Michael Medved has a radio show. Every Thursday is Disagreement Day, where liberals or anyone else who disagrees with any point he has advocated during the week is free to call in and argue the point.
Name any time James Carville has done the same.
Regards,
Shodan
To imply that Conservatives are a better read constituet over liberals would be akin to a liberal, (in considering the Rebublican populist base), saying that anything more literal than Guns and Ammo is a little too much of a read for your average Jerry Springer fan.
I have no doubt both sides of the philosophic chasm are quite comfortable in the local library. But If you guage this simply by sales within the popular press at any given time, a tatooed psychotic serial killer with mother issues has a better chance of swaying opinion than either a conservative or liberal …Its what evers out there that gets read, and even though I appreciate Micheal Moore’s passionl,(I was raised on the wrong side of the tracks in the rust belt myself), Stupid White Men was just case study in parainoia…There are a lot better examples of leftist and liberal litrature out there.
Twas a dark and stormy night…Rand
So, how about identifying these better examples, ranwashingt?
Dec
Anything from John Locke to Richard Wright to Bill Moyers should suffice…and please don’t tell me Locke is the father of modern market Conservatism, because in his day he stuck it to the man with more relish than a room full of current day activists…now excuse me as I drop a chromozone.
Rand…just a drooling and happy to be!
A note of apology to DEC
Dec…As I was raised to be always first and formost a gentleman, upon my bedtime, with a feverent wish that a cartoon piano should come crushing down upon you, I later awoke and grew to regret the rather insinuate tart I rallied toward you last evening…In the future when I attack you personally, I shall procede with the utmost gentility.
Rush Limbaugh is still a dick though…Rand
<<Liberal’s [sic] are generally more tolerant and accepting that conservatives. >>
I’ve never seen any evidence that this is the case. Liberals can be a rabidly intolerant bunch.
Ask Hillary “Jew Bastard” Clinton, or Jesse “Hymietown” Jackson.
Or consider how “tolerant” liberals are, say, of evangelicals.
I think you need to consider whether it only appears to you that liberals are more tolerant or accepting simply because they happen to agree with your own prejudices.
Okay, Prof. Hyperbole, you come up with two examples of specific liberal individuals using slurs and that means you’ve “never seen any evidence” that liberals are more tolerent. No, what you’ve found was evidence that some liberals don’t live up to the tolerance title (if you want accept those as examples of “intolerance” rather than insensitivity). Conservatives are obstensibly intolerant, that’s part of their very public agenda. Now, conservative leaders are always railing against the tolerance of gays and athiets by society, before they wouldn’t tolerate black integration, or religious difference. And how are liberals intolerant of evangelicals? Is there a liberal consensus to wipe out evangelicals from society? I mean really, how could anyone even begin to try to argue that conservatives are more tolerant and accepting than liberals? That’s what liberalism is all about!
Liberals ARE intolerant. See “Speech Codes” on campuses. Watch the hate-filled protests of everything from SUVs to eating meat.
I have plenty of first-hand experience with the intolerance of Liberals. I tend to keep my political beliefs to myself in social occasions. You know why? Because if I mention to someone that I’m a conservative, and they happen to be liberal, there’s a good chance that they will walk away from me like I have the plague.
I have been thrown out of a class in college because I did not agree with the liberal interpretation of world events by a professor.
The conservative campus newspaper at Berkeley has had its print run stolen on several occasions. And when they are available, they are often defaced and mocked.
My wife takes constant smears and needling from her Liberal colleagues at work, because they know she’s a Klein supporter (a conservative around here). They don’t debate her, they just sneer at her.
You know, old racist southern boys didn’t think they were intolerant, because they took it as an infallible truth that the black man was inferior, and they were surrounded by other old southern racists who thought the same thing. They saw themselves as pillars of their communities, bulwarks against ‘mongrelization’ of society, etc. They were ‘real Americans’, good and honest and forthright, standing up for their country. That’s what happens when you live in an echo chamber.
Likewise, many Liberals refuse to see their own intolerance, because they believe they are infallibly right, and are surrounded by people who reinforce that belief.
Looking to emulate Rush? You need to take it up a notch.
Example from http://www.rushlimbaugh.com
“Just sit back, relax, and try to enjoy the holiday spirit. Don’t let the Democrats destroy that for you, too. We’ll see you next year, if not sooner. Who knows what may happen?”
(substitute Democrats with Liberals, it doesn’t matter)
<<Okay, Prof. Hyperbole, you come up with two examples of specific liberal individuals using slurs and that means you’ve “never seen any evidence” that liberals are more tolerent [sic]. >>
No, what it means is exactly what I said it means: “liberals can be a rabidly intolerant bunch.”
<<Is there a liberal consensus to wipe out evangelicals from society? >>
Was there a KKK quest to wipe out blacks from society? Not really, as long as they “knew their place.” Their quest was simply to marginalize them, perpetuate myths of their intellectual and moral inferiority, and limit their participation in affairs of state.
Although the KKK tactics were much more violent, this is exactly what some liberals are advocating with respect to evangelicals–witness, for instance, the absurd belief in some quarters that Ashcroft’s private faith would somehow prevent him from fairly enforcing the law, and the railing against his voluntary prayer meetings.
Again, I think it only appears to you that liberals are more tolerant than conservatives because you yourself are a liberal. As for the rest of us, we certainly don’t see things like that.
Sam Stone, how many people who advocated speech codes on college campuses self-identify as liberals? I really don’t know. When I was at college, I knew plenty of people who advocated speech codes which banned the expression of anything which might offend people of certain demographic groups, but none of them called themselves liberals. They called themselves Marxists, sometimes progressives, revolutionaries, occasionally syndicalists and/or anarchists. “Liberal” was a term of abuse and was used interchangeably with “corporate liberal”. The party they hated most was the Democractic Party.
I don’t expect this is everyone’s experience though; I am just wondering how you determined that speech code advocates, SUV protestors, and thieves of conservative newspapers are liberals.
Spoke: “I sure haven’t heard these “many” liberal hosts in these parts.”
Isn’t Michael Malloy still on WSB?
Obviously, Spoke is referring to Neal Boortz when he mentions Libertarians.
Being a self confessed liberal or what ever slathering monicker you want to place on the term was not just a snubbable offense in latent American history…You could be at least jailed if not set up for execution in the thirties, at least blackballed from gainful employment if not exiled in the McCarthy fifties, at least beaten if not murdered in the civil rights sixties…I’m sorry if any soul feels snubbed, rudness is not realitive, its just rude…I’ve been on this earth long enough to have been personally affected by my and my ancestors refusal to spout the historical conservative party line, or acceptence of the position in society they deemed I should be satisfied to languish in.
Lordy Lordy, ole Mr. Strom don’t look too spry since Mr. Trent been snubbing em…Shuffling, shuffling, shuffling along…Rand
You could be jailed or executed in the 30’s for claiming to be a liberal? You’re going to have to give us a cite for that one, I’m afraid.
Boris: I don’t know. I never asked them. They are certainly part of the ‘left’. And the left has plenty of intolerance - it just isn’t centered around race or sex. But there is plenty of intolerance against religious people, and plenty of class hatred. And anti-semitism seems to be on the rise on the left as well.
It was in fact 1928…Nicola Sacco and Bart Vanzetti…Its not my fault…I have John Adams’ ‘Thank’s to God that he gave me stubborness when I know I’m right’ tatooed on my metaphorical butt, which tends make me spuriously spout before proper research.
I have no idea how to do anything on my computer but word process…and the only reasons I have viewed the various sites presented by you guys on SD is you know how to shrink em and turn em blue. I know your local Library should have a great deal on the the histories of the American Labor Movement, Molly Maguires, the HayMarket activists. American Commnunist Party, etc…Rand
Problem being that in practice so-called “liberal” legislation usually has problems - not to mention unintended consequences -of such a magnitude that just about anyone can get on the radio and rant for an hour or so every day pointing out the absurdities and general ridiculousness of any number of leftist positions.
Rush Limbaugh pretty much turned that into a gold mine for him, but anyone could do it. “Plenty of material” shall we say.
Don’t worry too much, though - probably 80-90 per cent of the print media and similar numbers for Television are operated by lefties, all of hollywood and virtually all of Academia too. You’re complaining about AM radio? Sheesh.
**ranwashingt:
[/quote]
I assume you are aware that Sacco anad Vanzetti were convicted of a double murder, right? They originally tried to defend themselves on murder charges, but a new lawyer who happened to be a socialist had a new angle - try to turn the trial into an example of political oppression. So he had them tell the court that they were radical anarchists, and that since there was a ‘red scare’ they were being set up.
Now, I don’t know enough about the case to know if they were in fact guilty or innocent, but when they were arrested both of them were carrying handguns, and both of them lied to the police about a number of things which came back to haunt them.
I think it’s a pretty big stretch to use the Sacco and Vanzetti trial as an example of how you could be killed in the U.S. for being a communist. It looks to me like it was an attempt by the defense to employ a sort of ‘OJ’ defense and put pressure on the court from the outside by enlisting radicals, labor unionists, and others to protest.
Oops. Sorry about the tag mixup. I’m having a low-on-coffee day.
I realize this is historical prespective, but the fact that Vanzetti was hell bent to hide his Communist party affiliation, and with good reason, over any concerns he had in beating trumped charges… and the fact that Sacco couldn’t speak English and both men were Italian immigrants made them easy enough of a scape goat to execute, and send a stern message to the Unionists. Apples and oranges I know, but I believe it.
Go back ten or twenty years to Joseph Hillstrom, when they were not so inclined to even care about public opinion…Conjecture all’s I got, unlike OJ who had millions, and a PR firm. Rand