms of social programs for the poor, including Aid to Families with Dependent Children, and he expanded Head Start.

 

Truman, a liberal at the time, always used the "n" word; approved the use of nuclear weapons not once, but Twice, even after such use was not required for military reasons. But again, he desegregated the Army and recognized the state of Israel.

 

It is particulary difficult to discuss any issues of race without discussing affirmative action. Should we pay reparations for blacks being enslaved, yet recognizing the historic role of blacks participating in the slave trade? Yet no one would doubt the harm resulting to blacks from this enforced servitutde. But should non-blacks be required to suffer discrimination in terms of jobs, opportunities and placement in colleges in order to repair such injustice? I think so in terms of the overall public good, and I am conservative, but it does impinge on individual freedoms, and it does not adequately take into account the whole issue of individual responsiblity. I don't know the answer, and evidently no one else does. But I guarantee you that it is not a liberal vs conservative dichotomy. It cuts across both political and party lines.

 

Summing up - it is simplistic to speak in terms of liberal and conservatives across the board. Both sides have done good and bad things. It all comes down to individual persons, how they vote, what they want, and can they be led to be better persons.

 

Finally, based upon the other posts here, make no mistake, both liberals and conservatives hated queers until the last 20 years or so. And as evidenced by comments Clinton has made in private, many still do, or at least view this group with derision. And I disagree that gay rights is the sole issue to judge a person in public office.

[Guest cp8036]

Gee Craig,

 

Glad to see you are so enlightened, and enough so to call Traveller as the racist Xenophobe that he is. Although he makes reference to an Isreali boyfriend, we know the truth. He probably has a plantation in Rhodesia.

 

Good thing you know a lot about history and how far most of society as come along. No society can evolve if the people continue to hold insulting stereotypes. Speaking of human rights and standing up for the underdog, here is a quiz... see if you can identify the following quote:

 

 

 

<<...When i first heard about the antrhax, i thought maybe it was from Israel to but then i heard it was expensive so i thought it probably wasn't. Also its hard to imagine them working with it without it getting in there noses. So, frankly, sir, i don't believe what your saying,...>>

 

 

Gotta run. Late for a flight to Jaimetown.

[Guest cp8036]

Didn't he already request or support that?

No birthcontrol, no condoms, etc?

[Guest WetDream]

Scorpio, as usual, writes well and thoughtfully. A person's political belief has nothing to do with intelligence. Allegiance to a political party or even to a set of ideological beliefs (i.e., racism) is no indicator of I.Q. Only the most foolish believe that people that don't agree with them are stupid. Ashcroft is not alarming because he is dumb, but because he is smart.

 

I often find what passes for "serious" discussion on some of our threads irritating because it is simplistic. If you don't like Bush (either father or son) you must adore Kennedy (there is a wider selection here); you have to be either a liberal or a conservative; if you don't love living in the heart of the city you will adore life in the suburbs; if you disagree with some aspects of governmental policy you should move to another country.

 

Either/or solutions are limiting. The range of grey is more interesting to look at than the absolutes of black or white.

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

Nice post... I agree with 99% of it. Problem is... it will not put a dent in the rigid idealogues. But that is their problem the way I see it. Such attitudes make it much easier for some to naviagate through, or more accurately avoid, the grays and inconsistencies in everyday life that often pop up.

[Guest DevonSFescort]

Hi,

 

I'm not a conservative but I would say that many of the thinkers to beat of the last 50 years or so are in fact conservative. Andrew Sullivan is the one that comes to mind. Of all the political webloggers out there his is the only one I consider a must-read, not least because he is not threatened by other people's ideas. The letters section on his site, http://www.andrewsullivan.com, makes for a better salon than Salon.com, with beautifully articulated viewpoints presented from all across the political spectrum and a surprising variety of backgrounds. He's also independent-minded enough to take surprising positions of his own (he opposes the death penalty, is a libertarian on most social issues and, despite being a morbidly rabid Clinton-hater, actually opposed his impeachment). One thing he said that really struck me -- he was paraphrasing a favorite thinker of his, a guy named Oakeshott whom I haven't read -- to the effect that he is a conservative in politics so that he can be a radical in life. I guess as an escort I can relate to that because I am certainly not interested in having an intrusive state interest in my sex life! :7 Fundamentalists who wish to impose just such a presence are argument not really conservatives in the classical sense of emphasizing limited government and (in the context of sex work) encouraging free enterprise.

 

Dumb liberals? Katha Pollitt. Sullivan clobbered her in a debate about the war on NPR. All he had to do was ask her what we should do, and she was reduced to stammering and couldn't suggest any course of action. I know most liberals support the war (while, like me, taking issue with the "stimulus" and many of Ashcroft's "security" policies) but the far lefties who argued for "restraint" should hang their heads in shame. Tell the Afghans who are dancing in the streets that we should have shown "restraint" instead of going in and bombing the Taliban.

 

I voted for Gore and thought the Supreme Court decision was bullshit, but like Truthteller I'm not exactly hankering for a Gore war cabinet. But I'd have to say that since 9/11 Bush has time and again out-performed his supposedly more intelligent advisers, consistently striking the right tone. Whenever mixed, panic-inducing signals have been sent it's been by the underlings (Tommy Thompson, Tom Ridge, John Ashcroft), not by the President himself, who has often struck the only classy note (his early and repeated efforts to reach out to American Muslims are unprecented actions for any world leader to take). Bush? Stupid? C'mon. He has gotten virtually everything he wanted on his domestic agenda through a divided Congress. He triangulates himself effectively against the right-wingers in his party. His Presidential style is a politically astute fusion of the most successful elements of the Reagan and Clinton cabinets. And liberals are his biggest allies, for they assist him by underestimating him time and again. Ask Tom Daschle if he thinks George W. Bush is dumb. Ask Tony Blair and Vladimir Putin, the second and third components of the new global axis Bush has, for better or for worse, created.

 

Truthteller's right. Too many lefties overvalue verbal intelligence at the expense of other, often more practical "smarts," which allows them to take comfort in an "above-it-all" posture as their influence over the direction of the country declines. They stake a Puritanical investment in the importance of ideas, so that anybody who disagrees with them is not only mistaken but dangerous, or, more benignly, harmless but stupid, someone not worthy of engaging in a dialogue with but rather someone to be insulted, or, if possible, silenced. Yes, many fundamentalists also share this trait, but to focus on this inordiantely is a cop-out, and beside the point. By the way, I disagree with the poster who said fundamentalists think people who disagree with them are stupid. If anything, fundamentalists tend to be suspicious of intelligence, seeing it as a sign of moral depravity.

 

Whew, I've gone on long enough. It's cool to see this kind of exchange on an escort review message board! :-)

[Guest JT]

Excellent post.

 

>It is my impression that a lot of people on these boards are

>conservative in terms of economic policies, including

>taxation, and liberal in terms of social policy, much like

>southern liberals of the 20th century.

 

Very astute observation!

 

 

JT

[Guest JT]

>Problem is... it will

>not put a dent in the rigid idealogues. But that is their

>problem the way I see it. Such attitudes make it much easier

>for some to naviagate through, or more accurately avoid, the

>grays and inconsistencies in everyday life that often pop

>up.

 

True. But there is nothing wrong to use the same oversimplification that the other side uses in a discussion to illustrate how ridiculous those gross generalizations are. Sometimes it can be fun to "play

with" the extreme conservatives and liberals on the MC, IMHO.

 

 

JT

[Guest 7Zach]

Really articulate, Devon (i thing that's your name?).

Our new relations with Russia are astounding, and needed. It is hoped, that in the event that there is a change of gov or policy in Saudi Arabia, and a resulting cut-off of oil, that Russia, together with Venezuela and other suppliers, will be able to provide us the supply without the degree of interruptions and spikes associated with l973-74. The Crown Prince in Saudi is not near as close to the US in policy as the present King, and the fear is that the Saudi Royal family could be oeverthrown and replaced by a fundamentalist, Wahabi (spell) government.

 

Plus, has China's buildup of its military and tech. capabilities been in the interest of defense, or as part of some other strategy. I believe the latter, and Russia is part of the West's defense against any Chinese aggression.

 

Bush is far more clever, I think, that he appears based on his misspeaking in public, or the use of words that sound like the words he is trying to say (what do you call that?). Appointed the first black Sec of State and National Security Advisor - they're both all over the tv, and rightly so. He forms a consensus, cuts a deal, and gets most of what he wants on his agenda. He was blamed for the loss of the Senate majority when Jeffers switched sides, but despite being in the minority, he keeps on going and winning. And as far as the flak about the type and degree of stimulus needed (Rep vs Dem), it looks like the fall in oil prices could be enough on its own.

 

Big downside: the legislation passed on terrorists, that we all will have to live with for years to come. Big legislative win for Bush, and again, shows that he is no slacker. Just disagree with some of it, and other parts are scary. But in his defense, we, as a country, are learning how we are going to live, and have to live, within the constraints imposed by terrorists in this country...I hope that this is just a period of history, as opposed to the future itself. But when you look at Israel, which has lived with terrorism for years, I imagine that a lot of things we used to take for granted are a thing of the past.

[Guest TruthTeller]

>TruthTeller, I can name that smart conservative in 3 notes.

>

>But first, isn't Johnny suppose to show all the fabulous

>prizes in store for me?

 

Well, I see we've reached the end of the line of your capacity to participate. Actually, I believe that occurred upon your brilliant proclamation that "Bush is the dumbest". Things seemed to stall in that "mind" of yours after that.

 

You're dismissed, little whore. You can go back to your riveting, relentless examination of various types of excrement and farts. Oh - and congratulations on what was, by all accounts, an extremely clever and campy game show reference.

[Guest TruthTeller]

>Is there really any difference between the two tactics? In

>both cases someone is reaching for a reason to explain or

>demonize the beliefs of another person. It’s just the easy

>way out.

 

I agree that one tactic is not better than the other. But they are different. Liberals generally call into question the intellect of those who have different ideologies, whereas convseratives tend not to do so.

 

>Many conservatives (mostly the religious ones) do appear

>stupid when they start harping on their version of morality

>and start wagging their fingers about others going to Hell.

 

Given your demonstrated ability and even eagerness to think about things in nuanced terms, it surprises me that you simultaneously are so willing to think in caricature. To view religious conservatives as crazed, fire-breathing, stupid, hateful monsters is no different than those who view homosexuals as gerbil-stuffing, bathhouse-obssessed, AIDS-ridden child molesters who care only about poppers, fisting and recruiting 8 year-olds. There are, to be sure, individuals in both groups who are accurately described that way, but both depictions are caricatures which apply to a tiny minority of individuals in each group.

 

Most religious conservatives care about good education for their kids and living a comfortable, safe life where they have a reasonable amount of freedom to pursue their goals without undue interference from others -- i.e., they are no different than most people in the country. They do not sit around at night plotting the erection of ovens to stick gay people into.

 

And, the fact is that the reason that gay people have enjoyed greater equality under the law - and face far less outright hatred or demonization as compared to, say, 20 years ago - is because people in the middle of the country, who were previously hostile to gay people due to a lack of knowledge about them, have slowly changed their minds about gay people. They see that the extreme caricatures they believed are inaccurate, and - to their credit - they have largely given up their burning hostility and belief in gay people as grotesque sub-humans. Ironically, the same can't be said about gay people's views regarding them.

[Guest TruthTeller]

7Zach - I thought this was an excellent, insightful post. I enjoyed reading it.

 

>This is a huge oversimplification, but in a nutshell,

>conservatives want less government and more individual

>freedom, and place emphasis on individual responsibility.

>The problem arises in conservative circles when they want to

>use the government to curtail individual freedoms for those

>things they are opposed to on religious or moral grounds. To

>my mind, it undercuts the argument of less government and

>more individual freedom.

 

What you're describing is the religious right, who are anything but conservative with regard to their views on social issues. Elements of both the Left and the Right seek illegitimately to use government coerion to limit individual liberty so as to promote their own ends -- the Left does so with regard to virtually every sphere other than certain types of social liberties, and the Religious Right does so with regard to social liberties.

 

>Liberals typically believe that problems can be solved by

>the government, and in doing so, place less emphasis on the

>responsibility of the citizen to achieve such goals.

 

That's the irony - liberals pretend to be believers in the ability of individuals, but their entire world-view is predicated on the belief that individuals can't be trusted to make decisions for themselves.

 

>Summing up - it is simplistic to speak in terms of liberal

>and conservatives across the board. Both sides have done

>good and bad things. It all comes down to individual

>persons, how they vote, what they want, and can they be led

>to be better persons.

 

I think substantial numbers of people have a coherent, consistent political philosophy that can accurately be described, albeit roughly, as conservative or liberal. And I would define that, as you did, as equating conservatism with a belief that the role of Government should be confined as much as possible, and the legitimate uses of its powers defined narrowly, while liberals have an expansive view of the intrusive role of Government, and have an almost limitless understanding of what it may legitimately do.