Elitism Occurs on ALL Sides of the Aisle

About two weeks ago, Mathius posted an article from the Washington Post that was titled “Gerard Alexander: Why are liberals so condescending?” I found the article quite interesting, as it really did a good job of summing up the frustration that folks feel with liberal elitism. I promised him a response to this. He wondered what an article would look like that came from the other side. While this is not really that article, because I cannot think like a true conservative, I will offer my thoughts on the conservative movement as well. So what I am going to do is offer my thoughts on both liberals and conservatives. I will use those two terms loosely, because I do understand the difference between a progressive and a liberal. But I want to be more general, lest I end up spending all my time attempting to define who I am talking about. I also add the caveat that I do not necessarily apply these thoughts to ALL who fall into those categories. For example, I may say liberals kick puppies, but I am aware that not all liberals kick puppies. Only Mathius does that, and it is because when he wakes sweaty from that nightmare, he really does believe it is a Raptor.

Why Are Conservatives So “2012” Obsessed and Blind to Reality?

You know, when I think about the word conservative these days, I tend to find that there are quite a few similarities between the “intellectual elitism” that Mathius’ article discussed in liberals and that found in conservatives. There were several points in that article by Gerard Alexander that I completely agreed with. There were also several points where you could have changed “liberal” to “conservative” and been absolutely correct. I do believe that, in general, conservatives believe that liberals are people making decisions with emotions rather than intellect, a claim leveled at conservatives regularly. But on to my two points in the title!

I simply cannot understand why the general conservative argument against just about everything these days ends up with the end of the world as we know it (the reference to 2012, end of the world). It seems as though no matter what the subject, there is a world altering consequence associated with doing things the way that liberals would have us do them. Obama isn’t just a socialist (which he is whether that hurts people’s feelings or not), he is Hitler exactly, and will begin his dictatorship shortly. The public option isn’t a simple possible solution to a problem in America, it is a government plot to take over health care and start killing grandmothers through death panels. Obama isn’t just a non-citizen (and really who cares at this point), he is a Kenyan Muslim who has gained the Presidency as a first step towards submitting the US to muslim rule. His military use stance isn’t a change in policy, but a calculated move that will result in the ultimate destruction of the United States due to a conquering force invading a now weak America. Attempting to foster international relations and solutions isn’t a rational reaction to a rapidly intermeshed international society, it is a plot to create a one world government that will subject the United States to totalitarian rule.

That isn’t to say that there is absolutely no merit to some of those conservative beliefs. Many of the moves made by the government these days IS about control. But why must we automatically skip past an increase in control and go directly to one world government and or a massive plot. Why can’t we debate the merits of a government health care option instead of immediately jumping to “death panels”? Believe me, there are plenty enough times where the actions on government are going to be the sort of action that points to a dramatic consequence or outcome that needs an alarm sounded on it. The “Civilian National Defense Forces” are one such item. But do you have to go that far on every item you disagree on? After all, when the answer to every proposed legislation is a conspiracy, no one is going to take you seriously when you actually have one that is legit. I agree that the liberal politicians are conniving SOB’s, and their motives are not as good as the liberals would like to paint them, but let’s be honest, you certainly can’t claim that the conservative politicians are even 1% better. Which brings me to point #2.

Why is it that conservatives seem to be able to point out the moral flaws in the liberal plans and politicians, but are completely unable to see that their politicians and positions are equally flawed and equally dirty and equally conniving and full of equally bad unintended consequences? Believe me, I can see the consequences of what the liberals want to do, but can you not see that the conservatives are simply attempting to do the exact same thing in a different way? Both sides are seeking control over the people, and you seem to somehow only see the measures taken to control the people that the liberals attempt to use. You are completely blind to contradictions, falsehoods, and misdirections of your own party leaders. You really believe that Pelosi is the devil and Mitch McConnell is trying to be your savior? Wake up conservatives. They are BOTH one of the four horsemen of the apocalypse. Pelosi is just Famine while McConnell is War.

The thing that completely baffles me is that the conservatives seem to not only fail to see the flaws in their politicians, but they fail to see the complete hypocrisy in the things that they believe are correct for government to do. Government should not put a finger into health care, but should absolutely have full control over the term marriage and who is entitled to benefit from it. Cap and Trade is a step towards one world government and is an example of government reaching into the private sector over false premises (AGW), but the Patriot Act was a virtuous attempt to protect us from some great evil that seeping into the country to kill us all. Liberals are insanely stupid to think they can control the economy through their ridiculous tax the rich mentality, but conservatives are brilliant to think they can control the economy through the idea of cutting taxes on the rich. Don’t you dare tell me I can’t wear a cross necklace, but we should outlaw the wearing of muslim headscarves.

Overall, the general tone of the conservative movement, while sound in many of its fundamental ideals of small government, free markets, and a strong military, are shrouded in hypocrisy and contradictions.

Why Are Liberals So Emotionally Attached and Against Personal Responsibility?

I figured I would add to the article from Mr. Alexander with some thoughts on my own, along some similar lines to those I offered on conservatives above.

My problem with the modern liberal or progressive movements is the overwhelming belief that anything that is morally wrong can be justified if they can make enough of an emotional appeal. As a result, we have seen a massive increase in the belief in liberals that government is the answer to our problems. Health Care, the economy, Financial reforms, food safety, you name it. No matter the issue, the liberal answer is ALWAYS some form of government intervention into the game. When the schools fail, government had to control them. Don’t like the BCS, get a commission together and threaten the NCAA. Economy is broken, add more regulations instead of taking those away that caused the problem. It seems as though liberals completely refuse to force anyone to be personally responsible for their own plight. Everything comes down to having the government do what individuals could do on their own. It may be tougher to do it as people, but the dependency that results from the “government solves all problems” mentality has rendered us with a country unable to do anything for ourselves.

But my biggest problem with the modern progressives and liberals is that, in my opinion, they absolutely refuse to listen to reason or rational debates that refute their proposals. No matter the subject, when well thought out and backed up arguments are presented, they overwhelmingly fall back to an emotional appeal. Welfare is wrong, and here is why it doesn’t work. Answer: we have to provide a safety net because it is the right thing to do. The wealthy already pay 90% of the taxes and should be further punished. Answer: Those greedy sonsabitches are working the system to keep the poor down. The government getting into providing health care isn’t the answer, bringing costs down is. Answer: Grandma lost her house because she got sick. People are losing their homes because they failed to read and understand the contract they were signing. Answer: But betty and the kids will be out on the street. Income redistribution is nothing more than stealing from one to give to another. Answer: You are a racist.

And when all else fails, as we have seen lately, I am absolutely disgusted and enraged with this mentality coming from the liberal politicians that if you don’t support their position, it is because you don’t understand it correctly. If the American public disagrees with their plan, then the American public is either manipulated by corporate interests, simply bigoted, or too stupid to understand. Nothing enrages me more than that. The liberal belief that if you don’t agree with us, it is a lack of understanding what we are doing or a lack of intellect on your part. They simply cannot fathom the idea that they could be wrong or that the public might not like their plan. If there is any one thing that has bothered me the most over the last year, that has been it.

I could go on about this, but the bottom line is that I know the emotional side of these arguments. It isn’t about my compassion or lack thereof. It is about what is right under natural law. If liberals and progressives could eliminate the passionate emotional attachments to the positions they defend, they might actually find their debates remain more civil. When you resort to emotional appeal, the opposition gets frustrated because you are choosing to ignore their facts and do what you want to do based on emotion.

Why Is American Politics Rooted in Government Action?

Which brings me to my close. From my personal perspective, I firmly believe in a very limited government. I do this because in my world, your success or failure is up to you. Government has never, in all its history solved a single problem in a way that didn’t cause a different problem somewhere else. Never. Think about that for a moment. If government action solving a problem results in a + and government creating a problem results in a , the government has NEVER been in the positive. NEVER. And that should give folks on both sides of the aisle politically a reason to pause. You cannot justify any government action that causes a problem by solving another. No matter whether you fall into the liberal camp or the conservative one, there never seems to be the understanding solutions rarely come from government action. The solutions come from government inaction. That is the reality, whether folks on the left or right want to admit it or not. The recent health care summit was a prime example, as neither side ever considered that maybe they are both wrong. Perhaps government getting out of the way is the answer.

I make no bones about the fact that I would love to get to a world with no government. I simply don’t believe it is possible. But I do believe that it is possible that we could get to a world with very little damn government. Would it be a tougher world? Probably, at least for the first chunk of time. Would there be injustices committed against man? Absolutely. But government really hasn’t slowed that down any, has it? In fact, I would argue that most injustice today is either caused by, or allowed by, government.

And now that I have written my article as I wanted to do, I want to answer Mathius specifically, by talking about myself a little bit as he did, and then answering his questions.

I don’t know whether I would call myself an elitist. I do believe that I am above average in intelligence. Education is something I have always pursued, but which I place a limited amount of credibility in (formal education at least, and I have plenty of it. I am not anti-intellectual at all, I merely see more value in life lessons than formal schooling). I feel as though I am a logical thinker. I am fair in my analysis when pressed. I will take every argument step by step, issue by issue. Mrs. Weapon will tell you that I simply do not think like other people do. I allow zero emotion into my thought process. And I am always open to being wrong and changing my opinion if convinced. But I am tough. Because if you want to change my opinion, you have to PROVE me wrong. You can’t dance around it. Making your friends say “damn, you sure told him” does not mean that you have actually proven anything. Facts only please.

I view those on the left as emotional. I believe that the far left in America is a “touchy feely” group that wants to claim a moral high ground by taking from those that have and giving it to those they feel sorry for. They want to solve the world’s problems by forcing others to behave in the way they see fit. More importantly, I view the left as completely devoid of understanding natural law. Theft is theft. There is no justifying it because it is a good cause. My property that I earn is mine. I worked for it, and I didn’t step on someone else to get it. I feel sorry for those on welfare. But it is not my duty to save them. I didn’t put them there. And I used to be one of them (poverty wise). I took no government handout and it took years to raise my status. It was hard, and painful. But I did it. So I abhor anyone who tells me I have to contribute to the pool to make it easier for others to do what I did.

I find it interesting that Mathius noted the anti-intellectualism standing out as a conservative theme. Because I see it standing out as a liberal theme, as well. The only difference is the way that intellectualism is defined. I feel as though liberals think intellectualism is gained as enlightenment. They believe massive schooling has put them in a superior position in terms of understanding the world. I agree that conservatives in general disagree with that. I believe that what liberals lack is realism. They can only see the world as they wish it to be, as their professors told them it should be, but fail completely to see it as it really is. For the record, I believe that this is why the military is overwhelmingly conservative. I know that the reason given is because Republicans give more money to the military. I disagree. I believe that they are conservative because they have seen enough of the world to see it as it really is, rather than how they would like it to be. As for intellectualism for conservatives, I believe conservatives place too little value on education. They tend to go too much with that gut feeling that they have learned from the church. So they believe liberals are anti-intellect and liberals think the opposite.

I believe that neither side, IN GENERAL, puts enough faith in the other’s strengths. I, on the other hand, believe I see the world as it is. I am a realist. I also see the world through the eyes of intellect, because I am well educated and well studied far beyond formal education as well. And to that end, I also have the ability to condescend to most people, whether they deserve it or not, and regardless of their political ideology. I have tried very hard for the last 5 years or so to stop doing so, and I have made great progress, but I still haven’t beat it.

I see the progressive movement alive and well throughout the United States. I see it as very sinister and very bad for both the country, and for individual liberty. I see more propaganda with it than I do with the Southern Strategy. But I see the Southern Strategy as well. I don’t discount either one. But I refuse, thus far, to accept either one as well.

On a more personal level, I do not feel that those on the left are beneath me in any way. That is especially true of those that engage here on this site. That they are here, vastly outnumbered, attempting to have honest dialogue and find solutions to our problems speaks volumes about both their character and their willingness to test their own beliefs. I decided to write this overall article because I felt Mathius had done a brave thing to expose his own beliefs, even though he knows it could hurt his standing with some here. I wanted to offer my honest thoughts on all sides of the issues. I WANT TO BE CLEAR, HOWEVER, THAT I DO NOT MEAN ILL TOWARDS ANYONE ON THIS SITE WITH MY VIEWS. I attempted to paint with a very broad brush, to show some of how I view each of the different political stances. If I offended anyone, I sincerely apologize. That wasn’t my intent. My intent was to foster some honest dialogue around political ideology. Hopefully that will be my result, and not a mass of offended folks. I am who I am. And I am not ashamed of it. And I think that is something that I share with just about every single reader of this site. I think being honest about with oneself about who you are is the first step towards meaningful dialogue with those who are different than you.

Mathius finished with these questions, which I will answer:

But what about the flip side of the coin? Are some of our views about the conservatives (even if over-simplified, and not applicable to the whole) viable? Absolutely.

-Does race-bating play a role? I am not sure that I understand what you are asking here. Do you mean do conservatives race-bait? I honestly see race as a small issue in today’s society when it comes to the majority of people. I believe that most race issues are perception rather than reality.
-Do corporate interests manipulate the masses (to a greater extent than in the liberal camp)? Good question. Yes, they probably do. But not by much. I think that corporate interests manipulate conservatives more than liberals. But I also believe that corporate interests control the two political parties equally.
-Do conservatives get so blinded by “guns, God, and gays” that nothing else matters? I think a very small majority of them do. To be honest, it isn’t about guns for me. It is about the 2nd amendment and the understanding that our greatest threat comes from a government that disarms its citizens. I truly believe that. I think many Americans do. God is a non-issue for me. I think that the religious right is losing power very quickly in the conservative camps. And where I believe that god was a blinding factor for 50% of Americans 30 years ago, I think it is only for about a vocal 10% today. You can simply put gays into the god issue. The only people that have issue with gays are those who do so on the basis of God. At least I think so.
-Are many conservatives proudly anti-intellectual? Absolutely not. At least not proudly. I think they are anti liberal intellectualism, but not intellectualism as a whole. There are as many educated conservatives as liberals. And the uneducated liberals feel the same way about intellectualism as uneducated conservatives. I think the conservative movement in general isn’t against intellectualism, but they do believe that intellectualism is only half of the puzzle. Book smart and street dumb, as they say. They value intellect but feel it is worthless if you lack common sense or are unwilling to think things through logically. I also, for the record, think that the rampant emotionalism in vocal liberals makes folks think that their education left them lacking the ability to argue on merit. I think that is the anti-intellectualism you see from conservatives. It may be unfounded, but you asked for my opinion.


Do conservatives condescend to the bleeding heart liberals, too? You bet your ass they do. I think condescending is a universal fact in American politics. I also think it is the number one reason why folks are unable to discuss politics respectfully. I never could have had a site with differing points of view ten years ago because I would have run everyone off with my condescension. And I see folks condescending to the folks on the left on this site regularly. It makes me cringe and wonder whether I should be stepping in. So long as it doesn’t get nasty, I have not done so. But watch it!  😉

I can own up to the failings of my side. But what about your side? I think I have successfully bashed all sides except the USWeapon side, lol.

So I offer a couple of questions of my own.

  1. Do you believe that conservatives are simply less educated or less intelligent than liberals?
  2. Do liberals play the race card far too often?
  3. Do you believe that liberals fall to emotional appeal too often?
  4. Do you think that liberals are at all concerned with the Constitution if it doesn’t support their vision?
  5. Do you think that liberals are so blinded by a hatred of the wealthy that they fail to hold any others accountable for their own personal results in life?
  6. Last question. Most important. Is there a limit to how much of our wealth government is entitled to or how large in size and scope government should become?

A link to the original article that Mathius referenced:Gerard Alexander: Why are liberals so condescending? – washingtonpost.com


  1. Hi all: I haven’t been able to get onto SUFA for awhile, but the weather in the Gulf of Mexico is ugly and they have relaxed the “Parental Controls” on the network for now. I work on an ROV boat in the oil field (Drill Baby Drill) and hoping to see some expansion and more work this year.

    I’m not highly educated(formally). I have learned a lot on-the-job, which I feel is better because I haven’t been to College and had my mind confused with some of the B.S. that is taught there.

    1. I don’t know the education levels of conservatives vs. Liberals, but it seems to me that the former have a more common-sense approach to our challenges, while the latter seem to want to use emotion to bring folks over to their way of thinking.

    2. ABSOLUTELY too much race-baiting. It’s gotten to the point where, where there IS actual racial injustice, it’s become meaningless due to the constant focus on race. I see where Louis Farrakhan thinks that the Health Care debate is a ploy by Whitey to keep Obama from being re-elected.

    3. Yes, see #1.

    4. It doesn’t look like they care about the Constitution these days. They seem to only be concerned about job security and Absolute Power. We won so suck it up.

    5. The whole demonization of the rich and successful (penis envy?) is ignorant. The rich already pay more than their fair share of taxes, not to mention they create jobs. It seems a lot of businesses are deferring hiring anyone until they see what the financial impact of “reform” is going to be. This is NOT the way to create jobs.

    6. The 535 seem to think they can take everything from the working people and give it away to the lazy and their sleazy friends. R’s as well as D’s. Maybe is they had to depend on SS and 401(k) and Medicare (some are old enough), they would be motivated to fix it. One can dream.

    In closing, I do agree with the concept of VLDG. The Government wants to control everything we do. I don’t know if throwing the bums out in November will help, of if (more likely) we’ll just get new bums.

  2. Do you believe that conservatives are simply less educated or less intelligent than liberals?

    NO! I have seen the demographics and based on the voter bases, I would say that conservatives are far more intelligent. I don’t say this because of any person or persons in general, but strictly on the demographics.

    Do liberals play the race card far too often?

    This past year, I would say yes. Had Hillary been elected, we’d be male chovenists (sp?)

    Do you believe that liberals fall to emotional appeal too often?

    Constantly, even those I speak to at work.

    Do you think that liberals are at all concerned with the Constitution if it doesn’t support their vision?

    No, if it were up to most liberals, there would be no Constitution. And NO, it is not a living document.

    Do you think that liberals are so blinded by a hatred of the wealthy that they fail to hold any others accountable for their own personal results in life?

    Look at the demographics of the voter bases, it clearly would say yes.

    Last question. Most important. Is there a limit to how much of our wealth government is entitled to or how large in size and scope government should become?

    Yes, They have crossed that line a long time ago. Too many taxes, too many regulations and laws, too much control, and trying to get a totallity of all of them in place.

    Peace and Live Free!


  3. Birdman says:

    1.Do you believe that conservatives are simply less educated or less intelligent than liberals?

    No, conservatives are not less educated or less intelligent than liberals. Liberals think they are smarter than others but they are not. In most of my career, I’ve dealt with blue collar workers and they almost always voted for democrats because the Union told them to, they believed that democrats represented their interests, they hated companies and management, they wanted more from government, and other reasons.

    2.Do liberals play the race card far too often?

    Yes. The end justifies the means. If they can gain support by using the race card they will.

    3.Do you believe that liberals fall to emotional appeal too often?

    Yes, that’s how they govern. The recent health care dog and pony show demonstrated that. Liberals brought up emotional stories of people and their experience with our health care system. An Aunt wearing a dead person’s dentures because she could not afford her own!

    4.Do you think that liberals are at all concerned with the Constitution if it doesn’t support their vision?

    Liberals don’t care for the constitution and will ignore it if it interferes with their agenda. To them the constitution does not exist and they operate in that manner.

    5.Do you think that liberals are so blinded by a hatred of the wealthy that they fail to hold any others accountable for their own personal results in life?

    Liberals need enemies. The wealthy are an easy target and they can find many ways to attack them. One of Obama’s jobs is to return wealth to the rightful owners, the poor and lower middle class people that earned it for the rich. Other enemies are banks, corporations, the oil industry, etc.

    6.Last question. Most important. Is there a limit to how much of our wealth government is entitled to or how large in size and scope government should become?

    For liberals, there is no limit to how much wealth government is entitled to or the size and scope of government. The bigger the better.

    • Hi Birdman,

      Im not sure the Banks, Corporation, Oil Industry, etc. are really ‘enemies’ of Obama. They send a lot of money to O and his agenda. It reminds me of TV wrestling. The adversaries put on a great show for the masses, then go backstage, have a beer and a laugh, then go cash their paychecks.

  4. I have to say, I don’t really agree with much in parts of this article, and it makes me wonder about the rest. I consider myself an independent because I don’t follow the republican or democrat ideology (that is, I don’t support something because it is one and oppose something else because it is the other), but I do consider myself conservative. Looking at your bashing of conservatives, I would say that almost all of my conservative friends and I do not adhere to the painting you have given of us. I know you would say you’re using a “broad” brush, but I’d say you’ve missed conservativism and hit republicanism. There is a big difference.

    I do not jump to end of the world “conclusions,” nor to death panels, nor Obama’s citizenship or religion, nor world government, nor do I support the patriot act, nor the definition of marriage by the government, nor the banning of headscarves, nor do I scorn education. Neither do any of my conservative friends! This makes me wonder if liberals actually do hold to any of the principles that you have bashed here! I think that is a major problem. If people on the left think I believe these things because I am conservative, no wonder they think I am wrong!

    I consider myself an intellectual because I always try to use reason and logic in my arguments. There are very few things that I just believe, and those cannot be proven (to others at least) one way or another, so reasons for belief or disbelief are meaningless (the existence of God, string theory, etc). I put a great store in education (I myself am halfway towards a PhD for whatever that means). I believe religion gives one values and education gives the ability to investigate the world. Here is another place that I think you are dead wrong, USW. All of the conservatives I talk with think education is important. None of them believe we should give up education for church! Do some of them believe at the college level that liberals tend to exert influence? Yes. Do they think you shouldn’t go to college? No. We simply believe that liberals (and conservatives) should check their ideology at the door and tell the facts! Does this make us anti-education…

    I understand that you meant no offense with your analysis, and none was taken. I simply wanted to point out how some of your conclusions were wrong (or at least from my vantage point). And of course, I mean no offense to you, I am just offering my opinion.

    I would like to hear a similar response from liberals if anyone is up to it. Do you actually believe the things about which USW spoke? Or is this just a misrepresentation of you as it is of me?

    • Ellen Spalding says:


      I agree that the schools across the board at any level should check ideology at the door and just teach the facts period. No question on that one.

      I do see that there needs to a education of religion along with book education. To me my religious education came me the backbone to form my belief system I have now. That should not be left out either.

      Have a good one.


      • Buck The Wala says:

        Hey Ellen,

        Could you expand a bit on your opinion regarding the place of religious education within the school system?

        From my reading of your post: you believe religious education is extremely important (fair enough) but you also believe that a religious education should be taught within the school system? (here is where I would have to step in — which religion should be taught? how do you teach religion to students of differing religious backgrounds? to atheists?)

        I am all for a solid religious education if you believe in that. But in my opinion that should be done outside of the public schools.

        • Ellen Spalding says:


          No not unless you are going to a religious private school.It should not be taught at schools, but I think there should be places for parents and kids to go and get this guidance or teachings.


          • Buck The Wala says:

            Maybe I’m misunderstanding your point, but there are places for parents and kids to go — Church, Synagogue, Private Schools…

            I guess your point is just that religious education was a fundamental component of your education. Well put.

      • Ellen,

        A great point! Today, any mention of God in school is forbidden under threat of fines, prison or loss of job. Is it so bad to say, one nation, under God? Or to say a prayer in the morning or at lunch? Or to teach our nations history, why the founders included the Ten Commandments on so many courthouses.

        • High Court Passes on Ten Commandments Case
          March 1, 2010 – 10:27 AM | by: Lee Ross

          WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court announced Monday it will not hear a case over the ordered removal of a Ten Commandments monument on a county courthouse lawn.

          Five years ago the high court issued a pair of sharply divided rulings that both upheld and overturned public displays of the Ten Commandments.

          The dispute the justices refused to give further consideration to comes from Haskell County, Oklahoma where ten donated permanent monuments are on display outside on the courthouse lawn. Those monuments include war memorials and another honoring the Choctaw Nation. James Green and the ACLU sued to remove the one inscribed with the Ten Commandments arguing its placement on the public lawn is unconstitutional.

          A trial court upheld the county’s decision to erect the privately-funded monument but last year a three judge panel of the Tenth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals unanimously overturned that ruling in favor of Green and the ACLU. An evenly split panel (6-6) of the entire Tenth Circuit decided against taking another look at the case which led to Haskell County’s appeal to the Supreme Court.

          In its petition asking the justices to take the case, lawyers for Haskell County argued their case offers the justices a straightforward opportunity to clarify the procedures by which judges can determine if the Constitution is infringed. The County contends a “well-informed and reasonable observer” test is the proper standard to figure out if the display is impermissible. In other words, would a well-informed and reasonable person conclude that this monument in its exact location represents an improper government endorsement of a specific religious belief?

          In asking the justices to deny further review, lawyers for the ACLU argued there is nothing for the Court to clarify and that context matters for trial judges to figure out if a monument crosses the line. “The Tenth Circuit and other courts of appeals have faithfully heeded this fact-sensitive approach,” wrote Daniel Mach on behalf of Green and the ACLU.

          In 2005, the high court issued a pair of 5-4 rulings that prohibited the display of the Ten Commandments inside a Kentucky courthouse but allowed for the erection of a monument on the grounds of the Texas Capitol in Austin. They reasoned the Kentucky display was impermissible because it favorably viewed a particular religious belief while the Texas monument was acceptable because it emphasized the historical and educational importance of the Ten Commandments.

    • JB

      “(I myself am halfway towards a PhD for whatever that means).”

      It means Piled Higher and Deeper! 🙂 🙂

      Sorry, couldn’t help myself. It was just sitting there, like a ripe apple waiting to be picked.

      A great big GOOD MORNING to ya JB.

      • I never heard that one, JAC. That’s funny. I’ll be sure to use it when one of them talks down to me, LOL!

        • Cyndi P

          BA= Bulls Ass degree (at SUFA this would get you the “assclown” moniker) 🙂
          BS= Bull Shit degree
          MS= More Shit degree
          PhD= Piled Higher and Deeper degree

          Not that I have an anti-intellectual bias or anything like dat.

          Howdy, howdy my island friend

      • PhD

        I was flying home with the majority owner of a global conglomerate – a meg-millionaire – and he was chatting about his life.

        He was President of the Group of Companies – at the youthful age of 36.

        Someone the entourage asked “How’d you get that position so young?”

        He said “I have a PhD!”

        Most of us knew he never went to college. He went directly into the family business so his response was a surprise….

        …and with a mischievous smile on his face he continue…

        Papa has Dough!”

      • You are a mighty fine picker of apples, my friend.

        Pick away, it hinders me not and makes me laugh.

        And a GOOD EVENING to you, JAC!

    • USWeapon says:


      I can see your points. I tend to agree that what I am offering here tends to go more towards the Republican party than the actual conservatives in America. So I will qualify by saying that I apply it to the conservatives in America who buy the GOP lines hook, line, and sinker.

      For the record, there are very few that read here at SUFA who I feel fall into the categories as I presented them. I tend to feel the readership here is a little more informed, a little more practical, and a little less arrogant.

      I absolutely do not intend to say that what I offered is representative of you JB. Because that is obviously not the case. But it is the perception that I think many on the left have of those on the right. Remember, I am on the right. I was attempting to offer my version of what a liberal would write about a conservative, since Mathius’ original article was conservative about a liberal.

      I am equally interested in hearing whether those on the left think I am equally off base when describing them.

      Thanks for the comments JB.

  5. By the way, the us versus them terminology that seems to be prevalent today is unsettling. No wonder we can’t agree on anything if we think the “other side” is so bad! If you disagree with them, it’s fine, but let’s all act like Americans here and treat each other as brothers and sisters of the same cause!

    • Fine, but only if you agree that your side is the “Others.”

      A freshman representative is being
      shown around by an older, more
      experienced colleague. The younger
      says “let’s go mean the enemy.”

      The older man looks shocked. He
      said “son, the republicans are the
      opposition, they are truly trying
      to do what is best for the country.
      We may not always agree on how best
      to do it, but they are still our
      friends and brothers.”

      The younger man looks ashamed and
      humbled at the wisdom and
      thoughtfulness of the older man.
      He said, “I see your point, I will
      never forget that so long as I
      serve. Next, can we go meet up
      with some senators?”

      “No, son, they’re the enemy.”

    • USWeapon says:

      I agree completely JB. And that is exactly why I have the site set up the way that I do. As I have very often said, I believe there is far more that we have in common than what separates us. While my article may appear to believe that I don’t think there is common ground, that is not how I actually feel.

      I do think that the basic problem is a drastic difference in the premise we start from.

  6. Naten53 says:

    I will answer these in terms of conservatives and liberals in my opinion.

    1. Do you believe that conservatives are simply less educated or less intelligent than liberals?
    I believe that both sides have educated and uneducated members. The politicians of both sides believe that they know best for the uneducated. I agree with what Birdman has already posted about Union workers voting just because the union told them to vote that way and they didn’t look at the issues. But beyond that I think it is a common problem for both parties. I grew up in a heavily republican area and now live in a largely democrat/union area. In general there are a significant amount of people that vote because that is how they were raised. “Mom and Dad and everyone around are so I am too” mentality is too common. The intelligent are also guilty of this when they do not actually study our government. It is the very few, like those of us at SUFA that can actually defend our beliefs.

    2. Do liberals play the race card far too often?
    During the election and up to a year after the election I have heard the race card more then ever in my life. It makes me feel like I have been targeted for being an evil white man. However, I think this has slowed in the past couple of months because the left realized that playing the race card makes people that actually are not racist extremely mad. I was extremely mad every time they tried to say that people that disagree with the left are racist. I think the race card use is slowing down, and we might not see it prevalent again unless the democrats hold onto a majority in both houses during the mid-term election. Even then, it would only be used until the ‘012 election cycle.

    3. Do you believe that liberals fall to emotional appeal too often?
    I think liberals are exactly the same as conservatives in that they care about their fellow man. The only difference is how politicians take advantage of that. I would say that liberal politicians use emotional appeal more than conservatives, but conservatives use it also, ex. “death panels”. If you look at my answer to #1, I think it is exactly the same on how politicians manipulate the politically uneducated.

    4. Do you think that liberals are at all concerned with the Constitution if it doesn’t support their vision?
    I think politicians on both sides are not concerned with the Constitution. They both pander to the politically uneducated to achieve their goals regardless of what the constitution actually says.

    5. Do you think that liberals are so blinded by a hatred of the wealthy that they fail to hold any others accountable for their own personal results in life?
    I believe the politically uneducated are and that the politicians pander to them.

    6. Last question. Most important. Is there a limit to how much of our wealth government is entitled to or how large in size and scope government should become?
    I think there is a limit and it is not yet reached. I don’t know what the limit is, however, there is a limit of how much people will take before they take drastic steps, those steps could escalate or not depending on how the government reacts, ex. American Revoloution.

  7. v. Holland says:

    I have no time this morning so I’m just going to address this statement:” I simply cannot understand why the general conservative argument against just about everything these days ends up with the end of the world as we know it” I go to this place -not that I necessarily buy into the Obama and the far left dems. are evil, although I believe that there are powerful people who are-but because whatever their intentions whether they are good or not doesn’t matter-the things they want to do will lead to the end of the world as I have known it and with time to a fake democracy and I believe ultimately to a one world government. History, I believe bares this out. BUT calling people Hitler is stupid, it doesn’t further any conversation-pointing out that their theology leads to the kind of control that Hitler and other Dictators had over their people is legitimate in my opinion.

    • v. Holland says:

      Rushing is bad, ideology not theology, although they both probably fit.

    • Naten53 says:

      according to the mayans, we have nothing to worry about past 2012 anyways.

    • Hi V.

      I’m reading the book Aftersock. Its about the economy. Talk about the end of the world as we know it! The authors posit that economically, we are evolving to a world with one currency and all transactions being electronic. Of course, economically speaking, we’ll have to walk through the Valley of Death to get there, with a lot money ging to what they call Money Heaven. The authors of this book are the same ones who correctly predicted the current econmic condition we now find ourselves in. Of course, past performance doesn’t guarantee future performance. I hope these folks are wrong. One problem I found is they seem to believe that AGW is real…..

  8. Ellen Spalding says:

    Good Morning to Everyone- Hope the weekend treated people well. We are suppose to hit the 40’s by Friday! Break out the shorts.

    1)Do you believe that conservatives are simply less educated or less intelligent than liberals?
    NO, I think both sides have a education or have been educated in some form. But I think that both sides are equally guilty of having or accepting stupid people into their camps.

    2)Do liberals play the race card far too often?
    Yes I do, but on the other side of the coin I think that conservatives use the religion card to much also. The way I see it If I dont like President Obama I am against blacks, If I dont like conservatives I must not have enough God in my life.
    3) Do you believe that liberals fall to emotional appeal too often? Liberals do use the emotions of people to get what they want through. And the other side uses fear a equal amount. If you allow this to happen they are going to line up all the Grandmas of the world and kill them.
    4) Do you think that liberals are at all concerned with the Constitution if it doesn’t support their vision?
    I think both sides use or dont use the Constitution as they see fit. IF it works for them at that moment great, if not well it didnt mean that. Always excuses on both sides.
    5)Do you think that liberals are so blinded by a hatred of the wealthy that they fail to hold any others accountable for their own personal results in life? I think that politicans and their faithful followers are unaccountable across the board. They have excuses of why things are not what they should be and have a blame group ready and waiting.
    6)Last question. Most important. Is there a limit to how much of our wealth government is entitled to or how large in size and scope government should become?
    Yes, and I think we have been pass that mark for a long time now. I dont see anyone in the mix that is going to change that fact on either side of the coin.

  9. Buck The Wala says:

    Overall great article today USW – feel you did a good job portraying your views of both parties.

    Quick answers from a liberal on your questions:

    1) No, Conservatives (at least politicians, as I have no idea of education demographics by party but am sure they are relatively similar) are just as well-educated and intelligent as Liberals. However, I do agree with Mathius that conservatives will often play to anti-intellectualism and elitism.

    2) Both sides use race baiting way too often in my own opinion. Yes, the liberals play the race card. But so too do the conservatives, albeit in different ways.

    3) Again, Both sides use an emotional appeal, albeit in different ways.

    4) Are Liberals concerned with the constitution? ABSOLUTELY YES! Liberals and Conservatives have very different views of the constitution, but just because Liberals disagree with the strict constructionist approach advocated by many conservatives does not meen that they are unconcerned with the Constitution in the least.

    5) Are Liberals blinded by a hatred of the wealthy and against personal responsibility? No, I don’t think this is true at all.

    6) There are absolutely limited to the size and scope of government, but this limit is and should be chosen by the American people through elections. This would mean that the size and scope of government should be changing based on the will of the people.

  10. Been following along and think this is an awful lot to tackle at once. I’m going to just ask Buck to expand on his comment about “the strict constructionist approach” to the constitution by the conservatives. I don’t understand how you view the constitution. It’s a serious question not sarcasm. You refer in answer 6 to limit the size and scope of govt through elections. The constitution lays out exactly the limits of govt. How do you relate your answer 4 to 6?

    • Buck The Wala says:

      Hey Anita,

      I’ll try to answer your questions as best I can.

      a) Strict Constructionism — the document is as it says, very loosly speaking. This is the approach generally favored by Conservatives, and is in direct opposition to the “Living Document” approach generally favored by Liberals. Take a look at some Supreme Court opinions and you can see this playing out in real time. For instance, as Mathius pointed out in his answer below, the right of privacy. Nowhere in the document itself does this exist by its very terms (In fact, the word ‘privacy’ never appears at all). Conservatives, applying Strict Constructionism, may well argue that there is no right to privacy at all, since the Founding Fathers failed to draft one into the document. Liberals, applying a Living Document approach, have found the right to privacy to be essential to the document itself, despite the fact that the phrase ‘right to privacy’ does not exist; in essence, it is a penumbral right.

      Penumbras: “In law, penumbra refers to an area in which something exists in a lesser or uncertain degree. Penumbral rights are rights that the Constitution does not specifically mention, but may be implied by the rights that are enumerated.”

      b) How does this square away with my answer as to the size and scope of government? The Constitution does lay out the rights of the government, but it does not specify how far the government can go in exercising these rights. This is the role of the populace, to decide how far the government should extend in excercising its rights.

      Hope this helps sum it up!

      • Forgive my mere bachelor degree education but I’ve never heard of penumbras. Sounds to me that you get to make the rules up as you go.

        I can’t even wrap my head around that enough to respond but I have a feeling some others will have my back.

        • v. Holland says:

          I agree with you Anita-he says there are limits but can’t define what they are because there living document definition is always changeable at the whim of the interpreters.

        • Buck The Wala says:

          Its not about making up the rules on the fly, although I can see how you can think that. Conservatives often make that argument. Its really about reading and interpreting the document in order to derive its intent.

          Penumbras can easily be made to seem out there and just developed on one man’s whim, but that isn’t the case. Penumbras were used by the Founding Fathers themselves, most notably in Marbury v. Madison when the Supreme Court derived the concept of judicial review (a term which also does not exist in the Constitution, much like the ‘right of privacy’).

          The right to privacy is probably the most famous as it has been used and developed most recently – it also is used to relate to certain contentious cases, such as Roe v. Wade (abortion) and Lawrence v. Texas (declaring unconstitutional a state law prohibiting consensual sodomy) and is often discussed curretnly in terms of gay marriage. In the 20s it was first used to protect a parent’s right to educate their children as they alone saw fit – basically establishing a right to marry, procreate, and raise one’s kids and family. That right was subsequently extended to declare a CT state law banning contraception as unconstitutional (surely if the right to marry, procreate, and raise one’s children exists, so does the right to decide whether or not to procreate).

          Of course this is an oversimplification, but I believe you get the gist.

          • v. Holland says:

            I get the gist the federal government on the whim of whoever is in power-continuously uses the living document argument to take rights away from the states, where the Constitution put them.

      • So, can we consider the right to privacy a penumbra of the 4th Ammendment?

        • Buck The Wala says:

          In part, yes. Also the 1st Amendment in part. And the 14th Amendment in part.

      • “But does not specify how far the govt can go in excercizing these rights.”

        So what gives you the right to specify?

        My penumbra says don’t go there then. ( I know I didn’t use the word right. You know what I’m saying.)

        • Buck The Wala says:

          One has nothing to do with another.

          A penumbral right is a right under the Constitution. Once you have a right the people must decide how far that right extends and define the scope of that right.

          For instance, Congress as the right to regulate interstate commerce. That right can be defined very narrowly or very broadly. The Constitution doesn’t specify how this right should be defined nor how far the right extends. Only the people can make such decisions.

          • v. Holland says:

            The Constitution makes a point of limiting the Federal government rights not the States-so the word broad shouldn’t ever be applied to any federal powers.

            • Buck The Wala says:

              I would disagree. Just because the Constitution sets out to limit the federal government’s authority to certain realms does not necessarily mean that the bredth of the federal government’s scope of authority over those realms is meant to be narrow.

              • v. Holland says:

                Then we will have to disagree 🙂 but the constitution makes it very plan that the founding Fathers wanted separation of powers not a huge centralized government-meaning limited federal powers-that is the problem with a Living document theory-it gives the Federal government the ability to become large and oppressive.

              • Buck The Wala says:

                And that’s the (overly simplified) crux of the debate between strict constructionists and living documentarians.

                To me the Founding Fathers were smart enough to know that they didn’t know everything, they didn’t have all the answers, and didn’t know what the future would bring. The Constitution is purposefully vague enough to adapt to changing times.

              • v. Holland says:

                There is a difference between something being adaptable and changing the whole original intent of the document-one is necessary the other is finding a loophole.

              • v. Holland says:

                And our government has found loopholes to pass laws and then used these laws as precedent to justify further manipulation of the original document.

              • Buck The Wala says:

                Ok, you win – we’ll have to disagree on this then!


              • Since I totally agreee with V I guess I’ll disagree with her also. How is that for doublespeak. 🙂

              • Buck The Wala says:

                Anita, now you just have me confused…

              • Good! You make me feel that way everyday 🙂

              • Buck The Wala says:

                Not a very nice feeling…maybe I just need more coffee.

              • Sounds like doublespeak bigtime

              • Buck The Wala says:

                No doublespeak at all.

  11. 1. Do you believe that conservatives are simply less educated or less intelligent than liberals?

    Yes. (Wow, I bet that’s going to piss a lot of people off). But alas, the truth hurts some times. The disparity, I think, lies in how we define “educated.” You see, I define it in terms of formal education. I have no metric for gauging “common sense,” but I can definitely demonstrate that the states with the highest levels of formal education tend to be Democratic whereas the least (again, formally) educated tend to be Republican. With the exception of Utah, Colorado and Nevada, virtually all of the highest educated states are blue or lean blue. Likewise, cities tend to have higher levels of education than rural areas and cities also tend to be more liberal. Do we have our share of the uneducated? Absolutely. It’s just a question of which has the higher average, and I believe that is our side.

    Does this mean Democrats are smarter? No, no, and hell no. But the anecdotal evidence does suggest that we’re better educated – again, book smarts, not necessarily street smarts.

    2. Do liberals play the race card far too often?

    3. Do you believe that liberals fall to emotional appeal too often?
    Yes and no. It’s more than that. We know that we are yielding to emotional appeals, but sometimes, we recognize that we have moral obligations which supersede other considerations. We recognize taxation as a necessary evil, but we accept it because we believe the alternative is worse.

    4. Do you think that liberals are at all concerned with the Constitution if it doesn’t support their vision?
    Not really. We have the clauses we like and the right has the clauses they like. They like guns, we like privacy. Etc. My gut feeling is that we tend to be more aware of the concept that the Constitution is a living document – that the Founders were not all-knowing, all-seeing, and that they could not have crafted a document which is prefect for the modern world. As such, we tend to view it as needing interpretation, whereas conservatives tend to be stricter with their reading. Again, sweeping generalizations, but I call ’em as I see ’em.

    5. Do you think that liberals are so blinded by a hatred of the wealthy that they fail to hold any others accountable for their own personal results in life?
    We don’t hate the wealthy. I reject that mischaracterization. We believe that, with great power wealth, comes great responsibility. It’s not that we wish to punish the wealthy, but rather that we wish to force them to do what we view as their duty to society.

    6. Last question. Most important. Is there a limit to how much of our wealth government is entitled to or how large in size and scope government should become?
    Not really…. It’s all a cost benefit ratio. If the government could take everything we make, but give us back a perfect society, I would consider it a bargain. As that isn’t possible, I think there are practical limits. I make no claims as to what these are. I will say that I do not think taxes are high enough (GASP!!) for high earners. But I also think there is a lot that the government does that needs re-evaluation and/or streamlining. A lot of programs have grown beyond their original parameters. A lot of programs have massive flaws due to the compromises needed to pass them. A lot of bureaucracy needs to be trimmed. But, in direct opposition to Weapon’s claims, I believe that we get more for our taxes than we lose.


    • I do think that you try to CYA on issues

      If liberals are book smarter and congregate in cities why are the liberal cities failing ie: Detroit?

    • Ellen Spalding says:

      A raptor in disguise – now that is funny!

    • What do you have against Raptors?

    • v. Holland says:

      Okay, Matt-you are making me sputter here-cost benefit ratio-isn’t that why insurance companies and big corps. are supposed to be evil-and if everything is based of cost benefit-how in the world can you look at our current economy and say we should have health care. How can you look at the waste and failure of welfare and say it’s benefits outweigh it’s cost?

    • If education is defined as Leftist Propaganda = Education, then yes, most C’s are uneducated. The formula is proven by the fact that the states with the most formally educated citizens are Ds. You said so yourself.

      All you’ve done is confirm that higher education is a bastion of Leftist brainwashing. Notice that cities and state administered my Ds are pretty much financially, if not morally, bankrupt. (see CA, Detroit, etc…)

    • Bama dad says:

      Matt said:
      “It’s not that we wish to punish the wealthy, but rather that we wish to force them to do what we view as their duty to society.”

      Be very afraid of the words force and duty history has shown us that terrible things have been justified by those in authority using those two words. Remember if you justify force being used on one group of people it can then be used on you by others.

    • Cities also lean liberal due to the high population of welfare recipients.

    • “I will say that I do not think taxes are high enough (GASP!!) for high earners.”

      I’m curious. How much is enough for the top earners? Would you say taxing someone above 50% is fair? Is it fair for the wealthiest people to have more of their money given to someone else than kept by them?

      Also, In terms of cost/benefit, isn’t it true that having higher taxes will drive companies to another country and so lowering taxes will actually INCREASE revenue if we can lure companies here?

      As in everything, it is not all black and white. Raising taxes only works if everyone stays where they are. Giving tax credits to companies to foster job growth only works when companies actually use that money to create jobs…

    • Matt et al

      For those interested here are the numbers for %of population with a BS or better for 2007


      Note which Non State has the absolutely highest level of college degrees.

      Proof that more education does not create more intelligence. (Thats a joke for those who need a clue).

      Har har har

      • Why is Arkansas ranked 48th with 19.3% and Mississippi ranked 47th with 18.9%?

        • Jennie

          I don’t know exactly why but the site has a caveat that explains the ranking may not be perfect because of statistical problems when going from state to state.

          Probably best to look at groups of +/- 3 or 4%. That is my personal guess regarding the sampling error.

    • Anybody else have a feeling Matt is preparing a thesis on liberalism v conservatism? He left his buddy Buck to fend for himself. And where are the other libs today? Kudos to Buck!

      • Buck The Wala says:

        Why thank you Anita!

        Part of me is thinking Matt must be writing some manifesto to post later. The rest of me fears the raptors have found him…

    • Sorry Mathius but I disagree on #5. I believe the rich pay their fair share of taxes and then some. I know, they have better accountants and can find loopholes to reduce their tax burden, but poor people don’t create jobs. This class warfare (penis envy) has been used for many years. It’s like there’s only so much wealth, so if I have more I’ve stolen it from you.

  12. Hey, USW…Nice article. I noticed that the article contrasted the liberal, progressive, and conservative mantra and made good points in how they differ.

    Education is good and preferred but is not the answer to all things. There are many educated stupid people out there. I think there is too much emphasis on education in that it tends to breed a superiority complex. ( I am a PHD or I am a MBA and that makes me smarter than you ). This, of course, is bull shit. Education is what you make of it. The college professor that touts a specific ideology and has never lived within it, carries no more weight with me than the man who digs ditches for the city. Does education help one get a better start..yes, it probably does but no different than the man that went to trade school. I possess an MBA in finance but I am no smarter or no different than the mechanic that fixes my car. I do not expect the mechanic to know about weighted averages or international finance but I know nothing about fixing my car. That makes us equal and given the fact that I want my car, probably makes him more important. Every year, we climb onto airplanes and put our lives in the hands of mechanics or pilots that may or may not have an education.

    Race card….I have not seen race as much an issue as it is now and I grew up in the 50’s and 60’s during the worst of it. It is a weapon today. It was nothing more than an injustice long ago that has been corrected….and it has been corrected. Now, it is a “remember the Alamo” cry.If you disagree with Obama…you are a racist. If you disagree with entitlement programs…you are a racist. If you disagree with universal health care…you are a racist. If you disagree with unions…you are a racist. If you disagree with ACORN…you are a racist. If you disagree with quotas…you are a racist. And on and on and on and on. I wonder if THIS type of mentality is not creating a racist mentality that was not there before. Funny thing, tho…I have shared canteens with Blacks…and do not have a craving for watermelons nor do I have darkened skin and curly black hair..I have shared food and canteens with Hispanics…I do not have a craving to eat tacos or steal cars. when on the battlefield, I did not see a “black” letting a “whitey” die because of the color of his skin, or a “Hispanic” not resuscitation to another race for fear of being contaminated….I saw human individuals saving lives. What I see happening now is the polarization of sides…like a football game…but after it is over, in the world of politics or ideology, no one meets in the middle of the field and shakes hands. Today, I see race as a potent weapon and it is tended to be used by the liberal side more. But when someone plays the race card on me, I can just laugh at them and accept the fact that THEY are the ones that are ignorant.

    As to the Constitution,I have found that liberals tend to believe that it is a living document while I believe in the strict interpretation and it is not a living document to be interpreted to mean what you want it to mean at different times. But that is my belief and I am entitled to it.

    AS to the power of the government and taxes and wealth….I believe that everyone should pull their fair share..just because someone has more is no justification for them to pay more. I hate progressive taxes. IF taxes are going to be a mainstay (and they are) I believe the burden of taxes should be even. For example, a flat tax. NO ONE should get a free ride. To take three million from a person that makes ten million and the person that makes $25,000 pays nothing and gets money back….is wrong. There should be no free ride….anywhere.

    But, I am conservative but not in the sense that you stipulate. I am actually a realist. I believe what I see, feel, hear, and touch and I believe that everyone is entitled to earn their way in life and NOTHING is given. You earn it, you keep it…you don’t earn it….then you suffer the consequences.

    • Ellen Spalding says:

      I agree on the flat tax concept, everyone pays. No up and down BS. The progressive tax is used against to much to be anywhere near fair. There are loopholes everywhere with taxes, no not the way to go.

      Education is good, but like you I know nothing about my truck and how to fix it. I take it to my mechanic Jim and he fixes it and I love it. He is a high school grad only, but not at all stupid.

  13. Judy Sabatini says:

    Morning Everyone

    Reading along for now, have a very busy day. Hope to chime in later.

    Hope you all had a great weekend, and will have a good day today.


  14. 1. Do you believe that conservatives are simply less educated or less intelligent than liberals? No, but I think the fringe left and media do portray
    conservatives in that way.

    2. Do liberals play the race card far too often? Fringe left and media again.

    3. Do you believe that liberals fall to emotional appeal too often? Yes, welfare & SS, for ex., started as a safety net, now having negative effects on society such as unwed mothers that produce 80% of our prison population.

    4. Do you think that liberals are at all concerned with the Constitution if it doesn’t support their vision? Fringe left does not care. Middle liberals have to have a justification to override the constitution, such as things our founders could not imagine. Consider though, the founders knew poverty very well, but did not think government had any role in supplying food and housing for the needy.

    5. Do you think that liberals are so blinded by a hatred of the wealthy that they fail to hold any others accountable for their own personal results in life?
    Fringe left, yes, middle left can justify the means to a more “equal” ending.

    6. Last question. Most important. Is there a limit to how much of our wealth government is entitled to or how large in size and scope government should become? Yes, the Constitution was a contract to the people that set limits on the scope of government. They feared the results of too powerful a government, and would be outraged by the size and power it has reached, as well as the means by which it got that power.

    We need to file a lawsuit for breach of contract, and I want my money back!

    • USW said,”I simply cannot understand why the general conservative argument against just about everything these days ends up with the end of the world as we know it (the reference to 2012, end of the world). It seems as though no matter what the subject, there is a world altering consequence associated with doing things the way that liberals would have us do them.”

      Conservative argument, history. Please apply to healthcare & Cap & Trade, but not to everything liberals favor.

      Our Social Security

      Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social
      Security (FICA) Program. He promised:

      1.) That participation in the Program would be
      Completely voluntary,

      No longer Voluntary

      2.) That the participants would only have to pay
      1% of the first $1,400 of their annual
      Incomes into the Program,

      Now 7.65%

      3.) That the money the participants elected to put
      into the Program would be deductible from
      their income for tax purposes each year,

      No longer tax deductible

      4.) That the money the participants put into the
      independent ‘Trust Fund’ rather than into the
      general operating fund, and therefore, would
      only be used to fund the Social Security
      Retirement Program, and no other
      Government program, and,

      Under Johnson, the money was moved to

      The General Fund and Spent

      5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees
      would never be taxed as income.

      Under Clinton & Gore

      Up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed

      Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are
      now receiving a Social Security check every month —
      and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of
      the money we paid to the Federal government to ‘put
      away’ — you may be interested in the following:

      ———— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— —-

      Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the
      independent ‘Trust Fund’ and put it into the
      general fund so that Congress could spend it?

      A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratically
      controlled House and Senate.

      ———— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— —

      Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax
      deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

      A: The Democratic Party.

      ———— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— —–

      Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social
      Security annuities?

      A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the
      ‘tie-breaking’ deciding vote as President of the
      Senate, while he was Vice President of the US

      ———— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— –

      Q: Which Political Party decided to start
      annuity payments to immigrants?


      A: Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party.
      immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65,
      began to receive Social Security payments! The
      Democratic Party gave these payments to them,
      even though they never paid a dime into it!

  15. Interesting article USW.

    I believe the liberals do think they are smarter and they base that strictly on formal education levels. I have no idea what actual stats on this might be, but given that so many universities are progressive indoctrination facilities I’m not surprised they believe this. What is so often missing from the left is the ability to apply logic and plain old common sense. So instead they rely on…

    Emotion. Reference the health care summit where we saw the inability to apply logic resorted to emotional stories.

    Race baiting has been a part of the liberal mantra for decades. The good thing is that they’ve cried wolf too often and it has lost its sting.

  16. Quick hi-jack:

    Madmom on Cavuto today…..from FB:

    “Going to be on Neil Cavuto at 4:15pm to discuss Nancy Pelosi’s love affair with the Tea Party.”

  17. Godzilla says:

    I saw this on Beck the other night, if you haven’t taken it, it’s interesting to find out where your leanings lie.

    I found out that I’m pretty much an anarchist, thanks BF …


  18. I simply cannot understand why the general conservative argument against just about everything these days ends up with the end of the world as we know it (the reference to 2012, end of the world).

    I find it amazed that people cannot understand this.

    As I’ve presented a series of current facts and their unavoidable consequences – that no matter who does what , the consequence will create a series of serious ‘world changing’ events.

    What amazes me is when someone – seeing a man fall without a parachute – is stunned by the proclamations that this falling man will meet a shocking end. To stand back as say “I can’t see how if he flaps his arms like wings” is utterly bizarre to me.

    Those that make this comment above, to me, are utterly hopeless.

    When a man has reached an inability to predict a future based on rational thinking and understanding, he has fallen back into believing in magic and fantasy.

    Existing in reality while living in a fantasy will always end badly – though to this person mired in fantasy, their end will come as a total surprise.

    It seems as though no matter what the subject, there is a world altering consequence associated with doing things the way that liberals would have us do them.

    There are many who will see the events current and the events future as being the ‘fault’ of the administration.

    It is convenient and a consequence of the ‘greater fool theory’. Obama got caught as the greater fool. He may be lucky and survive until 2012 when another greater fool takes his place.

    But really it doesn’t matter who sits in “The Great Big Chair”.

    What happened would have happened, and what will happen will happen no matter what or who.

    But so what?

    It appears to me the ‘liberal-left’ are not thinking at all. They are playing ‘victim’ – ”everyone is blaming us for the current events just because it is ‘us’”.

    The reality is – yes, Obama is the one who is there, and these are the events that are occurring on his ‘watch’. Too bad. If you don’t like, don’t play.

    The name of the game is “kick the can” and hope you get out before it falls apart.

    It is a race to the bottom.

    But why must we automatically skip past an increase in control and go directly to one world government and or a massive plot.

    It does not take much of a leap to evaluate that last 100 years of government action to enlighten us on the consequence of government action in the future.

    The real problem is ignoring the lessons.

    The liberal-left actively demand that though the line of reasoning concerning the end-game of government control is irrefutable – somehow the reasoning is still wrong.

    Almost every position the ‘liberal-left’ offers is rooted in irrational argument.

    Like Buck and taxes – the liberal-left completely depends on a core ignorance – willful or not – and from that point, creates a position that unsupportable and worse, incredibly dangerous to the sustainability of civil society.

    So when arguing the merits of health care, the ignorance of the liberal-left regarding economic sustainability is woefully evident.

    They argue their position completely on emotion – and never once (nor can) address the economic viability. It is as if they pretend magic exists – that by some ‘magic’ the economics of the ignorance will somehow ‘right itself’ if enough force is used.

    The want to argue merits – but not any merit about sustainability or economics – but the merits of their position as if it was the only moral one.

    They refuse to accept that there are alternative moral positions and, more importantly, refuse to accept their own economic reality.

    Why is it that conservatives seem to be able to point out the moral flaws in the liberal plans and politicians, but are completely unable to see that their politicians and positions are equally flawed and equally dirty and equally conniving and full of equally bad unintended consequences?

    Fair complaint – all sides in politics are exactly on the same side of life except for the color of their jerseys.

    Most – if not all – political positions fail on the same, basic, ignorance of reality and human action.

    But because one is hypocritical does not excuse the hypocrisy of the other – no matter which one is which.

    Overall, the general tone of the conservative movement, while sound in many of its fundamental ideals of small government, free markets, and a strong military, are shrouded in hypocrisy and contradictions.


    It is the failure of all politics.

    All of it is hypocrisy and contradiction – there is nothing in politics that can exist without these evils.

  19. Government has to cut deficits but…

    American reliance on government at all-time high


  20. We worry about Greece…

    … but California is worse.

    California is a greater risk than Greece, warns JP Morgan chief


  21. <b.The kind of man who wants the government to adopt and enforce his ideas is always the kind of man whose ideas are idiotic. – H.L. Mencken

  22. A funny for Monday!

    The Banana Test

    There is a very, very tall coconut tree and there are 4 animals,

    A Lion , A Chimp , A Giraffe ,

    A Squirrel

    They decide to compete to see who is the fastest to get a banana off the tree.

    Who do you guess will win?

    Your answer will reflect your personality.

    So think carefully . . ..
    Try and answer within 30 seconds. Got your answer?

    Now scroll down to see the analysis.


    If your answer is:

    Lion = you’re dull.
    Chimpanzee = you’re dense.
    Giraffe = you’re a complete moron.
    Squirrel = you’re hopeless.


    • FINE. I guess I’m a complete moron then 🙂 Still been called worse than that. Right Cyndi?

      • Don’t feel bad, I’m hopeless 😆

      • Cyndi P says:

        Can’t speak for you, but, yes, I’ve definately been called, much, much worse. I’m used to it now!


        • Judy Sabatini says:

          Don’t feel bad, I’m a moron too. 😆

        • Cyndi I gotta tell you- I’ve scrolled past this comment a couple times now and I can’t help but picture the scenarios you have been in where you’ve been called worse!!!!! And that you’re used to it now! I can’t handle it–I’m crackin up bwahahahaha

          • Cyndi P says:

            Let’s see, I was raised by an abusive alcoholic mother, and am thrice divorced, where lucky fella #2 was an Army Drill Sergeant. Yes, I wear my epithets with pride……

            • Drat! Now you ruined my fun. Didn’t mean to trigger evil flashbacks. I was more picturing you hanging with your peeps getting your groove on while collecting those titles. I can tell some stories about my titles 🙂 Happy Day Sista !

  23. Interesting E-mail that is right on the subject today:

    *That is right – I will say it THANK GOD FOR BARACK OBAMA

    *He destroyed the Clinton Political Machine:* Driving a stake thru
    the heart of Hillary’s Presidential aspirations – something no
    Republican was ever able to do. Remember when a Hillary Presidency
    scared the daylights out of you!
    *He killed off the Kennedy Dynasty:* No more Kennedy’s trolling
    Washington looking for booze and women wanting rides home. American
    women and Freedom are safer tonight!
    *He is destroying the Democratic Party before our eyes!
    * Dennis Moore had never lost a race – quit
    Evan Bayh had never lost a race – quit
    Byron Dorgan – had never lost a race – quit
    Harry Reed – in all probability – GONE
    These are just a handful of the Democrats that whose political
    careers Obama has destroyed! By the end of 2010 dozens more will be!
    In December of 2008 the Democrats were on the rise. In the last two
    election cycles they had picked up 14 senate seats and 52 house
    seats. The press was touting the death of the Conservative Movement
    and the Republican Party.
    In one year Obama put a stop to all of this and will probably give
    the house, if not the senate back to the Republicans.
    *He has completely exposed liberals and progressives (extremists)
    for what they are.* Every Generation seems to need to relearn the
    lesson on why they should never actually put liberals in charge. He
    is bringing home the lesson very well!
    Liberals tax, borrow and spend – check
    Liberals won’t bring themselves to protect America –
    Liberals want to take over the economy – check
    Liberals think they know what is best for everyone –
    Liberals aren’t happy till they are running YOUR
    life – check
    *He has brought more Americans back to conservatism than anyone
    since Reagan
    *In One year he rejuvenated the Conservative movement and brought
    out to the streets millions of Freedom Loving Americans
    Name me one other time in your life that you saw your friends and
    neighbors this interested in taking back America !
    In all honesty one year ago I was more afraid than I had ever been
    in my life. Not of the economy but of the direction our country was
    going. I thought Americans had forgotten what this country was all
    about. My neighbors, friends, strangers proved to me that my lack
    of confidence of the Greatness and Wisdom of the American people was
    flat out wrong.
    *When the American People wake up, no smooth talking teleprompter
    reader can fool them! Barack Obama woke up these Great Americans!
    Again I want say – Thank you Barack Obama!*

  24. Question of the day!

    Without research, what was the last date that the U.S. formally declared war?

    No cheating!

    • Of course I have always hated history and I don’t know the exact date but it would be for Operation Enduring Freedom during Gulf War One? Hope I didn’t live up to my new name above 🙂

      • Judy Sabatini says:

        What was the last date that the U.S. formally declared war. I don’t know the exact date, but I’m going to say after the bombing of Pearl Harbor when FDR declared war on Japan.

      • Anita,

        😆 you did 😆

        • Judy Sabatini says:

          So, I hope you don’t keep us guessing here G. Are you going to give us our history lesson some time tonight, or keep us waiting?

        • Damn. I havin a bad day. So far I’m a complete assclown moron! Top that 🙂

          • Judy Sabatini says:

            Makes 2 of us Anita.

          • Judy Sabatini says:

            Anita, you’re not an assclown moron, you’re a nice person, and I’m glad to be of your acquaintance.

            Maybe that could be 2 new words for SUFA.

        • Thanks for the laughs! They have been hard and outloud! 😆

          Judy, you were close. The last time the U.S. formally declared war was on December 11, 1941, when a formal declaration of war was made against Germany and Italy. It was three days earlier , on Dec 8, 1941, that war was declared on Japan. There have been no formal declarations of war since then. This is important info for future reference.


  25. Judy Sabatini says:

    Red Skelton’s Pledge of Allegiance

  26. Judy Sabatini says:

    Going for the night, hope to see you here tomorrow.

    Have a great night, and a great tomorrow.

    Love everybody


  27. Judy Sabatini says:

    This was just set to me, and I had to share with all here.

    Now, I say goodnight to all.

    A nurse took the tired, anxious serviceman to the bedside.

    “Your son is here,” she said to the old man.

    She had to repeat the words several times before the patient’s eyes opened.

    Heavily sedated because of the pain of his heart attack, he dimly saw the young uniformed Marine standing outside the oxygen tent.. He reached out his hand. The Marine wrapped his toughened fingers around the old man’s limp ones, squeezing a message of love and encouragement.

    The nurse brought a chair so that the Marine could sit beside the bed.All through the night the young Marine sat there in the poorly lighted ward, holding the old man’s hand and offering him words of love and strength. Occasionally, the nurse suggested that the Marine move away and rest awhile.

    He refused. Whenever the nurse came into the ward, the Marine was oblivious of her and of the night noises of the hospital – the clanking of the oxygen tank, the laughter of the night staff members exchanging greetings, the cries and moans of the other patients..

    Now and then she heard him say a few gentle words. The dying man said nothing, only held tightly to his son all through the night.

    Along towards dawn, the old man died. The Marine released the now lifeless hand he had been holding and went to tell the nurse. While she did what she had to do, he waited.

    Finally, she returned. She started to offer words of sympathy, but the Marine interrupted her.

    “Who was that man?” he asked.

    The nurse was startled, “He was your father,” she answered.

    “No, he wasn’t,” the Marine replied. “I never saw him before in my life..”

    “Then why didn’t you say something when I took you to him?”

    “I knew right away there had been a mistake,

    but I also knew he needed his son, and his
    son just wasn’t here.

    When I realized that he was too sick to tell whether or not I was his son,

    knowing how much he needed me, I stayed.”

    I came here tonight to

    find a Mr. William Grey.

    His Son was Killed in Iraq

    today, and I was sent to

    inform him. What was this

    Gentleman’s Name?

    The Nurse with Tears in

    Her Eyes Answered,

    Mr. William Grey………….

    The next time someone needs you ……. just be there. Stay.





    (love this line)





  28. On the topic

    The following is my choice today of an example of Left Wing arrogance. It is doubly condemned in its rationalizations and double twisting of definitions and how they are used. This in my view is the effect of the modern Liberal higher education. Those who accuse of double speak are doing exactly what they condemn.

    Of course the author has been at this game a long time.


    Note he referenced an article I posted here a week or so back that had a different scale for progressive/conservative and liberal/totalitarian.

    Look closely to see if you all can find the twists and double twists contained within this piece. A classic study in fallaceous logic.

    Hope everyone had a great day.

    And for the record, the modern Liberal; aka Progressive; aka Socialist is absolutely arrogant and condescending towards those they disagree with. Especially if the opponent’s argument has even a modicum of rational explanation attached. They are far worse than anyone I would call conservative as well as those on the right.

    Conservatives and Republicans are NOT anti-intellectual. What they are is Ant Intellectual snobbery and self-righteous arrogance. When a man of modest education can tell he is being talked down to he usually reacts by making fun of the educated.

    Educated Idiots is what my Pappy used to call them.

    Ta ta for now.

    • Hi JAC!

      One quote (as best as I can ) Totaliariasm wants to control science for their own purposes.

      How right he is, as AGW is the leader in that, and it’s the damn lefties who are doing it. Outside of that statement, he was illogical, and lost me.

      Hope today finds you well and healthy!


      • G-Man

        56 degrees, sunny and the slightest of a cool breeze off the snow capped mtns.

        Grass is starting to green.

        Yes a very fine day. Except was a little to busy to hang around and play.

        Back at ya my friend.

        Peace and freedom

        • 😆 Long way before I see the grass and dirt. Getting better though, at least the temps reach 30. Normal for here, should start the spring thaw next week, then it will get goofy, 50 one day, a foot of wet snow the next, life will go on.

          Dropping trees in a week or two, get loaded on firewood for next year. Might be moving to the mountains this summer, gut says go, and I can! Hate to change jobs, but not sure about if this job will be here in two years.

          Looking forward to spring, much to do. Have 27 cases of jars to fill this fall!!!!

          Peace and live free forever!


    • Loved this explanation from one of the commenters:

      “Liberal is a good thing. It is good to be liberal with your love. It is good when people give liberally to causes in which they believe. It is good when a bartender is liberal in pouring scotch.

      What we conservatives object to is liberal government. The difference is that government liberalism is false because it uses other people’s money. You can not be truly generous or unselfish when you are doing so with money that has been taken from other people.

      “If I am going to do good with other people’s money I first have to take it away from them. That means that the welfare state philosophy is, at it’s very bottom, a philosophy of violence and coercion. It’s against freedom, because I have to use force to get the money.” –Milton Friedman

      The best line (besides Friedman’s quote):
      You can not be truly generous or unselfish when you are doing so with money that has been taken from other people.

      Why is this so hard for the (so-called) intellects to understand?

  29. Poached from Daily Kos

    A little something to make you smile. A good suggestion as to what we should do with certain “educated elites”.

    “In the General Theory, Keynes wrote, “To dig holes in the ground, paid for out of savings, will increase, not only employment, but the real national dividend of useful goods and services.”

    Notice that he said “paid for out of savings” not “paid for by hocking the whole country to the Chinese”. Many neo-Keynesians, especially politicians, miss this important distinction.

    Even when paid for by savings, digging ditches isn’t the best way to restart an economy, “It is not reasonable, however, that a sensible community should be content to remain dependent on such fortuitous and often wasteful mitigations when once we understand the influences upon which effective demand depends.” At best, ditch digging is a way to soften the impact of a down-turn and prime the pump.

    After a decade of depression, Keynes realized the economy was a very large pump which requires a lot of priming. The escalating war on the continent provided the justification for that spending. “It seems politically impossible for a capitalistic democracy to organize expenditure on the scale necessary to make the grand experiment which would prove my case–except in war conditions.”

    Keynes didn’t think starting wars to fix the Depression was a good idea, but he did think that it would accomplish that goal. Many of his later day acolytes push this theory. Keynes also thought, as the above quote shows, that politicians would never have the will to spend enough to fix the Depression, unless there was some emergency on the scale of WW II.

    I’ve tried to avoid editorializing in these comments, but I can’t let this pass. War is death and destruction, two things which are known to be bad for people’s wealth and well being. Breaking things and killing people is not a wealth generating enterprise. I don’t care how many Nobel Prizes you have. If you claim it is, you are wrong (I’m looking at you, Krugman).

    If Keynesianism really requires a world war to have a provable effect, then we should pay people to dig a ditch and bury Keynesianism in it.”

    I am suddenly overcome with an urge to dig a ditch. Not sure it will be big enough though. 🙂

  30. OK

    One more for you late night or is that early morining viewers.

    I love it when their little webs start to break apart. And down came the water and washed the spider out.


    Bwa ha ha

    • Oh boy…this ought to be good heeehee!

      Does there always have to be an Islamic wrench thrown in to complicate things even more?

      • Anita

        Good morning my dear Anita.

        I thought the same when reading this. Seems they could be flagged for unsportsmanlike conduct. You know, piling on!!

        Hope your day unfolds wonderfully

    • Wow, the pile of sheeit just keeps on growing!

  31. Placed on the “Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform”

    We are so screwed:


    • Saw that too, Kathy- Global govt, global regulations, global,global,global. Go forward a different way with a new economic plan led by govt not private sector. He spouts these ideas like they are already in place. We are so screwed.

      • Hi Anita,

        As usual, I couldn’t get the video ;( but from reading the comments I think I got the gist of it. Unions making quite the power grab?

        We are screwed for sure, but hopefully the current bunch of cummunists now in power will as incompetent, if not moreso, than other commies in the past, that will allow those of us who know what they’re up to make an early escape. If you’d like to discuss this off-SUFA, have USW send me your email address……

  32. Way to go Gov. Pawlenty! Also gives good insight into the rights that entitlement benefactors feel they are entitled to (Cyndi touched on this in an earlier post) and also the difficulty in eliminating and/or reducing such programs. Note that they are now considered legal action….unbelievable.


%d bloggers like this: