A little background about me, before I launch…

Reading some of Mr. Poole’s commentary, I’m struck by what we seem to have in common – mainly that I’m a registered Democrat who voted for Bush. I am however, not a southerner. Nor am I a particularly religious guy. Nowadays, I consider myself a moderate… I have too many differences with both sides of the political fence to totally throw in with either.

Up until the last few years, I unapologetically considered myself a liberal. Then I began to waver.

Why? I think it was the nature of the attacks on Newt Gingrich and his newly elected Republican cohorts that began to rub me the wrong way (not that I have any great love for Newt, BTW). I was shocked by the sight of one Democratic leader after another, seemingly in all seriousness, accusing their political opponents of trying to starve children and the elderly, of wanting to kick old and poor people out of their homes… of any number of dastardly aims and desires.

Does anyone, even for a second, believe that anyone, even an evil “conservative”, truly wants to starve children to death? I found it incredible that responsible political representatives would go so far in condemning those who merely disagreed with them on social issues. And it made me begin to examine the philosophy of liberalism at it was being practised at the time. After a while, here’s what I finally came to believe:

1) Liberalism is a philosophy which expects the worst from people.

2) Liberalism assumes that there are some number of people who absolutely can not take care of themselves in today’s world without direct assistance from some outside agency.

3) Liberalism also assumes that most of those people who can take care of themselves are mean-spirited selfish bastards who wouldn’t lift a finger to help anyone but themselves.

4) Therefore, liberalism assumes that the “outside agency” which assists those it deems needy HAS to be the Government. No one else will do it.

And I also came to believe that these tenets of modern liberalism were NOT supported by history – certainly not in this country.

Also, Liberalism, it seemed to me at the time, was beginning to take on a certain attitude of “moral superiority” which really, really put me off. That attitude has now festered into today’s “we are all that stands between the raping and pillaging of the evil conservatives, and the poor and downtrodden” thing we’ve come to know and love on these internet shootin’ matches we’re so addicted to.

Why do I post this? Because when I read things like this:

“You want to know the REAL DIFFERENCE between "liberals" and you people? We care about you. You, OTOH, couldn't give a damn about anyone beyond your little sphere, your "religions" notwithstanding. I'd rather be painted as a liberal, thank you very much. WE are the true "compassionate" ones.”

… I’m reminded of why I began to rethink these things in the first place. And why I’m glad I did.

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2001

Answers

All fairly good points, but all based on a number of assumptions, opinions, beliefs and sweeping generalizations -- and the same can be said of MY words which you chose to re-print here.

CPR recently labeled me a "moderate", and I believe he's right. Just as you turned away from being a "liberal" because of what you saw were "wrongs", so did I, only it happened long before the Newt Era. My reasoning was quite similar to yours; especially the "moral superiority" nonsense. Additionally, I realized that MY idea of being a "liberal" was too filled with "youthful idealism" which collided head-on with the real world. I've always been a registered "independent" because even though when I first registered to vote I identified more with "the left", I still felt the two major parties were filled with major idiots. There weren't really any alternatives at the time, so "independent" it was.

And "independent" it's remained to this day.

What I'm seeing now is a complete reversal of roles, if you will. In today's "political climate", it seems it's the Republicans/Conservatives who go about with that air of "moral superiority". According to them, THEY are the only thing standing between "the people" and "decadence". Only THEY know what's best for "the people" and only THEY can deliver us from evil (as it were). Only THEY know THE TRUTH and only THEY can impart that TRUTH to "the people".

Bullshit. Hypocrites. Two-faced lying, cheating, thieving .....

They've turned the word "liberal" into a four-letter word, and I simply cannot sit idly by and watch it happen. Doesn't matter that I'm probably more towards the middle-of-the-road than to the left; it's simply wrong.

There are a number of people on these fora who INSIST they are "moderates" and INSIST they point out hypocrisy and injustice on BOTH sides.

They're only fooling themselves. As, perhaps, am I. But I don't feel or see a need to jump on the "liberal is a four-letter word" bandwagon when SO many others have taken up that "cause".

There is hypocrisy and idiocy and ideology (not in a good way) on BOTH sides; I see more on the right these days than on the left. So I point it out. And then watch while I'm told how WRONG I am.

Doesn't seem to stop me. Good for me. Given the choices, "I'd rather be painted as a liberal, thank you very much".

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2001

Patricia:

[I'm probably more towards the middle-of-the-road than to the left]

Perhaps so, but your writing is disturbingly slanted. Democrats have friends and allies, Republicans have sycophants and cronies. Democrats have advisors, Republicans have handlers and puppet masters. Democrats have principles (and it's not important when they go against them), Republicans have dogmas (and are hypocrites when they go against them). And so on and on.

Lately, I have never seen you do something middle-of-the-road people always do -- consider all the sides of an issue and prefer the BETTER alternative, recognizing that no policy will ever be good for everyone. Conversely, I always see you do something middle-of-the- road people never do -- froth with pure hatred of "the enemy", who you depict as relentlessly evil, stupid, and dishonest, sheer devils shorn of all humanity!

So your protestations would fall on more fertile ground if you should occasionally suggest that politicians are all people, all trying to do what they think is best under difficult circumstances. It's just the nature of politics that there are powerful things to say both for and against ANY policy proposal. And while I'm sure you recognize this, I'm just trying to tell you that your posts tend to be a caricature of a closed-minded extremist. So you relegate yourself to the level of "ain't" or Cherri or KoFE. And this is a shame.

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2001

There is hypocrisy and idiocy and ideology (not in a good way) on BOTH sides...Patricia, you're my hero. Our representatives do not necessarily support our individual ideals, as expressed on this forum. It's what I have been saying all along. I would not support Clinton because he is the standard barer of the Democratic Party any more than I would support Bush because he is the top dog for the Republicans if I felt that they were corrupt.

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2001

RC:

I don't know if you're old enough to remember when Goldwater ran for office. To be honest, I'm so old that I don't even remember who he ran AGAINST. I'm ALSO pretty sure that I wasn't old enough to vote yet. I think the age was 21 at the time. I remember the campaign, though. It was DIRTY. I won't say it was the DIRTIEST, but I'd say that it was the first time MY eyes opened to political campaigns.

Everywhere I went, and everything I read kept repeating something taken TOTALLY out of context by Goldwater. I KNEW it was taken out of context, because I'd HEARD what he'd said. I spent the whole campaign period seeing the posters at the elevated station, day and night muttering to myself, "That's NOT what he said."

I kindof chuckled when I read Patricia's post wherein she said, "We care about you." I thought, "We do?" I consider myself a pretty cold-hearted bitch, and I don't care about everyone equally. THAT would be a full-time job in itself. But I consider myself a liberal, and it's unclear in my mind where folks got the definitions used today, but let's just look at the ones you mentioned.

Reading some of Mr. Poole’s commentary, I’m struck by what we seem to have in common – mainly that I’m a registered Democrat who voted for Bush. I am however, not a southerner. Nor am I a particularly religious guy. Nowadays, I consider myself a moderate… I have too many differences with both sides of the political fence to totally throw in with either.

Somehow [even as a liberal], I managed to go my entire life without ever registering as ANYTHING. I suppose this could be because I grew up in Chicago during the Daly "machine" era, but the Democrats never appealed to me overall. I think the last time my folks voted was for Ike. They never could explain WHY to me, however.

Up until the last few years, I unapologetically considered myself a liberal. Then I began to waver.

I must be a slow learner, because up until the last few years, I never knew WHAT to call myself. I only knew that I didn't think like other people, and I didn't give a hoot whether or not they liked my thoughts. [It wasn't like I could change them, afterall.]

Why? I think it was the nature of the attacks on Newt Gingrich and his newly elected Republican cohorts that began to rub me the wrong way (not that I have any great love for Newt, BTW). I was shocked by the sight of one Democratic leader after another, seemingly in all seriousness, accusing their political opponents of trying to starve children and the elderly, of wanting to kick old and poor people out of their homes… of any number of dastardly aims and desires.

As I mentioned above, this seems to have been going on before I was even old enough to vote. Both sides do it, and [just a guess] always have.

Does anyone, even for a second, believe that anyone, even an evil “conservative”, truly wants to starve children to death? I found it incredible that responsible political representatives would go so far in condemning those who merely disagreed with them on social issues. And it made me begin to examine the philosophy of liberalism at it was being practised at the time.

I don't think this had anything to do with "liberalism". It had to do with politics.

After a while, here’s what I finally came to believe:

1) Liberalism is a philosophy which expects the worst from people.

*I* sure as hell don't expect the worst from people. In fact, even today, I find MOST folks to be pretty nice, and genuinely concerned about the people around them. I take my mom out to dinner every few weeks, and she can't walk very well, can't see very well, and I park right in front of the place, get her walker out of the car, get the thing uncollapsed, help her out, and help her up the "handicapped ramp" and get her seated somewhere before I even go back out and move the car. Nobody ever honks at me to get out of the way. Folks help me open doors, and even the youngest of the servers are patient and respectful.

2) Liberalism assumes that there are some number of people who absolutely can not take care of themselves in today’s world without direct assistance from some outside agency.

My mom lives in an "assisted living" facility, and I would CERTAINLY agree that some elderly folks can't take care of themselves without help. This is also true of some disabled folks. It's amazing what a few falls can do to wash away the savings of old folks. Fortunately, I made good money through the years, and could help out on the rent, insurance, etc., and used a good portion of my savings in the process. When the money started running out, I asked my conservative brothers if they could help. One brother has recently started sending checks for $500 when he can, but the other one has avoided responsibility all his life, and makes no exception in this case. I can't do this alone, and there ARE no programs to help her.

3) Liberalism also assumes that most of those people who can take care of themselves are mean-spirited selfish bastards who wouldn’t lift a finger to help anyone but themselves.

I don't assume this, although I'd make an exception for my one brother. He thought it was fine to borrow money from my mom and dad so he could manage a downpayment on a house. He also thought it was fine to live with my mom and dad with his wife and two kids, never offering ANYTHING to help out in the area of increased food bills, etc., while I watched the savings of my parents dwindle. He never paid back any of that money and now just says, "There MUST be a program that can help her."

4) Therefore, liberalism assumes that the “outside agency” which assists those it deems needy HAS to be the Government. No one else will do it.

Nope. *I*'m the liberal in the family, and I KNOW there's no government agency that can help. See my comment above about who thinks there is.

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2001

Gee, this is like playing tennis with the net down. I know one liberal voter who is really good and helpful, and I know one Republican voter who's a total jerk. And generalizing from these representative samples, I guess I too can say that all liberals are wonderful and all republicans are jerks.

RC, I understand what you're trying to say here, and it has nothing to do with Anita's mother or brother. Liberalism really does assume that people require what was called Theory X management -- that if we don't prevent it, people will cheat, they'll goldbrick, they're lazy, they hate to work, they'll never lift a finger to help others, that they must be micromanaged at great expense, crushed under a mountain of bureaucracy and red tape.

And people are much more like those Anita describes (except her brother). They tend to take pride in their work, and be considerate and generous, without the government having to force them to do it.

Yet just read the reactions around here at the slightest whiff of the idea that people live their own lives and provide for themselves. Why, the government HAS to provide a living for as many as possible, this is the *definition* of compassion, and you WILL pay for it, like it or not. True liberal compassion is coerced from me and shoved down your throat by endless layers of expensive bureaucracy. And if you don't like it, you are a cold, heartless bastard.

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2001

Dirty indeed Anita. I remember the "Antsy Pants" thing wherein Goldwater allegedly had underware with large ants in the pattern. Boxers of course. Was trotted out by by the Dems trying somehow to illustrate that Barry had a mental imbalance. I thought it was great sport. I was 20 and couldn't vote either but prayed for a Johnson win. Johnson won of course and then I and several million other guys got to go to Viet Nam. What a treat.

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2001

Flint, I realize you either don't remember or weren't around for it, but last summer (early), I started out that way.

But as time went on, I grew so weary of Evil Dems This, and Damned Evil Liberals That (always interchanging the two, mind you). Not once have any of the "attackers" ever answered questions regarding the "wrongs of the right". After all, on what can one base a judgement if not precedent? Direct questions that have been asked remain unanswered to this day. Instead, it was more of The Evil Klintoon (or Clintstone) and the Liar alBore.

It gets a little played after hearing the same dittohead recording over and over and over.....

I have seen MORE of the hypocrisy and the "evil" on the right of late than I have on the left. Consequently, THAT is what I'm discussing. It's just as I stated in my response to RC ..... the reversal of roles, the "holier-than-thou" attitude of many of the "supporters", the fact that those around GWB are NOT "advisors" but "handlers", the bastardization of the word "liberal" and the complete demonization of ANYONE who DARES to "think left" thanks to the likes of Rush and The Great Republican Propaganda Machine (which includes the likes of The Federalist Society and The Heritage Foundation), the almost complete PANDERING to the religious wackos by the man who PROMISED to represent ALL, to be BI-PARTISAN, to UNITE the nation (that he so divided).

I'm tired of hearing about The Great Evil Liberal Media. Give me a break. The corporate stepford "journalists" are bought and paid for. Yet, the Grand Delusions of The Mighty Right continue.

THAT is what I post on and THAT is what has driven more to the left although NONE of them represent *me*. If you can find a 41-year-old, pro-choice female transplanted to the LV desert from Brooklyn NY who really wants to KEEP church and state separated, THAT'S who'd probably represent *me*.

I don't hold out much hope (and I don't think I'm qualified for the job).

I'm glad that you find my "writing ... disturbingly slanted"; at least I take a SIDE. I have a passion about things; "causes" if you will. You see that as a weakness. I find it to be a strength. It's done me well through the years.

I'd rather be labeled a "liberal", even in the context of a four-letter word, than to be associated with the "right".

On a bizarre level, I appreciate your opinions "of me"; it's kind of flattering that you seem to say that you are disappointed in me because that would indicate you think highly of me. I honestly never thought anyone took anything I wrote seriously (and this goes back to Y2K Daze). I'm always genuinely surprised to hear stuff like this.

But if you're that disappointed in me, you might want to go talk to Charlie; apparently so is he. You guys can compare notes.

Anita, ROTFLMAO.....that's the difference between us and is a clear indication of why putting us all in the same "evil liberal" box doesn't work :-) I care to the point of idiocy most times, as most people who've known me for awhile will tell you. It's also why I still post on this stuff -- I am so stubborn (deluded?) as to think someday, somewhere, I am going to make someone think about this.

U.B., that's why I've never registered in a party. Oh, I admit, this "selection" damn near drove me to sign on as a Democrat, but after seeing them bend over backwards for the pResident, no thanks. I want someone with a damn backbone. (See, Flint? I can criticize the Dems, too.)

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2001

ok...my favorite pres was Harry S. truman. Go figure...

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2001

And I,for the life of me,can't figure out how everyone can't see that they are ALL evil,lying,thieving etc's... THEY bend us over while we are busy bickering over who is the better/worst,it is US against the political machines and until we face those facts we will allways get screwedJust my humble 2¢.

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2001

Never voted for a Republican. Probably never will. Not that the Dems do squat for me, but there it is usually. Did fall for the Perot Meme in 92, so what do I know?

I do know Capnfun has the thing nailed 110%.

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2001

Don't feel bad Bob, I thought Gerald Ford the best. He didn't really do anything but fall down alot. Probably why I liked him. He left us the hell alone.

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2001

BTW the all-time best skit on this issue is in the Monty Python movie "Life of Brian". Scene where the guys are sitting around a table and asking what the "Romans have ever done for us"?

They gave us water!

Ya but what have the Romans ever done for us besides that?

They gave us roads!

Ya ya but besides water and roads what have they done for us?

on and on it goes till basically nothing in life is left--hillarious stuff.

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2001

Wow, a lot of responses to get through on a busy day - I'll do my best...

Patricia:

"All fairly good points, but all based on a number of assumptions, opinions, beliefs and sweeping generalizations -- and the same can be said of MY words which you chose to re-print here."

Absolutely true – which is why I addressed most of my points to "liberalism" as a philosophy, not to you or Anita (or any other specific person) as "liberals", which, of course, you may or may not consider yourselves. I lack the across the board knowledge of your views to label you in any way myself, were I inclined to do so (which I’m not). I DID, however, single out your statement, because it led to my previous post... I’ll come back to that.

The crappiest thing about the whole election fiasco is how it’s become, on these boards we frequent, the single issue which defines how OTHER PEOPLE see our political views. We all (myself included) sometimes seem to forget that passionate disagreement with a single particular conservative point of view does NOT make one a screaming liberal, OR VICE VERSA.

"What I'm seeing now is a complete reversal of roles, if you will. In today's "political climate", it seems it's the Republicans/Conservatives who go about with that air of "moral superiority". According to them, THEY are the only thing standing between "the people" and "decadence"."

We "see" different things. Both sides have always laid claim to moral superiority – in my recent political memory, I’d say the Republicans have been on that kick since "family values" became a Bush/Quayle campaign talking point. It was bogus then, and it’s bogus now, as succinctly pointed out by the Cap’n a few posts ago. The problem, as I see it, is that each side’s morality zit has become inflamed over the past, oh, 5-6 years, by stupid rhetoric from the opposition – Democrats are preeverts... Republicans want to eat the poor... Clinton is Satan... Gore is a congenital liar... Bush is a drooling stooge...

C’mon guys, it’s time to pop the zit.

"Only THEY know what's best for "the people" and only THEY can deliver us from evil (as it were). Only THEY know THE TRUTH and only THEY can impart that TRUTH to "the people"."

Which party is NOT saying that???

"Bullshit. Hypocrites. Two-faced lying, cheating, thieving ....."

Which party is NOT full of Two-faced lying, cheating, thieving…???

"They've turned the word "liberal" into a four-letter word, and I simply cannot sit idly by and watch it happen."

"They’ve" certainly tried… much like the Gephardt-led Dems tried to do to the word "conservative". It’s clearly a two way street, Patricia. I just can’t see that one side is more guilty of this than the other...

"There are a number of people on these fora who INSIST they are "moderates" and INSIST they point out hypocrisy and injustice on BOTH sides. They're only fooling themselves. As, perhaps, am I."

I certainly think you’re fooling yourself – by looking at those people through the very distorted lens of the 2000 presidential election.

Now to revisit your earlier quote:

"You want to know the REAL DIFFERENCE between "liberals" and you people? We care about you. You, OTOH, couldn't give a damn about anyone beyond your little sphere, your "religions" notwithstanding. I'd rather be painted as a liberal, thank you very much. WE are the true "compassionate" ones."

I do NOT think of the word "liberal" as a four-letter word, and I have absolutely no problem with the idea that you’d rather people mistake you for a liberal than mistake you for a conservative. More power to ya. I do have a problem with you when you say "We care about you. You, OTOH, couldn't give a damn about anyone beyond your little sphere…".

Yes, it’s a sweeping generalization – I’m OK with that. But if you really, truly believe that to be true of conservatives/Republicans/Bush supporters in general, I’m not sure we have much more to talk about. I can only passionately disagree.

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2001

Patricia:

[I'm glad that you find my "writing ... disturbingly slanted"; at least I take a SIDE. I have a passion about things; "causes" if you will. You see that as a weakness. I find it to be a strength. It's done me well through the years.]

I'm not so sure. Yes, I see great value in taking a side, because ultimately we must get up and DO something. However, I admit I would not be proud of such complete polarization that I could no longer see clearly. I don't need to depict MY side as pure white and THEIR side as pitch black to convince myself that I've selected the lesser evil pending new information.

The problem with your approach, IMAO, is that it almost requires you to see what isn't there while placing much of what is there into a great big blind spot. I simply don't consider this a worthy goal. Look at your "fact" that there is a distinction between an advisor (a good thing, we all need advice on topics where our information is very limited and we must make a decision) and a handler (a bad thing, someone who tells us what to do whom we obey thoughtlessly).

In reality, the decision maker is informed, and makes a decision based on that information. Now, you may like the decision or not, but the *process* was identical in both cases. Your "fact" is a self- imposed delusion, rendering you unable to see any value in "handled" decisions, and unwilling to look for any. To me, taking sides does NOT mean intentionally blinding yourself like this. Your actual conclusion is emotionally pre-determined, and this "advisor/handler" business is simply a rationalization, a self-serving distinction to support your emotions, rather than any definable difference.

Similarly, what is the difference between a friend and a crony? My dictionary defines a crony as a close friend. But in your mind, the difference appears to be determined by whether you like someone or not. Those you like have friends and advisors (good), those you don't like have cronies and handlers (bad). These are as far from "facts" as you can get, they are nothing but kidding yourself. So you don't sound like a political pundit, you sound like a mindless cheerleader. I'm not saying this is what you ARE, I'm saying this is what you SOUND LIKE.

And thus, on another thread here about the election, I see you stretching desperately to find some distinction, however misrepresented or irrelevant, that lets you admire one side and attack the other for using the exact same procedures to achieve the exact same goals. This is not a matter of taking sides based on what the parties actually do, it's a matter of taking sides first, and "seeing" differences without distinctions so as to justify the prejudice.

From my perspective, this kind of thing is strongly to be guarded against. Personally, I find I can support policies even if I see clear weaknesses in them, and oppose policies even though they always have their strengths. I'm not in danger of being paralyzed by indecision unless I engage in the distortion necessary to see only the cloud in one and only the silver lining in the other.

I fully understand that there can be legitimate differences, very hard to eliminate, as to the proper role government should play in our lives. Tradeoffs between liberty and safety, between micromanagement and useful assistance, between prosperity and pollution, etc. etc. are very real and very difficult. But it does NOT help anyone to try to discuss such issues in a context of "your guy would be the devil himself if he weren't too stupid!" Supporting your side is fine, doing so by calling names is childish. By EITHER side.

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2001

Anita,

Hello and glad to see you back in action!

I vaguely remember the Goldwater/Johnson campaign - I remember yelling "Goldwater" at the kids across the street who were yelling "Johnson". I was doing this beacuse my older brothers were doing it - I had no strong connection to either candidate when I was 6.

I have no doubt that there have been dirty election campaigns in the past. But in my memory, I don't remember any respectable politician *ever* standing in front of evening news cameras saying flat out that their opponents actually wanted to *kill* people - not before the mid 90s. Not even at the height of the Veitnam War do I recall seeing that level of rhetoric out of the mouths of elected officials. You may, of course, educate me differently... At any rate, the very idea that GWB felt the need to characterize himself as a "compassionate conservative" shows just how successfully Gingrich et. al. were demonized.

But I agree with you - that's "politics", not "liberalism". It's just that this was what prodded me to reexamine some of my political ideals.

As I said to Patricia above, my critique of liberalism was aimed at the underlying concepts of the philosophy (as I see 'em), not at you or any particular person or situation. And believe me, a look at the underlying principles of conservatism might not be very flattering, either. Fear of change... greed is good... hmmm...

My experience with people tells me that the quality of compassion, like the sense of morality and ethics, is totally unrelated to political persuasion - no matter how much some folks protest otherwise.

Also, to clarify myself, when I wrote: "2) Liberalism assumes that there are some number of people who absolutely can not take care of themselves in today’s world without direct assistance from some outside agency."

... I also agree that there are those who legitimately *can't* take care of themselves, as would anyone. The difference between philosophies would be over how many people, and what (if anything) to do about them... but I plead guilty to oversimplification there. Thanks for pointing that out.

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2001

Too many points to respond too, so a general response. First my present political stance. The things you discuss are important, but in my world all politics "is" local. My approach comes from my experience.

I am registered as an independent. Where I live, that means that you can vote in the primary of your choice. Where do I vote and why? I vote in the Democrat primary. Why? About 20y ago, the local Republican Party was taken over by a combination of the religous right and what I would term neo-nazis. These are actualy descriptions of their stated goals and not political slander. As a result, the Republican party hasn't elected an official to any office since 1985. People who would be Republicans elsewhere, run on the Democratic ticket. Voting in the Republican primary is a waste; and few people do it. Whoever wins the Democratic primary, wins the election. In essense, our local primary is the general election.

When one talks about philosophy on national issues, they are, especially on this forum, talking about ideology. I think that Flint has addressed that point. For me, I take each issue as a separate study, and determine its worth based on the facts. Bush hasn't been in office long enough to determine the path to be taken by his administration. I will take a wait and see attitude; but I will remain as much of a skeptic as I am with any administration.

Now, why do people become conservatives? I can only speak from experience. When I was in college, the vast majority of the people I knew could be described as liberals. As they have aged, they have become more conservative. It is a biological fact that as people age they progressively loose brain cells. Do you see the correlation here. *<)))

Of course, some of my contemporaries were conservative back then. It is also a biological fact that some people start with fewer brain cells. This analysis is as good as most clinical medical or environmental studies and it is my attempt to make my post fit into the recent atmosphere of the site.

Best Wishes,,,,

Z

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2001

it is my attempt to make my post fit into the recent atmosphere of the site.

Sorry, I forgot that I was on Poole's and not Wild West. AOL has been spotty lately, so getting on line from home is a hit and miss thing.

Cheers,,,,

Z

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2001

It is a biological fact that as people age they progressively loose brain cells. Do you see the correlation here. *<)))

Also consider few are aware of what is killing them(or will face it).

Carlos there you have your answer to why CONservatives don't get the Global Warming deal, your welcome ;)

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2001

RC:

I mostly agree with what you’ve said, but I have seen it differently in so many instances. While I’d really like to say they are in the “past”, I see it continuing to this day. And I see the divisions becoming more pronounced and consequently worse.

I suppose we’ll just have to agree to disagree on some things.

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2001

RC: The Goldwater ads [taken from something he said out of context] amounted to the same thing. The Dems took a PART of his statement [and I can't remember what the whole statement was] and implied that everyone would starve or something. It was similar to the Bush campaign taking part of what McCain said and tossing up ads saying that McCain was against breast-cancer research. It made no sense to those who had heard McCain's full statement, but these "sound bites" win elections.

Z: I've heard these arguments about how folks grow progressively more conservative as they age. I haven't heard them presented in such amusing ways before, but I've heard them. David [factfinder] pointed out that liberals became conservatives when they had kids. *I* never did. I WANTED my kids to know who *I* was. Out of 3 kids, I have 2.5 kids who are liberal. [I can pinpoint when my second daughter did the "I don't know about this."] It was when her best friend [a black girl] met another black girl at school who questioned why she was hanging with a honky. Is that how one spells honky?

Anyway, Jessica [my daughter's best friend] grew enamored with the thoughts of this other black girl and the relationship between my daughter and her never made it back on track, despite the efforts of Jessica's parents and myself to straighten things out. Lately, however, I've noticed that my second daughter is "more open" to tolerance.

My Aunt Ruth [not really my Aunt, but another Norwegian who owned the two-flat wherein my parents resided for 25 years without ever raising the rent] is now something like 98. She's STILL a liberal, still has a quick mind, and called me a while back asking, "Nee tah...how do you feel about the election?" I told her and she said, "I feel the same way." I don't know any other time in my life that she's discussed politics with me, and I have no clue how she's voted throughout the years. My GUESS would be that she voted for Eisenhower, feared the catholicism of JFK, etc., much like my parents did.

Flint: I'm not sure if it was in this thread or another, but did you notice that you interchanged "Democrat" with "liberal"? You wrote something about playing tennis without a net, adding, "I know one liberal and one Republican..."

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2001

Nee tah... you are just too funny. I imagine you just gabbing away on the telephone for hours, going on and on about one thing or another, adding more and more detail, going off on tangents, never letting the other end of the phone in on the conversation. "WOW" is all I got to say (me being on the other end of the phone).

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2001

Anita,

I was attempting to draw a distinction between campaign ads and assorted punditry on the one hand, and the actual printed and televised words of the politicians themselves discussing policy- related issues on the other. I know I didn't state that very clearly, and it may seem to be a picayune point anyway...

But that was my perception at the time, and it doesn't seem to have changed in the interim. Mind you, as this thread (among many others) shows), perceptions is funny things.

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2001

RC: perceptions is funny things. Yep...and the search for the source has become a lost art, it seems.

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2001

True, Anita.....

But I have to wonder if (at least for some) it's not so much that the search for the source is a lost art, but if the search for the source has become impossible.

I know in my "travels" on the 'Net, it has become increasingly difficult to find the source of information; either stuff I've seen in news stories or on various web sites. And for some odd reason, the authors don't seem to want to give up the info. (Contrary to what some think, I don't "buy" everything I read.)

Kind of makes you not even want to bother in some instances.

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2001

Why do closed-minded, self-righteous, anti-religious, social engineering, and often racist people get to call themselves liberals?

-- Anonymous, May 25, 2001

Probably the same reason that closed-minded, self-righteous, pseudo-religious, social outcasts, and often racist people get to call themselves christians.

:-)

-- Anonymous, May 26, 2001

That was a knee slapper Pat. How is Doc? I noticed the board is slow. Has Stephen been away?

-- Anonymous, May 26, 2001