Rjung:
In Conscience of a Conservative Barry makes it pretty clear that all citizens of a country are entitled to equal rights both because that is the only morally correct way to do it, and because that is the way that is also best for society as a whole.
I’m dumbfounded by the depths of ignorance, implied by your insinuation.
I mean really, you don’t even know the name (which says something right there,) and you’d suggest that the man is a bigot of the worst kind simply because he’s a conservative.
Could you having a more telling knee-jerk reaction?
And this, in a thread discussing the relative intelligence of proponents of two differing philosophies?
I suspect the irony’s lost on you.
It’d be funny if it weren’t so offensive.
Scylla, I am not convinced that using Barry Goldwater as a model of conservatism is so appropriate anymore. If all conservatives were like Goldwater, I would probably be a conservative. Now the movement, philisophical worldview, whatever, implies a host of more unpleasant assumptions that have been debated numerously elsewhere.
Liberals learn as much from the past as conservatives. It sucks, it’s unjust, so let’s try to fix it. 
MR
Maeglin:
If I thought they did, I’d be a liberal.
Maeglin:
And as for your other point, yes, Conservatism does attract an odd fringe; the staid, the selfish, the fundie. But Liberalism also attacts the radical, the irresponsible, and the naive.
Neither fact is indicative of the validity of the philosophies, rather the failures of a few of their followers.
I remain convinced that the compassionate conservative and the pragmatic liberal have a lot more in common than their respective fringes. I’m also optimistic that the reasonable middle ground represents the majority of both philosophies.
I dunno, there are an awful lot of selfish people and fundies out there.
You very well might be right. But the worst, filled with passionate intensity, tend to get things done. There aren’t so many people passionate about their moderation.
MR
This is like watching the Double Mint twins argue over who’s the ugly one.
“Conservatives” want to teach creationism in science class.
Liberals scream like stuck pigs about the “injustice” of giving tax cuts to the people who actually pay the taxes.
Both use my tax money to insure that while America has 5% of the world’s population, we have 25% of the world’s prisoners, two thirds of whom are non-violent “drug offenders.”
Who’s stupider? Who cares. Does it really matter? I consider either one to be at least a sign of a learning disability, and at worst a sign of serious cognitive dysfunction.
-Borodog, a Libertatian
conservatives and liberals are not so easy to generalize as republicans and democrats are. republicans nominated george w. for president. either republicans are smart and knew george w. was their best chance for president or they’re dumb and think george w. has insightful, relevant political opinions. i don’t know. my conservative side wouldn’t have chosen him as a candidate.
it seems to me that whether you’re a registered, faithful republican or democrat depends on which party you want dictating your opinions to you. on the other hand, conservative or liberal depends on your personal values and priorities, not your intelligence.
It is a fallacy (even a ploy) to think that the press has to be “balanced” in any kind of direct criticism (criticizing both sides at the same time). Only an extremist would claim this duty. The press only has a duty is to report reality they know of, not that which is imagined to exist (many relgious freak want the news to publish the existence of god, but that is a trashy tabloid, not a newspaper).
Note: You can’t assume that right and left even exist in terms of the other, let alone are a function of political balance. Who drew this mythical-religious line? These are relative terms. I can see a mindset here. What if it is the case that there is no active left to cover? (Oh, that can’t be, Rush clearly identified it!) Consider for one minute that the majority and their common needs exists, and no extreme minority is allowed to draw the line for themselves and claim half the political spectrum.
Let me again assert this one item although I don’t think you’ll agree for personal reasons: political positions do not necessarily exist as relative or opposed terms–in other words, there is no endangered right-wing just because the right says so. In fact, if a few wealthy propagandists make a crazy expensive propaganda play and the press disagrees, they seem to become the left by default. If the self-declared “right” instigates a concerted attack on status quo and simultaneously posit gods and demons and moral conspiracies, they must prove it, not whine about the lack of coverage of their unproven demons and conspiracies.
Do you even acknowledge for one minute that all this neo-conservatism is a smokescreen for deregulation and less public responsibility? What do you make of Newt championing morals in America while having a mistress? Does this not prove a smokescreen? If Newt didn’t believe what he was saying, then what is the explanation? More to the point, when most churches said they didn’t want the poor and hungry lining up at their doors to be fed (when he tried to kill food stamps and openly proposed this idea) what did you make of this? Did you swallow it whole? Why?
December, if I am ranting, what does Rush do? Pontificate?
It’s also mentioned in Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot and Other Observations by Al Franken.
Several posters have claimed that Rush Limbaugh makes numerous errors. Let’s test that proposition, using data available to all participants. After all, this is The Straight Dope, where facts rule.
The challenge is identify some errors. Go to Rush’s web site at
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/
You will find several short essays and some excerpts from his radio show. Post here all the errors, mis-statements and outright lies that you find.
Or, if you don’t find any errors, please let us know.
Protesilaus and Brian – go for it!
If you count everybody with conservative views as conservative, and everybody with liberal views as liberal, then I’d generalize that the premise of the OP is true.
Ever talked politics with a bunch of NASCAR fans?
