Re: Is ANYONE dumber than conservatives?

From: JohnAndrew (AJFeeney48_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 08/29/04 

Date: 29 Aug 2004 16:37:54 -0700

> > > > > jdtaylor952@hotmail.com wrote in message news:<2bf233f0.0408232350.4c476323@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > >
> The Republicans are looking for "informed" voters. That is
> > > > > voters that are into current events and aware of the shifting
> > > > > political waters. If anyone is aware of what's happening, well
> > > > > educated, aprised to current events, has a real job, (this rules
> > > > > out those liberal college professors) and votes, usually
> > > > > votes Republican
> > > > > of their own free will.
> > > >
> > > > LOL!
> > > >
> > > > You GOPers are so brilliant you can see Iraqi
> > > > weapons of mass destruction even when they're invsibible
> > > > to us ordinary people, right?
> > > >
>
> > > >
> > > > You conservatives are so AWESOMELY intelligent that
> > > > in the mid-1980s, you thought it was great that
> > > > the US government with Don Rumsfeld doing the diplomacy
> > > > was extending diplomatic, financial and military help to Saddam
> > > > Hussein.
> > > >
> > > > You're so smart that just a year ago, you could
> > > > detect conspiratorial ties between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda
> > > > that even the 9-11 Commission was unable to detect.
> > > >
> > > > You and your leaders are so intellectually savvy
> > > > that you've actually captured Osama Bin Laden the way
> > > > that President Bush promised to do in 2001 .... or wait
> > > > a minute; have you, actually? No, I guess not.
> > > >
> > > > You Republican conservatives are well-informed, you can tell us
> > > > why rising federal deficits are actually GOOD things. Well,
> > > > uh, at least so long as the money is used on productive
> > > > things - like war -- and not foolishly squandered on frivolities
> > > > like Social Security, or Medicare, or environmental protection.
> > > >
> > > > You have the keen prophetic foresight to see why launching
> > > > a program to explore Mars will cure all the nasty little
> > > > things that are wrong on earth - unemployment, outsourcing
> > > > of corporate jobs to the Third World, rising anti-Americanism
> > > > throughout the Arab world, and of course, global warming.
> > > >
> > > > All hail the superior wisdom of GOP conservatives!
> > > >
> > > > Because you see the emperor's wonderful new clothes, don't you?
> > >
> > > You understand what's going on...
>
>
> > > > You're so smart that you applauded Ronald Reagan when
> > > > he made US economic and military aid available to
> > > > brave, religiously inspired "freedom fighters" in
> > > > Afghanistan who - ta-da! -- have since magically
> > > > transformed themselves into Al Qaeda.
>
> Actually, the Russians invaded Afghanistan during Carter's Presidency.
> Remember the Olympic boycott? It was Zbignew B, Carter's Nat. Sec.
> Advisor, who delighted in creating Russia's Viet Nam and began the
> funding and military aid to the Mujhadin, now Taliban/al Quaeda.
> Reagan "merely" continued it. But what difference does it make whether
> it was Carter or Reagan, unless the whole point is just to fire barbs
> back and forth?

I didn't start the back-and-forth in terms of insults.

Some rightwinger, in a post mischaracterizing a recent academic study
on the way SOME liberal and SOME conservative subjects process facts
emotions, started this whole exchange by asking whether liberals are
"dumber" than conservatives -- because the liberals in the study
seemed to be more empathetic, it looks like.

I'm an aging 60s radical, not a "liberal," and I do know some
intelligent conservatives. A few. But anyone who puts out propaganda
about how the GOP is not seeking the votes of the uninformed, but is
just looking for the backing
of philosopher kings -- this, at a time when the party is purportedly
led
by Geo. W. and makes use of the rantings of Rush Limbaugh -- is
talking
hogwash.

You folks, who spent way too much time in the 90s demonizing Clinton
over his excessively active libido, and worked to impeach him for
lying about Monica, and who now don't care whether George W. lied his
fool head off over the
basis for going to war in Iraq - YOU'RE going to tell the LIBERALS
that
they're illogical?

Don't make us laugh.

I agree that Brezhienski (Sp?) got the US aid to the Muhaheddin
started; I disagree that Reagan "merely" continued it.

Reagan and his people loved giving aid to Bin Laden and other Islamist
radicals fighting in Afghanistan; it was supporting good, God-fearing
Muslim fighters against those nasty atheistic commies, and the fact
that the nasty atheistic commies were practically the only people in
Afghanistan who believed in educating women was kind of beside the
point.

It also was Reagan's administration that really initiated contacts
with Saddam Hussein's Iraq as a counterweight to the revolutionary
Shiite
government of Iran, and Reagan's Commerce Department, again, that
approved sales
of Hughes helicopters and US-produced germ warfare agents, like
anthrax,
to Saddam's atomic energy agency.

It was Reagan again who claimed that revolutionary Nicaragua under the
Sandinistas, with a population of 3 million people and a tiny GNP and
miniscule
air force, somehow represented a potential military threat to the
United
States, since the pathetically small Nicaraguan military was only 600
miles from Harlingen, Texas ...

It was also Reagan who claimed that
most air pollution was caused by trees, and who campaigned in 1980 on
the
promise that he would eliminate the budget deficit while cutting taxes
for corporations and boosting spending on the Pentagon - a promise
that
George HW Bush, in 1980 election debates, rightly called "voodoo
economics."

It was Reagan who then quadrupled the US national debt after making
all kinds of rosy promises to the voters about "supply side"
economics.

And it was largely American conservatives who supported the Reagan
program, either because you all actually thought it would work, or
because you thought it was a tricky way of destroying the financial
basis for liberal social programs, forever.

So much for the brilliance of the conservative movement, I think.
If most of you folks are half as smart as you claim to be, then you're
not honest; and if you're honest, then you're not very smart.

  
But I'm willing to admit that liberals, or people calling themselves
liberals,
have made really some dumb moves, too. Such as approving the Gulf of
Tonkin
resolution in 1965 that gave Lyndon Johnson carte blanche to do
whatever
he wanted in Vietnam, with minimal congressional oversight, on the
basis
of a North Vietnamese "attack" on a US destroyer that was probably as
mythological as Saddam's involvement in 9-11.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT: Happy Mission Accomplished Day you right wing fucking retards!
    ... phony Reagan was after having watched his career as a state governor, ... a supporter of the United World Federalists. ... With "conservatives" like Reagan ... in the White House, who needs liberals? ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: OT: Happy Mission Accomplished Day you right wing fucking retards!
    ... phony Reagan was after having watched his career as a state governor, ... a supporter of the United World Federalists. ... With "conservatives" like Reagan ... in the White House, who needs liberals? ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: Jesse Helms is dead
    ... An interesting difference between liberals and ... conservatives is that while conservatives are generally willing ... recognize that like Reagan, he was a man of conviction -- even ...
    (soc.motss)
  • PC Is OUT.........
    ... media?potentially a massive audience, since the mainstream media stand well ... he told the New York Times Magazine. ... Not only conservatives like what they see. ... percent of Fox?s regular viewers) and liberals to conservative ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Study finds left-wing brain, right-wing brain
    ... liberals and conservatives ... Participants were college students whose politics ranged from "very ... Here are some studies Jost has conducted. ...
    (soc.retirement)
Quantcast