How do you explain Black conservatives, Muslim’s who identify themselves with the Republican party, conservatives with long hair, and foreigners, like my neighbors who identify strongly with conservatism?
I suppose then that George Will is a pessimist. 
Oh, I don’t know. Conservatives seem comfortable enough with black Supreme Court justices and black RNC chairmen and black Secretaries of State. And they seem comfortable enough with Jews and Hindus and Buddhists. They didn’t really mind Muslims either, until…well, you know. But then that’s not just us. There are a lot of people in Moscow tonight who don’t think too highly of them either. But it’s really not “Muslims” per se that we object to, just the things that keep coming out of the camp. And I don’t know what cities conservatives are supposed to be terrified of, but I really can’t think of any offhand. Paris, maybe? You know, with all that art and stuff? And long hair? Terrified? Nah, just looks like shit usually. Crime? Yeah, those stupid conservatives and their fear of crime. They don’t embrace it and excuse it like you guys, do they? And foreigners? Shall I tell my friend Khadija and her family that all those dinnners and all those nice visits and all those efforts to get health care for her father who was visiting from Morocco were just a sham to hide this particular conservative’s “terror”? And, well, the list goes on and on…
They are very small set of Republicans.
Surely you’ve proven exactly the opposite. When liberals set out to change things, they believe those changes will result in something even better than what we have now. What could be more optimistic than that? The attitude you attribute to conservatives, that any change will ruin everything that is good, is pessimism at its most extreme.
Spot on!
I’ll leave the “terrified” up to you. For me, it’s a matter of hate and identifying with a group that hates the same people who they choose to label as undesirable.
It has always been the same throughout human history.
Conservatives want to conserve the status quo of power of exploiting weaker groups. In the US, it’s whites against everyone else. In other countries, it’s the privileged against everyone else in their social environment.
That’s why conservatism is a mental disorder.
No. Thay have medium sized crowds of kids cheering them on. Kids tend to go Left a bit more than Right while geezers tend to go Right a bit more than Left, so there tend to be more rowdies at Left functions.
Rather few–but then, universities are filled with kids. When the Tea Party people started showing up at town hall meetings, liberals and moderat3es were shouted down quite effectively.
Kids vs Geezers, not Left vs Right.
No. From where are you dragging that non sequitur?
Piffle. I have never heard a charge against the Left that they were engaging in immoral or traitorous or dishonest behavior. I have always heard them described as immoral, traitorous or dishonest.
I’m not sure what you are on about, here. I have already noted I found the OP to be a foolish desire.
[Quote=Starving Artist]
For whatever reason lefties are just more inclined to get hepped up and outraged over things, and so they generally think the worst of their opponents. Liberals by and large hate conservatives for opposing entitlement programs and championing free enterprise, and the base that hatred upon the supposition that conservatives are selfish, that they don’t care about anyone else, that they would be perfectly happy to see people dying in the streets and so forth. Liberals also are very much persuaded as to their intellectual superiority over conservatives and that creates even more hatred, “If it wasn’t for those stupid, backward, narrow-minded conservatives we could…(whatever, take your pick).”
[/Quote]
One can simply swap the cartoonish, absurdly simplistic labels you persist in slapping on others and all of the above would perfectly fit a description of the persona you present here. So, what use are you? For me you are just as much a part of the problem as the ‘liberals’ you so tediously rail against.
I reject your incessant attempts to blame every single thing you don’t like about life in the USA to an arbitrary group that you believe you can describe with a single word.
I’m returning rather late to the thread, but I want to respond directly to just one more thing. This will require a quote and reply, and hopefully it includes enough of the original text to give full and fair context.
I didn’t think it was possible for someone to have actually read my arguments in this thread and developed the impression that I agreed with the OP. That’s astounding. I can guarantee that BrainGlutton is under no such misapprehension.
I am pleased to see you accepting some calm counterpespective from tomndebb. Since he seems better able to shed light rather than add heat, I’ll take your suggestion and “back away” from the thread. As I do so, I’d like to ask that you take a breath and review the thread. There is not the overabundance of leftwing revisionism that you seem to perceive, and in fact, I’ve striven in particular to avoid this. I’ve neither denied nor justified any examples of the “LW Vitriol” the OP wants to see more of, and in fact I’ve argued that such rhetoric is ineffective in achieving the goals liberals purport to desire and has not been instrumental in any progressive successes of the past century or more.
I do object to a simplistic view of political speech which equates “Left” vs. “Right” as if both ‘sides’ were equally cohesive in thought, purpose and representation. My objection is to the notion that the eliminationism that has become representative of the American right wing is somehow balanced out by vile and violent protest signs (in crowds specifically gathered to protest) and the criminal behavior of a tiny percentage of those protestors, and by the vile and stupid comments of various public figures who can be tied to any non conservative political point of view.
We seem to both believe that vitriolic speech is stupid and counterproductive to political progress. But believing that we need to treat perpetrators equally and recognizing that there are no fundamental human behavioral differences attributable to political ideology does not mean we must be blind to differences between political parties/ideologies and the concerted actions of their operatives.
What is happening on the Right could easily happen on the Left if circumstances were different, and is why I think the OP’s argument is wrong. But circumstances are as they are, and it helps neither conservatives nor liberals nor moderates of any core belief to pretend differently.
Don’t forget gays. They are terrified of them, they think gays will pull down civilization.
A distinction without a difference. Obviously, the only reason someone behaves in an inferior was is if that person is imbued with an inferior nature.
Actually, that description makes it sound sane, if amoral.
How did I miss this? I absolutely agree. The Left needs a pair.
Cultural wars are won by those who stand up for their beliefs.