Too Happy to be Liberal

A report by LiveScience senior reporter Jeanna Bryner shows, as many earlier surveys have, that conservatives tend to be happier than liberals.

Never mind that the study on which the report was based was clearly designed by liberals. For example the report states that conservatives scored highest on a scale rating "rationalization". Note the judgemental implications of the following quote from the study-

"The rationalization measure included statements such as: 'It is not really that big a problem if some people have more of a chance in life than others,' and 'This country would be better off if we worried less about how equal people are.'"
Clearly the study that reaped the additional "happiness" of conservatives was designed to plant emotional landmines in the path to that conclusion.

In a political season in which it is obvious that political winds appear to be blowing away from the Republican Party this sort of survey may seem to be perplexing. If conservatives are happier people why aren't conservative candidates doing well in elections? This is not a hard question for me. In spite of the reflexive assurance among liberals that Republicans are conservatives what we conservatives see is that, at present, the Republican Party clearly is not a conservative party. On the most important issues, rule of law, fiscal responsibility, accountability and autonomy of the individual, and national sovereignty it is not even close.

In survey after survey people who practice the disciplines of a conservative lifestyle tend to be happier than those who do not. Hence, conservatives draw the conclusion that such disciplines, if extended across society, would make the whole culture happier. It is possible to argue with that point, to make "rationalizations" excusing lifestyles which appear not to promote happiness but, in the statistical world, even studies designed to make it hard to profess conservative ideals yield results showing such ideals help with self-identified life satisfaction.

So, how do I explain today's political zeitgeist? Unhappy people complain and make noise. Happy people go quietly about their business. Politicians are moved more by complainers who empower politicans by looking to others to provide them comfort than they are by those who empower themselves. In politics pain is power, and unhappy people inherently feel more pain.

Periodically such pain devolves into the empowering of incompetents. For a while we've been leaning in that direction. In November we will probably go all the way.

Posted by Lee Emmerich Jamison at May 7, 2008 10:16 AM
Comments
Comment #252323

Lee:

That makes a great deal of sense to me. Liberals come across as far more pessimistic than conservatives about the economy, and our country etc etc. It’s too bad data like this doesn’t go back real far. I think Rosevelt for instance we very positive. I would be interested to see if there was a shift, and if yes, then when the shift happened.

The left seems to me to be far more pessimistic here on Watchblog as well. It’s hard to be happy and pessimistic!!

Posted by: Craig Holmes at May 7, 2008 10:43 AM
Comment #252326


When I see my mother on Mother’s day I am happy. When I read about a soldier dying in Iraq I am sad. Is that different for a liberal or a conservative?

How do we rationalize 400,000+ Iraqi civilian casualties? Personally I just don’t think about it. If I thought about it more perhaps I would be depressed, and thats exactly why I don’t do it. Basically I am shirking my responsibilty by seeking pleasure and avoiding pain.

EVERYBODY does this; we are all human. It makes no difference who you vote for.

Posted by: Jason Ziegler at May 7, 2008 11:12 AM
Comment #252329

The number one reason people give for wanting to vote for Obama is that he makes them feel good about themselves. I can’t think of a higher compliment. However, Obama manages to be optimistic while talking about meeting our challenges. McCain’s optimism is about ignoring them. Optimism on the cheap, that refuses to recognize the real problems we face, is irresponsible pandering.

Honestly, I am deeply envious of your optimism. I wish I could believe that cutting taxes will pay off our debts, or that it’s okay to continue fighting a war without figuring out how to pay for it. Heck, it was very optimistic to go to war to begin with without any plan for what to do on day two other than declare “Mission Accomplished - that is optimism!

If you want to know why liberals are disinheartened, it’s because your parties brand of blind optimism is a real bummer.

Posted by: Max at May 7, 2008 11:22 AM
Comment #252333
I wish I could believe that cutting taxes will pay off our debts

But how will spending more do the same? Please explain to me how Obama (or Hillary or McCain) plan on reducing our debt? Lord knows that none of them seem to care about it at all…

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 7, 2008 11:50 AM
Comment #252335

BTW, I thought that Obama made everyone feel better! Why are liberals ‘disenheartened’ if Obama is out there making you all feel great?

I’m confused…

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 7, 2008 11:51 AM
Comment #252338

Rhinehold,

Obama does make me feel optimistic, but it’s not blind optimism. He’s not making promises that ignore our challenges.

At the same time, I am not happy about the challenges we face. A lot of which are the direct result of Republicans making “optimistic” promises that were impossible to keep or just not thinking things through.

If you’re given an empty glass, but you want to keep insisting it’s full that’s not optimism - that’s delusional.

Obama’s plan to reduce our debt includes restoring financial discipline by reinstating Pay As You Go rules, reversing Bush’s tax cuts for the super-wealthy, cutting pork barrel spending, putting in place rules for granting government contracts, ending many corporate subsidies, and closing special interest loopholes.

McCain is mostly focused on ending social programs, which is the same tired story Republicans always peddle. There just isn’t enough money squeeze out of welfare and medicare to solve our debt problems. Not to mention that in these tough times, it’s probably not the best idea to cripple these programs.

Anyway, you’re trying to reduce Democrats and Republicans to being black and white caricatures. Isn’t possible to be disinheartened about what’s going on today, and still be optimistic about being able to fix it?

Posted by: Max at May 7, 2008 12:23 PM
Comment #252339

Republicans might be happier, but there are fewer of them in America. Coincidence?

The truth is, the strong supporters of Republican politics have to think events are going positively, that the war is winnable, the economy is strong, and so on and so forth. If you’ve decided things aren’t going well, that change is needed, then you’ve probably parted ways with the party, because it is rigidly inflexible in actually talking about those problems, much less dealing with them.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 7, 2008 12:37 PM
Comment #252343
Obama’s plan to reduce our debt includes restoring financial discipline by reinstating Pay As You Go rules,

The was peddled in 2006 and look where that ended up.

reversing Bush’s tax cuts for the super-wealthy

Which will reduce the INTEREST we pay on the debt by about 5%. Yet he takes the right stance that we shouldn’t cut taxes for gasoline for about the same amount for each individual. That doesn’t sound like good leadership to me…

cutting pork barrel spending

He would have a much better chance of doing that if he remained in Congress, as they are the ones in control of such things…

putting in place rules for granting government contracts

What rules exactly?

ending many corporate subsidies

A fine idea, but will hardly have an effect on the debt. How will that help exactly?

and closing special interest loopholes

Like? Any specifics and how much this will bring the debt down?

Please, I am looking for real solutions, not the same platitudes I’ve heard from Democrats for 10 years that DIDN’T get impelemented when they gained control of the Senate and Congress and don’t add up to paying down the principle on the debt, let alone the debt itself.

Oh, and then adding even more spending on top of it all.

The math seems to be failing us here… Can you put this in a spreadsheet so that the final total equals 0 in x number of years?

McCain is mostly focused on ending social programs, which is the same tired story Republicans always peddle. There just isn’t enough money squeeze out of welfare and medicare to solve our debt problems.

Then we are doomed since the majority of our national budget goest to them. If we don’t cut spending and can’t increase taxes without killing the economy (it would) how does Obama expect to eliminate the debt? HECK, I would even settle for eliminating the deficit as a start!

Not to mention that in these tough times, it’s probably not the best idea to cripple these programs.

I’ll debate the ‘tough times’ after having lived through real hard times… According to the Dems, all times are ‘tough times’. As was the point of the article, I think… There is also always ‘more work to do’ in perpetuity, no matter what good news comes out in regards to any cause.

I’m sure that after Obama becomes president there will still be ‘much work to do’ in regards to African Americans making strides in the US… It’s the nature of the mentality of the progressive…

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 7, 2008 1:05 PM
Comment #252344

The people defining “conservative” and “liberal” are doing it for political reasons. They make a list of everything they don’t like, and call that “liberal”, and make a list of everything they like, and call that “conservative”. So “conservatives” are happier than “liberals” DUH. Reality is irrelevant. “conservatives” justify anything they want as necessities, and anything “liberals” want as wasteful, damaging, etc.(See Prof Newts list for using language as a key mechanism of control)

Posted by: ohrealy at May 7, 2008 1:08 PM
Comment #252346

“Periodically such pain devolves into the empowering of incompetents. For a while we’ve been leaning in that direction. In November we will probably go all the way.”
Posted by Lee Emmerich Jamison at May 7, 2008 10:16 AM

Good post Lee, thank you. I love your “pain/incompetents” statement as I have said much the same in previous posts. It’s true, Liberal Democrats have discovered that pain is an ally. Obama encourages those in pain, not by offering sensible, affordable and long-lasting solutions, but by giving them a moment of fame as witness those whose stories he selects to promote his candidacy. We have the usual welfare mom, deserving poor student, unemployed family man and an elderly person choosing between food and medicine.

This is the usual ritual of liberals when they disagree. I recall the numerous times liberals decried an increase in a budget for one of their pandered group as actually a decrease. Instead of increasing the budget for a social program by 5% a conservative would recommend 3% or 4% and it would be hailed as slashing benefits or ignoring the poor.

Conservatives understand that for liberals the glass is always half empty. They make their living the same way huckster lawyers do with their class-action lawsuits. Identify a tiny portion of the public that may have a grievance, real or imagined, file suit, and await a settlement from the corporation (or government) as it is too expensive (in money or votes) to prove the action is unwarranted.

I call this governance by capitulation and both parties are guilty. Rather than object to unfounded and unneeded government expenditures, throw a few billion at it and appease the beast. The last two congresses have been especially adept at throwing (our) money around. Since the dems do it better, and we expect republicans to be conservative, the dems have reaped the benefits at the polls for our collective spendthrift ways.

Liberals can not afford to be optimistic or happy as it goes against their voting base. They must continually associate with the “it’s all about me” crowd, the “what have you done for me today” folks who can never be appeased. For libs it all about taking from those who have and giving to those who have not (regardless of the reason). For them, it’s not charitable giving, rather, they call it justice, or rights, or in Obama-speak…”being fair”.

Just one example of being “fair” is to take money (by virtue of increasing the tax on dividends) from hard working Americans who have saved for retirement and giving it to the entitlitis crowd.

The liberal cheerleaders for this uncharitable giving can be found in the very young who have yet to see the payroll taxes deducted on a pay check stub, those entrenched in higher education who espouse theory with no practical experience, and what I call the “feel-gooders”. The feel gooders are simply those who have experienced success but don’t understand why.

Posted by: Jim M at May 7, 2008 1:25 PM
Comment #252348

I agree that it’s easier to be happy if you don’t concern yourself with the state of the less fortunate. Also, if you firmly believe that your success is due to your own skills and virtue, not on a great deal of luck and accident of birth, then this can also keep you happier. After all, ignorance is bliss.

Posted by: mental wimp at May 7, 2008 1:34 PM
Comment #252355

Rhinehold,

Can you put this in a spreadsheet so that the final total equals 0 in x number of years?

No. Do your own research. I have no interest in trying to convince you that you are wrong when you say that we spend most of our national budget on Medicare and Welfare. That’s nonsense. If you can believe that, I’m never going to convince you otherwise.

I’m sure that after Obama becomes president there will still be ‘much work to do’ in regards to African Americans making strides in the US… It’s the nature of the mentality of the progressive…

I can think of a couple myself? How about trying to end the incarceration of so many poor blacks, who are in jail for small potato crimes? This is costing this nation a fortune!


Jim,

They make their living the same way huckster lawyers do with their class-action lawsuits. Identify a tiny portion of the public that may have a grievance, real or imagined, file suit, and await a settlement from the corporation (or government.

And yet here we are talking about the debt, healthcare, paying for this war, and the environment - all issues that affect everyone in this country.

Just one example of being “fair” is to take money (by virtue of increasing the tax on dividends) from hard working Americans who have saved for retirement and giving it to the entitlitis crowd.

I couldn’t agree more. Only I assume you are talking about welfare recipients, whereas it’s really corporate and super-wealthy tax breaks that are taking the lion’s share of money out of your paycheck.

See, you already won with programs like Welfare. They’re running on shoestring budgets already. Isn’t it time to cut spending somewhere else? You guys are one-trick pony’s. You win cuts in social programs and then continue ad infinitum to claim that all our problems can be fixed by cutting them even more. I’m glad the country finally seems to be on to your party’s game.

Posted by: Max at May 7, 2008 2:07 PM
Comment #252358

Would anyone care to enlighten Max on the total cost of our “shoestring budgets” for welfare.

mental wimp, yes, I believe that success in the United States is primarily related to getting an education (by any means possible), hard work, not fathering or mothering children outside of marriage, refusing to use illegal drugs, obeying the law, having moral values, being responsible for your self and family, and loving your country.

Believing in “luck and accident of birth” as the reason for success is akin to believing you will win the lottery.

Posted by: Jim M at May 7, 2008 2:22 PM
Comment #252361

Jim,

Is it really comparable to what we’re spending on the military or losing in tax revenue? For instance, the end of the estate tax - the estate tax is where my state gets 50% of its budget. How will cutting Welfare make up for that? Also, at one point does it become cost-prohibitive to cut Welfare? Isn’t cheaper to help some folks get by, than to have massive numbers of people out on the street? There are costs associated with that as well…

Anyway, I don’t intend to convince conservatives that Democrat perspectives are more correct than Republican (I see you’ve all already made up your minds…), but your blind optimism over the last 8 years has clearly cost this country dearly. A little forethought and reality-based thinking would do your party wonders. It’s about compromise - something that Clinton excelled at, and your party is incapable of.

Posted by: Max at May 7, 2008 2:32 PM
Comment #252362

ClarenceC,

Every study I have ever read or seen says that it’s the Democratic party that’s made up of the educated.

Max

Posted by: Max at May 7, 2008 2:34 PM
Comment #252366

M. W.,

The conservatives I know are not at all unconcerned with the less fortunate. They simply understand the inherent slavery in the assumption that our happiness must be bestowed upon us from others by virtue of their positions in power and their capacity to confiscate the wherewithal of others. They also believe a “good” society is not good because the annointed powerful can seize what they will to make things “fair”, but, rather, because the people of the society choose to give sacrificailly of their own accord toward those causes they believe will make the opportunities for success more widely available to all.

Widely distributed opportunity is the key to societal goodness to conservatives. “Fairness”, whatever that is, is the key to goodness in a liberal society.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at May 7, 2008 2:44 PM
Comment #252367
I can think of a couple myself? How about trying to end the incarceration of so many poor blacks, who are in jail for small potato crimes? This is costing this nation a fortune!

Well, if you make the statement about the incarceration of so many poor PEOPLE (black, white, hispanic, etc) then I am on board! If you want to focus the help only on race, I will not go down thar road since it is a non-starter for me, IMO. People are people, regardless of race.

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 7, 2008 2:49 PM
Comment #252368

Anyone who supported Bush puts the interests of other nations before ours. Waving the flag, while you’re screwing the country doesn’t count as patriotism. I have a proposal. Eliminate the secret ballot, so that we know who voted for whom. Then tax the people who vote for the deficit spending to pay for it.

Posted by: ohrealy at May 7, 2008 2:56 PM
Comment #252369

According to any research you care to name, liberals are better educated than conservatives, and there is a demonstrated relationship between education level and IQ.

The less educated a person is, the more likely they attend church.

Happy? Well, no brains, no headaches.

Tee hee. Really, this is silly, but it’s hard to resist when someone makes foolish claims.

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=945

There are a lot of studies besides the Pew Report linked…

Posted by: phx8 at May 7, 2008 3:01 PM
Comment #252370
Can you put this in a spreadsheet so that the final total equals 0 in x number of years?

No. Do your own research. I have no interest in trying to convince you that you are wrong when you say that we spend most of our national budget on Medicare and Welfare. That’s nonsense. If you can believe that, I’m never going to convince you otherwise.

mmm, very elitist of you, Max… Here I thought you wanted to convince me to vote for Obama. I would have thought that he would have made this all public knowledge by now, you know, an actual plan with numbers in them, before making promises…

Oh yes, he’s a politician. So much for change.

And yes, I *HAVE* done the research which is why I understand the facts and you don’t.

FY 2006 Federal Govt. Spending of $2.8 Trillion Consumed > 26% of the Economy, or $9,223 per man, woman and child, or 36% of the economy counting regulatory compliance

The Social Spending portion consumed 56% of total spending, and has increased 14 Times Faster Than The Economy

Individual incomes pay 82% of all federal revenue
compared to a 51% share in 1950

Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m a Libertarian and am all for no longer funding every other country’s military so that they don’t have to. But we get told were ‘loony’ for such things…

But simply put, eliminating the current war will *NOT* erase the deficit, let alone pay on the debt. Mainly because it isn’t even figured in atm! So, Obama wants to take that money we spend in Iraq and, INSTEAD of paying off a small portion of the deficit so that some day we might hope to pay on the debt, he wants to give 42,000 to 5,000,000 people in the form of government created (funded) jobs. Like a little lottery of his own.

Ingenious. And one of the reasons I cannot vote for his idiotic plan.

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 7, 2008 3:03 PM
Comment #252378

I understand that there is a great deal of luck in outcomes AND a great deal of skill and planning. Personally I really enjoy playing the game of life. I don’t always win, but I keep on coming back.

Liberals claim that they care too much to be happy. That is pure BS. The surveys also show that conservatives give more money to charity at all income levels; they volunteer more; they even give blood more often. We try to do something about problems.

When you got a problem you can do variations on two things. Feel bad or do something about it. Oh, I should add another permutation. Liberals can demand something BE done (by others or by government).

I personally find that when I have a problem, I am very unhappy until I start to take some action to fix it. After that, I am happy again – even if I am losing.

I just dislike losers and by losers I don’t mean those who don’t win. Rather there is a type of person who is a loser no matter how much he succeeds. Think Woody Alan. Then there are people who are winners no matter how often they fail – think someone like Harlan Sanders (from KFC.

Posted by: Jack at May 7, 2008 4:02 PM
Comment #252383

Rhinehold,

“Well, if you make the statement about the incarceration of so many poor PEOPLE (black, white, hispanic, etc) then I am on board! If you want to focus the help only on race, I will not.”

I know in your simpleminded way you are trying to cast me (and all liberals) as racist. Again, the issue isn’t so black and white. Of course, the number of people in jail is a national problem, but a disproportionate number of poor blacks are in jail in relation to other races. I mean hugely disproportionate, like 6 out of 10 black males have been incarcerated or something, which makes the problem have a racial dimension as well.

The Social Spending portion consumed 56% of total spending, and has increased 14 Times Faster Than The Economy.

Well, I already said that I didn’t want to have to educate you, but you leave me no choice. Here’s the federal budget, and you can clearly see that more is spent on defense than on MediCare. What’s really criminal is when you add the interest on our debt and veteran’s benefits to defense. Then you’re really starting to get into the real ballpart of our military costs.

Now, I am not saying we don’t have to make cuts in other areas as well. I just don’t buy the Republican lie that we can balance the budget by cutting taxes and social programs.

The President’s actual budget for 2007 totals $2.8 trillion. Percentages in parentheses indicate percentage change compared to 2006. This budget request is broken down by the following expenditures:

$586.1 billion (+7.0%) - Social Security
$548.8 billion (+9.0%) - Defense[2]
$394.5 billion (+12.4%) - Medicare
$294.0 billion (+2.0%) - Unemployment and welfare
$276.4 billion (+2.9%) - Medicaid and other health related
$243.7 billion (+13.4%) - Interest on debt
$89.9 billion (+1.3%) - Education and training
$76.9 billion (+8.1%) - Transportation
$72.6 billion (+5.8%) - Veterans’ benefits
$43.5 billion (+9.2%) - Administration of justice
$33.1 billion (+5.7%) - Natural resources and environment
$32.5 billion (+15.4%) - Foreign affairs
$27.0 billion (+3.7%) - Agriculture
$26.8 billion (+28.7%) - Community and regional development
$25.0 billion (+4.0%) - Science and technology
$23.5 billion (+0.8%) - Energy
$20.1 billion (+11.4%) - General government

Posted by: Max at May 7, 2008 4:14 PM
Comment #252385

I just feel like 99% of surveys and polls are BS. 99% of the time.

Posted by: Kiki at May 7, 2008 4:42 PM
Comment #252391
I know in your simpleminded way you are trying to cast me (and all liberals) as racist.

No, I just quoted your own words. If they sound racist to you… well, that’s not my problem.

Again, the issue isn’t so black and white. Of course, the number of people in jail is a national problem, but a disproportionate number of poor blacks are in jail in relation to other races. I mean hugely disproportionate, like 6 out of 10 black males have been incarcerated or something, which makes the problem have a racial dimension as well.

Yes, and that is because we don’t help people the way they need to be helped in this country. After decades and generations of being told by the Democratic Party that ‘the man’ is keeping them down and preventing them from living the life they deserve, people start to believe it. Their children start to believe it.

Soon, you’ve created a whole group of people looking for their saviors, the Democratic Party, to take care of them and fix it so that they can live their lives for them.

It’s a wonder it isn’t worse. :(

Well, I already said that I didn’t want to have to educate you, but you leave me no choice. Here’s the federal budget, and you can clearly see that more is spent on defense than on MediCare.

LOL, so when you went and looked up the numbers and found you were wrong, you change the comment?

Priceless…

Just look at what was originally said.

YOU said “McCain is mostly focused on ending social programs, which is the same tired story Republicans always peddle. There just isn’t enough money squeeze out of welfare and medicare to solve our debt problems.”

“Then we are doomed since the majority of our national budget goest to them”

Now, I was talking about ‘social programs’, but you go on to limit it to welfare and medicare.

THEN you continue to say ‘here you can see we spend more on the military than on Medicare’. Further limiting it…

IF, however, you take the original wrong point that only Medicare and Welfare is not larger than the Defense budget, well, you are wrong by your own numbers:

$548.8 billion (+9.0%) - Defense[2]
$394.5 billion (+12.4%) - Medicare
$294.0 billion (+2.0%) - Unemployment and welfare

688.5 billion > 548.8 billion.

Then, if we add in my original point about social spending (and even be fair to leave out social security) we continue:

$276.4 billion (+2.9%) - Medicaid and other health related
$89.9 billion (+1.3%) - Education and training

To add another 366.3 billion to come up to 688.5 1054.8 billion… Well, we can add in the veteran benefits (somehow included in the interest on the debt, odd) and I think the number is even LARGER in the social program’s favor.

Of course, we need to cut everwhere, drastically. But I’ll eat my hat the day a progressive agrees to cut social programs (real cuts, not cuts in budgeted increases).

Now, I am not saying we don’t have to make cuts in other areas as well. I just don’t buy the Republican lie that we can balance the budget by cutting taxes and social programs.

And I’m not peddling that lie, I’m countering OBAMA’s peddling of the lie that he can balance the budget, increase spending and not cut social progams all by stopping the war in Iraq (oh, and pay 5,000,000 $42,000 a year in government created/funded jobs, which would result in using up all of the money we are using to fund the war in Iraq).

I have no dog in this hunt, I’m afraid. Other than the American people who need tax relief, the debt paid and a stable economy eventually. I doubt I ever see it in my lifetime if we keep sending people like Obama to Congress and the White House.

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 7, 2008 5:07 PM
Comment #252392

BTW, please explain WHY we would add the interest on the debt into military spending?

What idiotic website did you pull this crap from?

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 7, 2008 5:11 PM
Comment #252401

Nothing unexpected about the studies findings. Some people are happy watching a race car go round and round and round and round while other of us are bored and a bit more nuanced thinking about the wasted fuel, climate change and our dependence on foreign oil. If you hold yourself up to a higher standard, if you are able to look at the world around you and the bigger picture and NOT just be OK with the fact that over a billion people the world wide who live in abject poverty you are going to be a little more pessimistic. If material things are all you need to be happy and you can block out the imperfections and inequalities in the world around you then you’re likely to be more positive then those who are actually paying attention to the details.

So like when I realize the increase in yearly interest paid on the Bush debt would have been enough to pay for universal health care it kind of bums me out that there are actually people who seem to think nothing of this and would be willing to vote for more of the same poor performance.

Posted by: muirgeo at May 7, 2008 7:12 PM
Comment #252404

So, you’re saying that because you are better and more responsible and intelligent than those ‘dumb hicks’ with their guns and their religion, you have to bear the burden of knowing the real problems we have while they are able to blissfully be ignorant of them?

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 7, 2008 7:36 PM
Comment #252405
So like when I realize the increase in yearly interest paid on the Bush debt would have been enough to pay for universal health care

and, btw, huh? How much do you think it is going to cost for ‘universal healthcare’ and how much do you think the interest on the debt that was added to the debt we have had over the past 7 years was?

I’m really curious to see the numbers that you think you have here…

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 7, 2008 7:38 PM
Comment #252406

Let me see if I can figure this intellect out…

So, the US was a wonderful and joyous place where everyone loved us and we were well respected throught the globe.

Then, that meany Bush stole the election, got us attacked, used it as a pretense to attack Iraq who had done nothing wrong and was just minding its business, turned the US into a police state, has the rest of the world hating us and ran up a debt of several trillion dollars all in 7 little years?

Quite the worker bee!

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 7, 2008 7:41 PM
Comment #252407

Rhinehold,

Give him full credit. He also sat off the gulf coast and caused Hurricane Katrina.

Posted by: BOHICA at May 7, 2008 7:48 PM
Comment #252408

Ignorance is bliss I suppose.

But I don’t really see how this relates to the election at all. It is not as though by becoming conservative one can become happier…

You say:

If conservatives are happier people why aren’t conservative candidates doing well in elections?

Well I am guessing that has something to do with the fact that happy people still only get one vote.

In spite of the reflexive assurance among liberals that Republicans are conservatives what we conservatives see is that, at present, the Republican Party clearly is not a conservative party.

So, then where are all these conservative candidates that should be doing well?

Posted by: Zeek at May 7, 2008 7:50 PM
Comment #252412

Rhinehold, pretty accurate so far on Bush. It would be good if he could go right from the White House to prison, but it’s not likely. He and his brother Neil would already be in prison if their father had never been POTUS, and Jeb should have been arrested after the 2000 election.

Posted by: ohrealy at May 7, 2008 8:27 PM
Comment #252414

So, you’re saying that because you are better and more responsible and intelligent than those ‘dumb hicks’ with their guns and their religion, you have to bear the burden of knowing the real problems we have while they are able to blissfully be ignorant of them?

Posted by: Rhinehold


Well let’s put it this way Rhinehold the cure for cancer will not likely come from someone who believes the Earth is 6,000 years old.


A Day in the Life of Joe Conservative*
by Anonymous


Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards. With his first swallow of water, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to ensure their safety and that they work as advertised.

All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer’s medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance — now Joe gets it, too.

He prepares his morning breakfast: bacon and eggs. Joe’s bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained.

Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for the laws to stop industries from polluting our air.

He walks on the government-provided sidewalk to the subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe’s employer pays these standards because Joe’s employer doesn’t want his employees to call the union.

If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he’ll get a worker compensation or unemployment checks because some stupid liberal didn’t think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

It is noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe’s deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe’s money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression.

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime. Joe also forgets that in addition to his federally subsidized student loans, he attended a state funded university.

Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards to go along with the taxpayer funded roads.

He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers’ Home Administration because bankers didn’t want to make rural loans.

The house didn’t have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn’t belong and demanded rural electrification.

He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn’t have to.

Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn’t mention that the beloved conservatives have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day. Joe agrees: “We don’t need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I’m a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have.”

Posted by: muirgeo at May 7, 2008 9:36 PM
Comment #252415

muirgeo,

OIC, you aren’t interested in accomplishing anything or discussing your opinions with people who disagree with you.

I’ll remember that and avoid your comments in the future.

BTW, I’m not a conservative, but a libertarian, though I doubt you get the difference as anyone who isn’t a progressive appears beneath you.

Oh, and your little ‘borrowed vignette’ is about as accurate as everything else you’ve stated on here. However, it is pretty indicitive of how many progressive think of anyone ‘beneath’ them and how they must view life.

And it explains EXACTLY how Obama is going to ‘unite’ us all, by ridiculing and misunderstanding anyone who doesn’t agree with him. Good job in confirming the suspicions of everyone who actually thought he might be different than the typical progressive elitist.

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 7, 2008 9:46 PM
Comment #252416

Rhinehold,


I was at a lecture by Ewe Reinhart from,a foremost medical economist from Princeton where he estimated the cost to provide universal health coverage in addition to what we already spend would be about $110 billion per year.

From the BEA interest payments on the debt were $300 billion in 2003 as of 2007 they were $400 and by the end of Bush’s term they will be about $130.

So instead of health care or roads or teachers with Bush you get nothing for your $130 billion. And it’s funny that some people think he gave them a tax cut when in fact all he did was let you borrow from your children.


This link may not work but it is the table from the BEA that has the data;

http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp#Mid


Posted by: muirgeo at May 7, 2008 9:47 PM
Comment #252417

BTW, I’m an athiest, and so are many conservatives, so again, painting with that wide brush to make yourself feel better instead of listening and trying to understand the views of others different from you, very rewarding I imagine…

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 7, 2008 9:48 PM
Comment #252421

Correction;

By the end of Bush’s term the yearly interest payment on the debt will be abut$430 billion an increase of $130 billion thanks to the Republicans. Instead of Health care , roads or schools are children get to pay more taxes.

I’m an atheist as well… more properly a secular humanist with pagenistic tendencies. I used to vote Republican but understanding their intolerance for people like you or me was one big reason to leave the party.

I thought about Libertarianism but even though it’s more ideologically pure there is just no evidence that it works in the real world. As far as I know there never has been a pure libertarian based society that’s existed for any length of time to support a large society.

Posted by: muirgeo at May 7, 2008 11:32 PM
Comment #252422

Some religion for the atheists from ABFAB with Mo Gaffney:

youtube.com/watch?v=AKHPKxBKKos

Posted by: ohrealy at May 7, 2008 11:44 PM
Comment #252424

muirego

I have seen that liberal fable so many times before that I am just sick of explaining it. I am sure it was somebody’s sophomore project. That is why it is anonymous. Suffice to say, you have to produce things before you can redistribute them. All those good things were first produced more efficiently by the free market.

Posted by: Jack at May 8, 2008 12:10 AM
Comment #252426

Lee, this is great “Periodically such pain devolves into the empowering of incompetents. For a while we’ve been leaning in that direction. In November we will probably go all the way.”

What a jokester you are. Yet your not laughing. No wonder the cons are happier in your world, they can leave out facts and create statements such as yours but really “leaning towards incompetence” we have been falling on our collective faces with conservative incompetence the past 8 years. Where have you been? Oh by the way can you pass the conservative koolaid so I can be blissfully ignorant like you guys and think that Jack is happy but temporarily just sick from explaining the liberal “fable” so often.

Posted by: j2t2 at May 8, 2008 2:13 AM
Comment #252427

Has anyone commented yet that Ignorance is Bliss.

Cheap shot, I know, to offer such a cliche’. But, cliche’s become cliche’s because of their sturdy kernel of truth recognizable by generation after generation.

Republicans from 2000 to 2006 displayed ENORMOUS ignorance of the critiques leveled at their Party and those from they elected to office. In 2006 they paid a big price. Pat Buchanan, Joe Scarborough (in the last 24 hours), and a great number of other Republican/Conservative educated folks have agreed that the Nov. 2008 elections will make the 2006 election look like a hayride for Republicans.

Ignorance may be bliss, but, not without enormous consequences. But, hey, those can be ignored too. I see a lot of that in comments by Republican supporters calling in on C-Span’s Washington Journal, to defend what happened in the 2006 elections as not Republican’s fault, but, any and everyone else’s. They insist it is Democrats who will get their clocks washed this November.

Their ignorance of what is taking place is enormous. In one of the stauchest Republican districts in Mississippi last week, the Republican lost to a Democrat. Two other special elections recently went the similarly. Two of these races were viewed as uncontestable by the Republican candidates. They were both replaced by Democrat challengers.

The reinforcement for willful ignorance is that continuing to remain so is a natural defense to the consequences of ignorance. Not sure of it is hereditary or learned or both, but, one thing is for sure, there is plenty of it to go around in every political party constituency in America.

I would be very interested in the tested knowledge level of current events between random samples of Political Party loyalists and Independent voters with any political party favorite. I suspect the latter group would score significantly higher as a population.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 8, 2008 3:05 AM
Comment #252433

The “liberal fable”, as Jack puts it, is EXACTLY that. That’s because none of those things happened in socialist or communist countries. They happened in a country in which a constant competition pits what we call liberalism against what we call conservatism. But now the conservative side of the equation has been cast as being uncontestably evil even in the party that should be standing up for the good it can do.

Our president, called a “conservative” by the left, does not stand up for the laws that protect our borders, brutally and illegally prosecutes and imprisons those who are charged with protecting our borders, imports by this lassitude illegal aliens in numbers never seen in the nation’s history, allows government spending to run rampant while he exercises so little party leadership that he virtually dismantles his own power base.

His stewardship of the infrastructure of the country in terms of any measurable metric, energy production, manufacturing, education (particularly graduate level education) transportation, etc., all of which are amenable to inspired and well-communicated conservative approaches, is nauseatingly tepid.

George W. Bush likes to say the C word but by having to add the “compassionate” modification he condemns it. Like liberals he (and Karl Rove) think we’re worse than stupid. We’re useful idiots.

Once a party stops representing its constituency is it any wonder that the constituency would seek to cleanse the party by ridding it of those who have abandoned them? I think not. Watch any debate in which the microphone for one debater is turned off. It is they who will stop speaking. That is not because they have nothing to say or because what they have to say is not valid. It is because the effort to make themselves heard is reaping no benefit.

The Republican Party has chosen to make itself inoffensive by turning off the microphone of the conservative movement, hoping that being inoffensive will win it friends. It won’t.

Who is to blame for this situation? Truth be told it is probably those elements of CONSERVATIVE media that have chosen to make themselves heard by casting everything liberal as bad. Remember that at the beginning of this comment I said that America’s progress, and its progressiveness, are a product of a constant interchange between both liberal and conservative elements of the society. By playing to bigotry conservative media inspired an equally reactionary response where, now, neither side hears the reasoned arguments of the other side.

What will the result of this be? In January of ‘09 Democrats will have a free hand to express the most radicaly liberal agenda in this country’s history. A man whose primary accomplishment in life has been never taking a stand that would cost him a lot of votes will be president, and we will get to see how the productive side of the economy reacts to a government that thinks it knows better than the people how they should live their lives.

I’m predicting that, in 2012, people will be nostalgic for Jimmy Carter (or anybody else).

Posted by: Lee Jamison at May 8, 2008 9:50 AM
Comment #252436

Intelligence is relative; just another label to use as a debate distraction. I know dizzy blonds who are at the top of their college class and uneducated laborers who have amazing insight.
The difference between envy and ambition follows liberal and conservative thought. Envy wants what others have produced and ambition produces by its own effort. The latter makes for a happier person. Those who have lost it all and start over have a satisfaction with success over those who claim victimhood and expect others to lift them up. Success to them has to be downgraded to bare essentials and becoming a dependent.

Posted by: Kruser at May 8, 2008 10:32 AM
Comment #252439

What I fear most about our turn to the liberal side of things is that it means we are becoming more like Europe generally. Americans have always been willing to look at things the rest of the world is too hidebound to venture into. I just saw a very interesting example of this in an article on SPACE.com about why Europe won’t spend resources looking for extraterrestrial life.

Yeah, the stuff sounds odd, but Americans are not so risk-averse that they won’t try stuff Europeans won’t touch. As the article notes Americans will also spend more than twice as much on risky venture-capital endeavors that wind up producing new technologies that wouldn’t exist without our openness to the unknown.

Europeans are too staid to rock the social boat, till they break out in wars that consume the globe.

Boy, don’t you all want to be like that?

Posted by: Lee Jamison at May 8, 2008 10:46 AM
Comment #252449

BTW, please explain WHY we would add the interest on the debt into military spending? What idiotic website did you pull this crap from?

Because the war dragged us into debt? Remember the surplus? Remember the idea of a lockbox, that Republicans found so boring? The site I got my info from is called Wikipedia, you should try it sometime. There’s a whole web out there other than foxnews.com ;-)

Btw, originally we were comparing Welfare versus Military spending. If you thought we were comparing military versus ALL social programs (e.g. EVERYTHING ELSE WE EVER SPEND MONEY ON) than yeah, I guess we spend more on “social programs”). Isn’t ridiculous though that the two are at all comparable? Or - if you do take the interest into account - that we spend MORE on the military?

Posted by: Max at May 8, 2008 12:56 PM
Comment #252452
Lee Jamison wrote: In survey after survey people who practice the disciplines of a conservative lifestyle tend to be happier than those who do not.

The article linked to states the more significant factor is …

Even so, the factor that makes the most difference in predicting happiness is neither being a Republican nor being wealthy - it’s being in good health.

But, there other over-looked reasons why some people choose to be Democrat or Republican.

Maybe Republicans are a happier lot?
So why is it Republicans, every time they get power, they quickly lose it (as evidenced by this chart showing the majorities in the house and senate) from year 1855 to year 2006?

Perhaps that happiness is derived from the corporate welfare, subsidies, pork-barrel, regressive taxation, and debt heaped on the backs of most Americans and future generations?

Posted by: d.a.n at May 8, 2008 1:06 PM
Comment #252455
Because the war dragged us into debt? Remember the surplus? Remember the idea of a lockbox, that Republicans found so boring? The site I got my info from is called Wikipedia, you should try it sometime. There’s a whole web out there other than foxnews.com ;-)

1) The war did not ‘drag us into debt’. We’ve been there long before the war.

2) We never had a surplus. There was some accounting done that showed the DEFICIT was nearly gone, according to a ‘projected budget’, but that required borrowing form the SS Trust fund, which is why the idea of a ‘lock box’ came about to begin with.

3) This ‘surplus’ ended long before Clinton left office amid a recession so blaming it on Bush and the war seems a bit moronic. And then 9/11 put a HUGE dent in our economy, trying to get out of the Clinton recession at the same time… well, that speaks to the resilliancy of our economy and our people.

Btw, originally we were comparing Welfare versus Military spending.

NO, I requoted that we were not talking about ‘welfare vs military’ (the last comment you said Medicare vs military, before that it was welfare and medicare vs military…)

I’m glad you accept that we spend more on money redistribution programs (social spending) than the military now and understand why they will HAVE to be cut if we are going to see any movement on the debt.

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 8, 2008 2:06 PM
Comment #252456

BTW, I used to be a Republican, and now I am much happier that I’m not.
Life is so much simpler when one isn’t constantly trying to rationalize and explain the inexplicable things THEIR party does.
Especially when the numerous similarities far out-number the minor differences.

Lee Jamison wrote: Unhappy people complain and make noise. Happy people go quietly about their business.
Perhaps. As for complainers, rather than merely complaining, the very least they can do is also offer some solutions.
Lee Jamison wrote: Politicians are moved more by complainers who empower politicans by looking to others to provide them comfort than they are by those who empower themselves. In politics pain is power, and unhappy people inherently feel more pain.
Hmmmmmm … that’s debatable.

Politicians look for self-gain, another raise every year, cu$hy benefits, and ways to make their own incumbencies more secure.
If politicians listened to most American complaints, why do the main sources of their complaints still exist?

At any rate, the voters have the government they elect and deserve.
If the voters don’t like it, then perhaps they should ask themselves if repeatedly rewarding irresponsible incumbent politicians with 93%-to-99% re-election rates is working?

Obviously, a lot of Republican voters seem to be getting the message, since they have been leaving the Republican party in droves.

Posted by: d.a.n at May 8, 2008 2:17 PM
Comment #252457

Remember when the new Congress sent those checks to Americans in 2001, paying back the amount overpaid in taxes because it was a budget surplus?

Iraq is the only war in American history which has been funded entirely by borrowing. The borrowing has been done through Emergency Supplemental Bills. This device has been used so that the cost of the war will not be shown as part of the budget deficit.

Counting the interest on all that borrowed money is completely reasonable.

Posted by: phx8 at May 8, 2008 2:21 PM
Comment #252458

BTW, continuing to debate me as if I’m a conservative, after being told I’m not, doesn’t help your arguments… ie, the foxnews.com remark, as I don’t watch the channel or view the website, it is a little lost on me…

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 8, 2008 2:22 PM
Comment #252460

phx8,

On THAT money, perhaps. Not on the interest that goes for the debt we already have AND incurred because of other irresponsible spending that the Republicans, and now Democrats, have been pushing on it.

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 8, 2008 3:16 PM
Comment #252464

Lee,

The reason conservatives are happier than liberals is the key to the whole issue. Evidently some people just deserve to starve, or to be homeless.

Most recently we watched Laura Bush rub salt in the wounds of the survivors of a horrific natural event. Not surprising when you consider mama-in-laws comments regarding survivors of Katrina living in conditions that were custom made to transmit illness due to ivercrowding!

Obviously, only those who have fallen out of god’s grace deserve such suffering. That’s why Warren Buffet, by his own admission, pays a lower percentage of income tax than his secretary.

Of course, we Dems are just a bunch of liberal elitists right? Then why is it that your man McCain’s wife refuses to release her tax records?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080508/ap_on_el_pr/cindy_mccain_taxes

Sounds a bit elitist to me!

But only us libbies care about disparity, or poverty, or the current rationing of health care.

Posted by: KansasDem at May 8, 2008 4:02 PM
Comment #252468

Kansas Dem,
You didn’t expect George Bush to get up on the podium and offer government help to the Burmese after a catastrophic hurricane, did you? After Katrina? Snort. Remember how the people in this red column consistently blamed everyone BUT the Bush administration? Yeah, that worked out real well. Lots of dumbass comments about liberals blaming Bush for the hurricane itself. That’s the ticket! Hardly noticed- McCain apologized for the failure of the Bush administrationan’s response after Katrina.

I think a lot of the ‘happy’ conservative talk is a result of conservatives operating on a lower level of moral development. (See Kohlberg’s stages of moral development). I’m not sure it qualifies as being happy, but as someone snarked earlier in the thread, ‘ignorance is bliss.’

Posted by: phx8 at May 8, 2008 4:41 PM
Comment #252469

“a result of conservatives operating on a lower level of moral development”

Yep, that’s my thought!

There are simply two ways of thinking:

#1. We’re all in this together.

#2. You’re on your own.

Those who believe that we should all be on our own must add the word “compassionate” to their description.

It’s like saying, “I’m a turd but I smell really good”!

Posted by: KansasDem at May 8, 2008 5:04 PM
Comment #252470
I think a lot of the ‘happy’ conservative talk is a result of conservatives operating on a lower level of moral development.

Interesting…

So, how do you explain that Conservatives routinely give more to charity than Progressives?

Just take a look at the tax records of McCain, HRC and Obama…

KansasDem,

No, you get it wrong.

There are 3 ways of thinking…

#1 We’re in this together

#2 You’re on your own

#3 I know better than you about how to help people so I will put a gun to your head and do it for you

Gee, I wonder where Progressives reside?

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 8, 2008 5:15 PM
Comment #252472

Rhinehold,
Some organizations, such as the Mormon Church, require 10% tithing. It is required, and the money must go to the church, yet it is considered charity.

The records of HRC & Obama are public. McCain’s wife has made it clear she will not reveal her taxes under any circumstances. The McCains are fabulously wealthy…

But I wonder if she made him sign a pre-nup?

Posted by: phx8 at May 8, 2008 5:29 PM
Comment #252474

Rhinehold,

Your #3 is absolute nonsense.

Since we all have an opportunity to vote we must submit to the will of the majority unless there is a violation of “rights”. There is no protection from ANY taxation, but rather a protection from taxation without representation!

While I certainly don’t always agree with that representation at times I can either choose to obey the law or face the repercussions of failing to do so. Your “gun to the head” and “mob rule” crap gets very tiresome.

I very much believe that we should “all be in this together”, including a conscription during time of war! If that were the case Iraq would still be the #1 issue facing the electorate.

Not gonna happen during this narcissistic period of Americana!

Posted by: KansasDem at May 8, 2008 5:37 PM
Comment #252475

phx8,

Still hung up on money, imagine that…

So, can we dive into the background of Michelle Obama? Find out who REALLY wanted to attend Wright’s Church? No, I’m sure if it was done to a liberal it would be out of the question, but you want to look into McCain’s wife (and how many people call Laura Bush a murderer?)

BTW, If something happens to McCain’s wife, or if they get divorced, their children get the money, not him.

OH, and yes, 10% tithing goes to the church, the church in return helps those who need help… So it is charity… What is wrong with that?

How does that equate to Obama (a christian who is supposed to tithe I imagine) and HRC (also a Christian last time I checked) giving less than McCain to charity?

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 8, 2008 5:40 PM
Comment #252476

Rhinehold,
Like you, I am not a member of any Christian-Judeo religion. I could not care less who goes to what church. I’d like it better if none of them attended church services about made-up stuff, but that’s not going to happen. We know people by their words and by their actions, and from what I know of Obama and HRC and McCain, they seem like relatively sane and moral people- considering they’re running for president. If the candidates start yelling about end times and the rapture, then I would care a great deal. That’s a problem.

I’m not sure you realize just how wealthy McCain’s wife is- her fortune is supposedly over $100 million, but no one knows for sure, and the McCains aren’t talking. Obama has several million dollars. The Clintons are very rich, although I suspect the McCains have them beat.

Posted by: phx8 at May 8, 2008 5:52 PM
Comment #252478

In my youth I was a conservative democrat and at age 35 became a conservative republican. In the last ten years I am simply a conservative not beholding to any party. And, I was happy when belonging to either party, but love the freedom of being independent.

One of the best simple truth’s I know is; “Happiness is an inside job”!

This blog has turned rather ugly.

Posted by: Jim M at May 8, 2008 6:12 PM
Comment #252480

“the conservative side of the equation has been cast as being uncontestably evil” LeeJay, thanks for saying that, we are not supposed to call you guys that. A memo went out a while back.

I guess George Will started the new cycle of “conservative” revisionism, claiming that Bush is not a conservative, since he did not like the results of Bush’s presidency. I think people are just splitting hairs. If you voted for Bush, he’s your idea of a president, not mine. You plugged your formula in, and don’t like the outcome. Perhaps, maybe, might it be possible that there was something wrong with the formula. No, it can only be Bush’s fault.

I’m against corporate welfare, neverending warfare, torturing prisoners, deficit budgeting, relaxing pollution standards, free immigration for the servant class, and intrusion of religion into everything. “Conservatives” are in favor of all those things, because they vote for them. George Bush certainly wasn’t elected by liberals.

I’ll grant you that people who complain are annoying. “Conservatives” do plenty of complaining. They lost their champion recently, and now have George Will trying to make sense while people are listening to a babble of misinformation from some of the most obnoxious blowhards in the history of the world, all spawned by and in the pay of the “conservative” movement. Don’t complain if you look in the mirror and see Rush Limbaugh. I didn’t put him there.

Posted by: ohrealy at May 8, 2008 6:17 PM
Comment #252489

Fortunately, not all democrats are liberals or we would have had a president McGovern, Dukakis, Algore, Kerry and a two-term Carter.

Conservative and moderate Democrats came out in droves to give President Reagan landslide victories. Can you name a Democrat president who had conservative and moderate Republicans come out in droves to vote for him? Are any liberals holding their breath for this to happen with the Obamawan?

We need a few liberals and atheists as they give us just one more thing to be thankful for…not being like them.

Posted by: Jim M at May 8, 2008 7:00 PM
Comment #252495
Your #3 is absolute nonsense.

No, it is the reality of the situation that you don’t want to accept. Those are two different things.

Since we all have an opportunity to vote we must submit to the will of the majority unless there is a violation of “rights”. There is no protection from ANY taxation, but rather a protection from taxation without representation!

Right to private property, right to self-determination, etc… Those don’t matter I suppose.

And I am not looking at legality, I’m looking morality. I know, not your concern. But it is mine.

David already shows a prime example of what happens when a progressive (or in his case, statist) uses that very argument and then finds that what he thought was a right to private property is taken away. Out come the guns and calls for revolution.

Let me ask you a question. If 2/3rd of the country decided to rescind the separation of church and state and enforce a national religion, would you acquiesce since the will of the minority should submit to the will of the majority?

Are you ok with gays not being able to marry? The will of the minority against the will of the majority and all.

In fact, there are alot of things that liberals (real ones like myself) have fought for over the years that were to defend the rights of the minority of the majority that would go away, and I don’t want to see them go…

But I digress, let’s move on.

While I certainly don’t always agree with that representation at times I can either choose to obey the law or face the repercussions of failing to do so. Your “gun to the head” and “mob rule” crap gets very tiresome.

*sigh*

The crap is reality. You choose to not see it because you don’t want to see the harsh truth, but it is just that.

A law only needs to be in place to be enforced. Otherwise there is no need for the law. You can’t refute that, it’s a truth, but you just choose to ignore it because it starts to itch in the back of your head that what you are doing might be wrong and of course you CAN’T be wrong…

So, forget about that single mother of four who is trying to put her sons through college so that they can have a better life than she did, working two jobs to make ends meet, we should just raise her taxes. It doesn’t matter that it puts her in threat of being on the dole herself or needing help, it doesn’t matter that she would gladly help anyone who needed it when she can afford to do so, those situations don’t matter, YOU know better than her.

You are the selfish one, not me.

I very much believe that we should “all be in this together”, including a conscription during time of war! If that were the case Iraq would still be the #1 issue facing the electorate.

I believe we are all in this together and it is everyone’s responsiblity to help their fellow man. But I also believe it must be THEIR decision when and how to help. Forcing that decision upon them is immoral.

Not gonna happen during this narcissistic period of Americana!

Then perhaps the progressives should stop being so narcissistic and accept that THEIR way to help isn’t the best way for everyone to help. And perhaps they could accept that they should help without having to make sure that everyone else helps the same. That is the true definition of selfishness, if you ask me.

Oh, and btw, I’ll just point you to the comment I left for max in the other column after he called me selfish as well for my views, one of the most cowardly and despicible tools that progressives use when they realize they can’t win an arguement on merits.

http://www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/005976.html#252473

I doubt that will

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 8, 2008 8:38 PM
Comment #252496

The pursuit of happiness by the definition of our founders is the ability to strike it out on your own, fail or succeed. This is the basis for conservative thought. It is also why they obviously are happier. The pursuit is enjoyable since there are either two rewards; The satisfaction of doing things right and although not first, success. Our ability to keep and enjoy what we have acquired is essential for this.

Socialism, liberalism or progressives, it doesn’t matter what name is used to hide the principles, instead of pursuing, cause their followers to chase scape goats. This is unsatisfying because it is a never ending exercise. Workers who have this mentality and hate toward supervision and owners will become stalled toward advancement and bring down quality. It is degrading to a country when these kind of people become the majority. Look at Michigan as an example.

Posted by: Kruser at May 8, 2008 9:15 PM
Comment #252502

Kruser,
“The pursuit of happiness.” It’s a great phrase. I’m not exactly sure why Michigan is supposedly so degraded, but I’ll take your word for it.

Conservatives generally support the War in Iraq. How do you square that with “the pursuit of happiness”?

Conservatives generally support the use of torture. How do you square that with “the pursuit of happiness”?

Conservatives generally support a surveillance society in the name of security. How do you square that with “the pursuit of happiness”?

Posted by: phx8 at May 9, 2008 1:11 AM
Comment #252505

“The pursuit of happiness by the definition of our founders is the ability to strike it out on your own, fail or succeed. This is the basis for conservative thought.”

While you may think this inane dribble is the basis for what you call conservative thought, in actuality it is the misguided conservative mantra that takes the place of actual thought. It is not the founders definition of the pursuit of happiness my friend. it is the conservative re write of the meaning of the “pursuit of happiness” used to justify your exaggerated sense of self that comes from your greed based political leanings. Conservatives all seem to think they wear a blue suit with a red “S” on the front and a red cape but in reality guys its just your underwear under those clothes you wear. The “pursuit of happiness” as used by the founding fathers is traced back to the greeks. This phrase refers to civic virtues of courage justice and moderation not a search for personal pleasure, thats what they called social happiness.

“Socialism, liberalism or progressives, it doesn’t matter what name is used to hide the principles, instead of pursuing, cause their followers to chase scape goats.”

Kruser where do you get these delusions from? Chasing scapegoats is the most conservative of traits. Perhaps the easiest and quickest way to determine if a person is a conservative is by their excessive use of scapegoats to place blame on anything but themselves. Look back through a few threads here and you will see that conservatives blame liberals for all things wrong today even though liberal thought has been out of favor for 30 + years. Why the conservatives even turn on their own for not being conservative enough and start calling self professed conservatives they elected into office liberals when things turn to crap as they follow the incompetent conservative approach to governing.

If there is any truth to the myth that conservatives are truely more happy than liberals it can only be attributed to the delusions of the conservative mind.

Posted by: j2t2 at May 9, 2008 1:52 AM
Comment #252531

Can you say, “Fat Cat”?

Posted by: googlumpus at May 9, 2008 2:21 PM
Comment #252559

There’s actually a good explanation for this difference in level of happiness:

    Ignorance is bliss.

: )

Posted by: d.a.n at May 9, 2008 6:57 PM
Comment #252578

d.a.n, don’t steal my lines :)

Posted by: Zeek at May 10, 2008 3:35 AM
Comment #252591

Zeek, I didn’t see your comment.

Actually, mental whimp beat us both to it in comment # 252348 above:

    I agree that it’s easier to be happy if you don’t concern yourself with the state of the less fortunate. Also, if you firmly believe that your success is due to your own skills and virtue, not on a great deal of luck and accident of birth, then this can also keep you happier. After all, ignorance is bliss.
    Posted by: mental wimp at May 7, 2008 01:34 PM

In fact, “ignorance is bliss” was used 8 times above.

Posted by: d.a.n at May 10, 2008 10:42 AM
Comment #252631

Don’t mess with my bliss, dammit.

Posted by: googlumpus at May 11, 2008 1:57 PM
Comment #252648

Kruser said: “The pursuit of happiness by the definition of our founders is the ability to strike it out on your own”

Interesting how Kruser leaves out crucial parts in that sentence like “as a united people and a united states of America.” Kinda contradicts his whole distorted view when that bit of actual historical fact is added to his sentence. We even fought a war over that word United, and the Secessionists lost, the United’s won. And ironically, it is almost exclusively Republicans who still to this day regret the Secessionist’s loss of that war. You can readily recognize some of them by their wearing or displays of the Confederate Flag, symbol of the ‘good old days’ of slavery and individualistic thinking which really only meant thinking that mirrored theirs. Which is not individualistic at all.

Despite many conservative’s great dismay of the fact, we are a united states governed by a democratic republic process dedicated to the rule of just law, not the rule of just or unjust men and women. We have lost our way for awhile by allowing men like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Rove to define themselves as just and therefore all their actions as just, the law or Constitution be damned. But, Americans are finding their way back to rule of law, not of men, and the elections of 2006 were a demonstration of that fact, and the journey back will be finished in November when the people elect Obama, a Constitutional scholar, to lead us the rest of the way back to rule of law, not of men.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 11, 2008 9:19 PM
Comment #252676

The real conservatives, not neo-cons:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUosm_BBv9g

Posted by: ohrealy at May 12, 2008 12:28 PM
Comment #252700

“And ironically, it is almost exclusively Republicans who still to this day regret the Secessionist’s loss of that war. You can readily recognize some of them by their wearing or displays of the Confederate Flag, symbol of the ‘good old days’ of slavery and individualistic thinking which really only meant thinking that mirrored theirs. Which is not individualistic at all.” Posted by: David R. Remer at May 11, 2008 09:19 PM

Excuse me Mr. Remer, but that is just disgusting. As I recall A. Lincoln was a Republican. It was a democrat congress that fought against civil rights. It is democrat Byrd who was the clansman until politics forced him to change his public (though I doubt his private) view. It is the Obamawan’s preacher and mentor who is a racist.

Your rewrite of history is outrageous and I also challenge you to show readers which members of the Supreme Court follow the constitution and which attempt to change and twist it to further some liberal political ambition.

Posted by: Jim M at May 12, 2008 7:31 PM
Comment #252793

ohrealy great clip, true conservatives at their finest.

Posted by: j2t2 at May 14, 2008 12:05 AM
Comment #252875

d.a.n
”In fact, “ignorance is bliss” was used 8 times above.”

I was joking with you my friend :)

Posted by: Zeek at May 15, 2008 3:28 AM
Comment #252894

Yes, of course. Me too. : )
I should have read the entire thread in advance.
Seems many of us had the same idea.
The “Too Happy to be Liberal” title of this thread certainly set itself up royally for that “ignorance is bliss” observation, didn’t it?

If everyone should be so happy, why are Congress’ approval ratings at 18% (or lower), and Bush (43)’s approval ratings at a record lowe for any president (ever)?

Hmmmmm, why would that be?

  • Maybe it’s $4 gasoline?

  • Or maybe it is record foreclosures?

  • Or regressive taxation?

  • Or inflation and the falling U.S. Dollar?

  • Or rampant lawlessness and illegal immigration?

  • Or a multitude of constitutional violations? One-Simple-Idea.com/ConstitutionalViolations1.htm

  • Or increasingly costly and dangerous healthcare plagued by middlemen and other manifestations of unchecked greed?

  • Or rising unemployment?

  • Or some of these other 10+ abuses resulting in these deteriorating 17+ economic conditions?

It’s simply unfathomable why so many Americans think they have anything to not be happy about, eh?

Posted by: d.a.n at May 15, 2008 12:46 PM
Comment #253020

Hm. Perhaps we should bear in mind Bill Clinton’s maxim: Democrats fall in love, but Republicans fall in line.

The Republicans are told they’re supposed to be happy with the Bush administration, and that anyone who says otherwise is either a traitor, a communist, a homo, or (horrors!) a liberal!

Think about it - if polls had asked Russians in the 1950’s how happy they were, what would have been the answer? I suspect the answer would have been a resounding yes! - and their answers would have been every bit as legitimate as the 100% vote that Saddam Hussein got in his last ‘election’.

Posted by: Glenn C at May 17, 2008 1:22 PM
Post a comment