Posted before you read the thread? Guin, we aren’t mad, just very disappointed. We’ll speak no more of this.
When St. Ronnie snuffed it, he had been essentially irrelevant (as an actual person) for over a decade. I, personally, would have preferred to mark his passing with “Oh. Huh,” but when there is a massive horde of fawning assholes loudly mourning his passing, I feel the need to relieve myself in their faces. At least Schlafly has not created so much ripple in the news that giving a fuck is called for.
I always thought her and Martha Mitchell would have made a cute couple.
See, this is kind of what I think Bricker is driving at. A whole lot of people on the left define “asshole” as anyone who doesn’t agree with them, or who like people who don’t agree with them. Not counting Yogsothoth’s hateful and over the top bit of idiocy, we just recently had Trinopus and now you defining someone as an asshole for no reason other than they were on the opposite side from you politically (and in the case of Reagan and Schlafly, apparently because they were effective in their opposition). And now apparently this appellation has been extended to those who mourn the passing of a hated political opponent or who eulogize them.
And, “her and Martha Mitchell”, luci? You tryin’ to be hip or to fit in with the younger crowd these days? I know you know better than that.
And now that you read the other posts, and saw the horrible things I said about Kennedy, and the horrible things Shodan said about Kennedy… do you have any thoughts on the matter?
Yes… although again let me caution that I am limiting my remarks to this board’s population; I have little doubt that there are plenty of people on the right wing in the rest of the world who are even more vituperative and hateful at the passing of a Democrat than the examples we see above. I’m not able to affect them; it’s just barely possible I can affect SDMB posters.
Anecdotally, I looked at some other conservative-leaning boards’ discussions when Ted Kennedy or other prominent liberals passed away.
It was unkind, to say the least. As bad as anything said here about Schlafly, certainly. Not every single post, but many of them.
So with this in mind, I think Doper conservatives are just an awfully low-key bunch who generally go out of their way to avoid any nasty attacks, comparatively speaking – perhaps because those are the only types of conservatives who feel comfortable on a liberal-leaning board like this. Or perhaps because other types of conservatives explode and get banned or are otherwise driven away.
Just a possible explanation based on nothing but google searches and supposition.
Again, no, I did not say that, and took care to say exactly the opposite. You’re arguing in bad faith.
Well, they get little or no positive reinforcement (i.e. praise, virtual high-fives) of their views - not even from each other - so I can see that wearing on a person over time.
In my opinion conservatives in the main are simply more well-mannered and less inclined to aggressively twist off in support of their beliefs than are liberals. They’re also more accepting of the concept that others might legitimately have a different viewpoint, rather than automatically attributing those views to some intolerable form of stupidity or evil.
When have you ever heard of conservative students taking over and occupying college administration buildings, or attempting to shut down opposition speakers at colleges around the country, or trying to bully people into using only certain words and arrogantly and aggressively attacking them when they don’t?
And as far as Ted Kennedy vs. Phyllis Schlafly goes, he drunkenly killed a young woman and then did everything he could to avoid responsibility for it. (And continued to be a shirt-chaser the rest of his life.) Nothing, and I mean nothing, Phyllis Schlafly did comes close to that level of wrongdoing. And yet to hear some of this thread’s posters tell it, one would think Schlafly was the love child of a threeway between Stalin, Mao and Hitler (only one of whom wasn’t a liberal, I might add). Pretty silly really.
Well, being believers in individual responsibility we right wing posters feel far less inclined to want to gang up on our opponents in order to achieve victory in a thread. We sort of stand or fall on our own and we like it like that. We’re also less inclined to need high-fives or other signs of approbation from each other in order to feel we have the backing of our compatriots for the same reason. 
It’s worth noting that this board’s population is lightly political - of the total number of active posters, what percentage are regulars or even semi-regulars of Elections and political threads in GD and the Pit? I’ll hazard it’s a fairly small minority. This thread currently has about 70 unique contributors - how many unique members have visited this board in the last four days?
Granted for simplicity, it’s easier to say this is a liberal-leaning board, even if the Dopers who bother to write political posts represent a small minority of the overall membership, and the majority of that small minority is liberal-ish by current American standards.
Wow, from my own experience, it appears that Starving Artist has negligible experience with right-wingists on the internets. Almost as though he looks at the world through some kind of paper towel tube.
Huh. I guess that explains why “lynch individual” has largely replaced “lynch mob” in the common vernacular.
What you said was that she lied and that being a liar made her an asshole. I asked you for a cite as to her lies and you responded by saying she made claims about what the consequences of the ERA that weren’t in its text. Based upon this, and despite the fact that you have no idea whether she was sincere in making her claims or not, you declared her to be a liar and therefore an asshole.
I could cite any number of lies Hillary Clinton has told which are based on fact and not her concerns as to the outcome of pending legislation, yet I don’t recall having ever heard you call her an asshole because of them.
Why is that, hmm?
I think this makes sense.
And SMDB liberals?
Go to it, then.
OK, I will call her an asshole, just on general principle. She would still make a better leader than old fuckwit, though.
Not to hijack, but this critique is not a reasonable one.
Dike Bridge was an unlit wooden bridge extending at an angle from an unlit dirt road. The bridge had no guardrail.
You cannot, then, say that only a drunk would possibly have had such an accident. There was no evidence that Kennedy was drunk. I grant you that there was ample evidence of skirt-chasing, but that’s not the subject here.
Nor did he do everything he could do: he entered a plea of guilty to the charge of leaving the scene of an accident. That was the crime he committed.
His support for a liberal agenda does not make him guilty of any crimes.
You’ve mistaken me for someone who gives a shit one way or another.
Yet you were willing to post the Ted Kennedy example when you thought it would help the position you liked.
So it seems to me you’ve decided not to give a shit after learning your view was untenable. How much better it would be if you had the integrity to acknowledge your error instead of retreating behind a claim of indifference.