Why do liberals think they're always the smartest people in a conversation?

I think one reason liberals think they are so smart is that they want to feel superior in some way. Conservatives are usually better economically and more in tune with the people. Most average people would call themselves conservative. Liberals like to think they are just too smart to be understood.

Boston Globe: Yale grades portray Kerry as a lackluster student. His 4-year average on par with Bush's

Kerry, who graduated two years before Bush, got a cumulative 76 for his four years, according to a transcript that Kerry sent to the Navy when he was applying for officer training school. He received four D's in his freshman year out of 10 courses, but improved his average in later years.

Senator Kerry may not appear tonight, apparently it's been a loooooong day.

Sen. John Kerry issues a statement saying: "I personally apologize to any service member, family member, or American who was offended" by comments he made about being "stuck in Iraq."

My first question would be, why is what Kerry had to say got anything to do with the race in Mo., Tn, Va., or any other state. The truth is, that the majority of enlisted men and women are of high school educations and many have joined the millitary under false assumptions that they will get a college education paid for, which has been proven to be false. How many members of congress have kids in Iraq? Many of these kids are from poorer backgrounds and are being questionably being recruited in high school. Past recuriters have testified to this, saying they would find the "hot button", travel, adventure, education, and these are kids, 17, 18 yrs of age. As to liberals controlling everything, the last time I checked, NBC< FOX, CBS, CNN etc. are all owned by large corporations, as is Halliburton, Boeing, the people making huge profits in Iraq.

Economics, that's why.

The liberals I know in Illinois, for example, are well-educated and hard-working. However, I know very few wealthy Liberals.........mostly lawyers. I do know that wealthy non-lawyers exist, and I have a huge circle of friends, but not many that are wealthy AND Liberal. The population here is overwhelmingly Liberal, so Conservatives stand out.

Of the much smaller number of Conservatives I know, almost all are at least upper Middle Class............and some are fabulously wealthy. Conservatives tend to conserve, hence the name. Conservers are also more entrepreneurial because they have the money to act that way.

So when Liberals think they're the smartest in the conversation, its generally because they think they've devoted their lives to working hard to be the best at their trade (whatever that may be) not for money. Unfortunately for Liberals, experience and doing are the biggest factors in education. Conservatives, although more quiet, generally know more, because they've done more.

Just a lifelong observation, that's all.

Why do some conservatives whine so much? After all they control the lions share of our nation's resources and corporations and wield power beyond their numbers.

I don't think liberals are any smarter than conservatives. Both groups have their bigots and intellectual lightweights. The liberal elite like their neo-cons counterparts do exhibit an air of superiority but that's what get from years stellar education and excessive wealth.

I can only speak for myself, and I would call myself a liberal:

First of all, you need to make a distinction between "smart" and "educated". There are many, many smart folks over the entire political spectrum who are not "educated" (my immigrant grandparents, for example). There are many, many people with multiple degrees (i.e. educated) who are not that smart (Kerry, for instance).

Having said that, people who have attained a post-HS degree are usually exposed to a lot more varied viewpoints, people and information than people with only HS (or less) degrees. They usually tend to have much wider perspectives and are more open to new ideas, more accepting of other cultures. The thing that probably ticks those liberals off the most are people who are dogmatic and closed-minded.

Now, as for your Bush/Reagan/Bush example, although I did not vote for the elder Bush or Reagan, I have the utmost respect for them. They were decent leaders and good communicators. The younger Bush, on the other hand, can't:

- put one decent grammatical sentence together unless he is reading it from a prepared speech (and even then he stumbles);
- giggles and makes inane comments off the cuff at the most serious issues (maybe because he's so uncomfortable trying to put a few words together);
- admits that he doesn't read;
- admits that he doesn't stay up with the news;
- admits that he makes decisions based on the advice of a small group of close advisors who are all of the same caste.

Can you really expect anyone who is educated/smart to respect this man, or to respect anyone who supports him?

Why do some conservatives whine so much? After all they control the lions share of our nation's resources and corporations and wield power beyond their numbers.

Come out of the 1970's Mr. Robinson.

Civil servant pension systems and charitable trusts like the Harvard Trust and the Ford Foundation own more financial equity than do individual investors. My own state of Minnesota pension investment board has more wealth then Bill Gates. The civil servants of California alone hold more than $750 Billion in wealth.

These funds represent the core constituency of the Democratic Party.

The irony of Liberals is that they own corporate American but rather than doing something about it they would rather complain.........why not, they love that ROI

One needs to take their worldview out of the closet and give it a good shake-out every decade or so.

Liberals probably think they are smarter than anyone else because in general they ARE!

Our president takes pride in getting poor grades in college and has not learned to say the word "nuclear" correctly yet. He admits that he doens't like to read much, though lately he had published a list of books that he allegedly read.
In my experience conservatives start to laugh and put others down when in a lively discussion with liberals because they cannot keep up.

I realize that I am speaking in generalities, but you started.....

- put one decent grammatical sentence together unless he is reading it from a prepared speech (and even then he stumbles);
- giggles and makes inane comments off the cuff at the most serious issues (maybe because he's so uncomfortable trying to put a few words together);
- admits that he doesn't read;
- admits that he doesn't stay up with the news;
- admits that he makes decisions based on the advice of a small group of close advisors who are all of the same caste.

Really?

Where did you "read" that?

One should expand their reading beyond MoveON.org.

Try reading this.

The Stranger in Crawford

Albert Camus (1913–1960) has been much in the news over the past 12 months. In Camus' birthplace of Algeria, where the nation's post-colonial rulers have long viewed him with suspicion and antipathy, the University of Algiers (in what Le Monde described, in exquisite franglais, as "un come-back étonnant") organized a state-sponsored conference dedicated to Camus' impact on Algerian literature. On the other side of the Mediterranean in France, the Gallimard publishing house brought out the first two volumes of a new and expanded critical edition of Camus' complete works in its prestigious Pléiade series. Meanwhile, across the Channel in Britain, Camus' famous 1942 novel of alienation, L'Etranger (The Stranger) came out on top in a Manchester Guardian poll conducted among male readers asked to name the book that had most "changed their lives." But all of this paled in significance to the event that truly launched Camus' return to the spotlight in 2006: the announcement by White House Press Secretary Tony Snow that President Bush had read The Stranger while vacationing in August at his ranch in Crawford, Texas.

In the wake of Snow's disclosure, commentators who rarely miss an opportunity to criticize Bush for his conceited airs rushed into print with smirking columns. Bush had quoted Camus previously in a February 21, 2005, speech in Brussels in which he urged other nations to help the United States spread democracy in the world ("Albert Camus said that 'freedom is a long-distance race.' We're in that race for the duration", Bush said.) But to such pundits it seemed that Dubya could have no idea of who Albert Camus was, and that the idea of Bush reading—let alone making sense out of—The Stranger was enough to make a cat laugh. Strained attempts at satire duly ensued, including a wooden effort in the New Republic entitled "Strangerer: Camus does Bush" by the now-suspended Lee Siegel. The Stranger and The Cowboy: Could the irony be any richer?

Greg - I didn't READ it, I experience the massive cringe and humiliation whenever the man opens his mouth in public.

Does it strike you as odd that the White House press secretary feels a need to announce the fact that the president read a book? Com'on. Get real.

Liberals probably think they are smarter than anyone else because in general they ARE!

Anything that gets you through the night.

What I have found is that Liberals are typically as smart as Conservatives but all too frequently are much more immature, perhaps that is why conservatives are generally more successful in business and technology.

The biggest problem that most Liberals have is over-coming the intellectual vice-grip of academia....in other words recovering from college.

Look at things like Public Radio......talk about being stuck back in academia!!!......

Our president takes pride in getting poor grades in college

Read and weep.

Yale grades portray Kerry as a lackluster student His 4-year average on par with Bush's

Kerry, who graduated two years before Bush, got a cumulative 76 for his four years, according to a transcript that Kerry sent to the Navy when he was applying for officer training school. He received four D's in his freshman year out of 10 courses, but improved his average in later years.

I didn't read the article because the title told me it was worthless. But I did come in to answer the question: because they are.

Another trumped up subject. There are smart people in both perspectives - conservative and liberal.

Excellent point, Sheryl. Why is it news that GWB read a book?

I didn't read the article because the title told me it was worthless. But I did come in to answer the question: because they are.

Sandy, you are the poster child for unthinking bigotry.

I still have yet to see you post a single reference, cite a single fact, reflect honestly on a single subject.

You are a woman of immense faith and profound ignorance.

Greg - I didn't READ it, I experience the massive cringe and humiliation whenever the man opens his mouth in public.

Sheryl,

Do you understand the difference between being able to read and articulate?

the real quesiton is why did you make a thread about such a stupid topic? Do you feel inferior to liberals that you needed a conversation about it to find out why you feel that way about them?

Yes, I do, Greg. And I believe that the leader of unarguably the most influential nation of the world should be able to both read and articulate. Am I asking too much?

I think many conservatives feel they are smarter than liberals and many liberals feel they are smarter than conservatives. Kerry looks like he thinks he's smarter, because his expressions are more subtle as if he's "heard that line before." Besides his face is so long, smiling ear to ear with wonder and amazement as if he is puzzled by what his opponent has to say- might emphasize the longness of his face and make him unattractive, which might influence how others perceive him and chose to vote. It's an appearance thing. Bush, on the other hand representing the wealthy classes has to exaggerate his expressions at his opponent to attract attention from the humble and superstitious working class who often don't think about how they look. Because the wealthy 1% aren't the ones going to secure Bush's vote. The uncertain working class are fair game.
That's just looking at it from an advertising perspective. I assume no one here knows Kerry or Bush personally in order to gauge for sure if one or the other thinks he's smarter.

Gosh Oscar. If I didn't come to Gather to read how dumb I am I woujld never know. I have three college degrees and a GPA higher than that of either Bush or Kerry, an IQ nearly three times my waist size but I am too stupid to think for myself, read and digest political commentary by anyone and can only speak if I repeat what some media personality has fed me as talking points.

I really appreciate the liberal perspective on my intelligence and if you had some brains, you would too.

And I daresay speak for the 97.5% of the commissioned officers in our Military that already have a college degree when I make my comments.

Conservatives already own everything, so if Liberals didn't at least claim to be smarter, then they'd be locked out of two of the most major achievements an American can have.

Have brains + have money = great
Have brains + no money = fair
Have no brains + money = fair
Have no brains + no money = liberal

LMAO!

Nanci,

Officers are required to have a degree. That's not a fair statement. It is that 1% who become officers without a degree that are worth talking about.

When we comment from emotion, we rarely inflict our intellect onto others.

That any one group of politicians might be intellectually superior to another is a possibility that never crossed my mind. I often feel that other people's viewpoints are "narrow" when they conflict strongly with my own.(point of view). That says something about me.....not about them.

The depth of selfishness we possess distorts almost any hope of being totally objective when confronted with an oppossing opinion. The "latest set of conservatives" to hold "Office" have not done what I consider to be an honerable job. They weren't stupid...or at least the people who worked for them weren't, they succedded in transforming politics into an economical gain for themselves and those like them. They ignored the average American, and they got away with it. I find that pretty darn smart. Sad, but smart!

Conservatives are in bed with the religious right but one day the religious right
will realize that conservatives are in bed with Communist China which is a nation
of billions of atheists. Former Republican Rep Toomey & friends run around the U.S. with their millions of $$$$ supporting conservtive Republicans. Their
money comes from doing business with the atheists in Communist China. Then, the
atheists of Communist China use their money to suppress the masses.

Excellent observation, Dave.

Joe it really doesn't matter if officers are REQUIRED to have a degree or not. The fact is they have the degree, they are in the military.

LIberals don't think that they're smarter than conservatives. It's just that they "think" at all. Conservatives don't think, they react. Their beliefs are handed down to them. Their beliefs are absolute, resistant to fact, argument , or human reason of any kind. They are certain that they are right and consider liberals as deliberately perverse for not seeing just how right they are. Our "dear leader" is the living embodiment of consevative certainty, the very kind of certainty that believes itself to be divinely ordained.

It's not that conservatives aren't smart. It's that they refuse to use that intelligence to discover truths, but rather prefer to use it to justify what they want to be true.

Excellent post Ronald

Joe officers are NOT required to have a degree. Most get one prior to commisioning thru ROTC/a service academy. OCS commisions quite a few officers w/out degrees. To be promoted beyond a certain rank its expected and ample encouragement is given to get one sooner or later.

That said, NCOS are also encouraged to get degrees but since we run the armed forces, its harder for us to get the time to do so! :-)

This thread sure makes the point about emotion and liberal/conservative angst. Look at most of the responses, "my political side" is smarter than you. And some like Ronald are even more proof positive, 'those who do not agree with me do not think' None of this is very encouraging for a nation at times like we are entering....

...or better yet,...how can you tell when a lib is losing an argument?!?!.....I know we all know this one!....They call you a racist!..: o )...LOL

Charles,..I agree 100% w/ you

Ron---I always ask for source,..proof,...I have MANY times asked "the other side"...and they always come back w/ Michale Moore or some off beat lib web page...just as I can ask you,..source?.."It's not that conservatives aren't smart. It's that they refuse to use that intelligence to discover truths, but rather prefer to use it to justify what they want to be true."...so then if you have no source then you know every conservative?

Sandy stole my line.

"It's not that conservatives aren't smart. It's that they refuse to use that intelligence to discover truths, but rather prefer to use it to justify what they want to be true."

There it is my friends. Implicit in that statement is the assumption that what liberals believe is "the truth". There's the "I have all the answers" bull that I knew would come out, and which is so prevalent in liberal minds. Proves my point so handily.

Because being smart also makes you able to see both sides of an issue, which means you see the other guy's POV, which makes you feel for his problems, which makes you a Liberal! That is, Brains cause Liberalism! Damn, I'm smart!

Uh-oh! I must be a Liberal! Oh, No! Better get a Brain-ectomy! Quick! Any brain surgeons on this post? Maybe I'd just get my Left Brain removed. Would that be enough? After all, that's the Logical half, isn't it--the Left? If I got rid of THAT, then I wouldn't be in this logical predicament, would I? THEN I wouldn't have to have my Brain removed...

...This is giving me a headache!

Gina: Many of these kids are from poorer backgrounds and are being questionably being recruited in high school. Past recuriters have testified to this, saying they would find the "hot button", travel, adventure, education, and these are kids, 17, 18 yrs of age.

Tracy: Check your facts.... our military members come from families above the medium income and above the average intellegence (as measured by standardized tests and IQ) from the kids in their same peer group.

Charles Temm,

A friend of mine insists that no one makes officer until he/she earns that degree. He is in the service and bragged about how there was an officer who did not have a degree who proved himself through some other means.

I'm assuming you know better. So, I stand corrected.

Sheryl: Can you really expect anyone who is educated/smart to respect this man, or to respect anyone who supports him?

Tracy: Can't speak for anyone but myself.... I have 2 BS degrees (am less than 3 classes short for each of another 4 degrees), a masters degree, am a member of Mensa... and work on 3 continents in 6 countries. I wish Bush was a better speaker, but I certainly respect the man.

Rev: The 2 most important events in all of history were the invention of wine and the invention of the wheel.

Tracy: I will toast to the importance of wine... but I laugh at your ideas at to what conservatives and liberals are. I have been on the board of directors of 8 companies and organizations and never seen a liberal. I guess Liberals being so smart and conservatives so primative is why liberals hold 0 branches of government?

But, seriously, Oscar:
As to your contention that:
"…
Conservatives citizens are always portrayed as gun-toting, tabacco chewing, racist rednecks and country bumpkins. Conservative Presidents (Bush, Reagan, Bush) are always portrayed as idiots who have (or had) no clue what they're doing, no savvy, no gravitas.
…"

When I grew up, Conservatives were people like William F. Buckley and Barry Goldwater. Neither seemed stupid to me, and both clearly had gravitas. As a matter of fact, I thought very highly of Buckley's intellect (I still do), and he'd really have to go down in my book as one of the most articulate people ever to appear in the public arena. At least the equal of Noam Chomsky, for instance. Certainly, his speaking style was something to behold. His fairness, and respect and tolerance for opposing points of view were also quite remarkable. The programs he hosted on WNET (you know, that seething slime pit of Liberal Atheists?) were veritable models of even-handed, substantive debate, where no POV was belittled or insulted, and every issue was allowed to be voiced, within the limits of Public Decorum.

I also put Bush, Sr. at a very high level, intellectually, but not quite 'Bucklian', I guess. I also thought he was doing a pretty good job in office, when the economy went south on him. Reagan, too, had a powerful form of intelligence that expressed itself more narrowly, though quite deeply, in his skill with people, and his ability to distill his positions down to raw, easily understandable units of purposefulness and clarity, even if he wasn't as much of a policy wonk as Clinton, for example. But this form of intellect served Reagan well, and he got his agenda out there, with a minimum of divisiveness, and a maximum of effectiveness, whether I agreed with him, or not. But, never did I think of him the way you seem to assume. He may not have been conversant with some the names of other world leaders of obscure countries (like France, for example)--but, he made things happen, anyway! That's talent, no matter how you look at it!

So, your contention has not ALWAYS been true, at least, not for me. When did the game turn, do you think? When did Classical, Buckley-Style conservatism loose its intellectual respectability, it's High-IQ ground, so to speak? What happened?

Well, since you asked, I'll TELL you! Dubya! That's what happened! You guys picked a guy who can hardly string two thoughts together without tripping over them as your Standard Bearer, to guide you into the new Republican Century. Oops! But the REAL question is, how did Conservatives make such a horrific blunder? What were you thinking? Have you seen that picture of W holding his materials upside down, as he follows along with the kiddies? A picture's worth a thousand words! Of course, my conservative friends think it's just Photoshop, I know.

And then, rather than owning up to this blatant error, you compounded it by trying to make his impediment into an endearment! Isn't that cute, how he mangles our language? Isn't he JUST LIKE Everyman? Well, no… not exactly! He's NOT like me. I can think straight. I can make an actual idea come out of my mouth whole, and all without torturing my native language worse than the poor unfortunates at Gitmo!

And if you think his problem is merely that he gets a little tongue-tied in public speaking engagements, well, then perhaps you'd like to dig up some of his more cogent writings, or some other examples of his towering intellect. Maybe he wrote some exceptional papers in his terms at Yale? If so, boy, would I love to read those! I bet they're even more amusing than his verbal gaffs!

Well, enough of this! I'm sorry if I've offended any hyper-patriots out there, talking in such harsh ways about our Brainless Leader. But I submit, YOU are the ones who set the poor guy up for such criticisms--by electing him. YOU have made him the fair game, the butt of jokes, that he is. If you'd displayed better judgment, you could have saved him from all this. When he was just a lowly Governor I'd have left him to it… Hey, it wasn't MY state! But now, you screwed up my country real good with your boneheaded choice. Get used to it! History will probably be even less kind than I have been.

Anyway, that's what I think is the primary cause for the conservative movement's loss of intellectual prestige. Keep up the good work!

To TracyTEC:

Perhaps the liberals are so smart they KNOW BETTER! After all, look at the drubbing Dubya's getting at the moment! Would YOU like to go through that?

BTW, Tracy... I think W has a couple of BS degrees, too...

...Oh, I see. You were talking about REAL degrees, in Science, that you actually EARNED. Sorry... Didn't mean to equate you with the President! My bad!

Randall,

You talk as if Bush actually pays attention to what you people say. I was asking because I wanted to know generally why liberals think they know everything and are the sole thinkers in the world. Most of the comments i've read here tell me that it's a false sense of superiority.

Bush could care less about Pelosi, Kerry, or anyone else calling him an idiot. If he's an idiot, how do you people feel who lost to an idiot TWICE. That must hurt that great intellectual hub that is liberals, huh. To know that you weren't "equipped" with the necessary skills to defeat a "buffoon". Honestly, the more you liberals spew your tripe, the more ordinary persons see how lacking in any real assets you are.

I love how you say "my country". I wonder where that comes from. If it were truly "your country", don't you think you'd have a bit more control over it. I see liberals are trying to get back control of the country by persuading citizens to your side. Like at Columbia with the Minutemen. Those libs sure added to the marketplace of ideas when you explained in civil terms their position. You are sure to retake "your country" like that.

Better judgment. Yeah, I guess your judgment should be substituted for mine. What judgment did you liberals make in the last election. That's right, it was Kerry/Edwards. That "judgment" sure paid off didn't it.

Anyway, you say that this all started with President Bush. Yeah, I can see why. He royally pwned you. I mean, he kicked your butts. I would be ashamed to at such pwnage. I bet you can't believe that ordinary americans would have chosen a non-intellectual like Bush over a articulate bastion of liberal superiority like John Kerry. I guess the majority of voters are "idiots" too. But that's no reason to lash out. The real answer for you guys is to actually win an election.

Well, you know what they say Oscar...

"Fool me once, shame on me; Fool me Twice shame on... uh, we won't get fooled again!"

Gosh! Maybe he ISN"T so stupid, after all! Maybe he's positively precognitive! An Oracle! I'll have to mull that one over!

But, yes, I do feel really, really stupid. And yes, I spew tripe. But at least I am self-aware enough to grant this to you! Are you?

Also, when the seesaw seesaws back the other way, are you going to expatriate yourself?

But, you see, you are mischaracterizing me as a 'Liberal', unless you simply think that a 'Liberal' is someone who disagrees with you! I am NOT a liberal (though I play one on TV); I just think Bush is stupid, unwise, unfit, unimaginative, unchristian--and most of all-- he's "from Out of State!" (Here, I'm quoting Bert Reynolds, from Sharky's Machine, I think.) And I didn't vote for Kerry, either. Oops! Don't worry, I won't be making THAT error again, rest assured. Especially not with spokesman such as yourself defending the Republicans, possessed as you are with such remarkable verve, vitriol, and cool-headedness. Keep up the good work! You're fighting the Good Fight! Lead by example! Show us your "compassionate conservatism"! Make me happy to be an American, again. I've missed that feeling, ever since '00. I want it back. I want MY COUNTRY to by OURS again; Including even you, Oscar! But not Haliburton's, and not China's –who's rapidly buying up all our war bonds, that is, they're floating our Deficit for us, while we pile on the "off-budget" emergency expenditures! Which, I guess, is the Bush Doctrine version of a War Bond, if anything is! Please, please, please--keep it up!

BTW, what do the words 'pwned' and 'pwnage' mean? Is that a Bushism I missed? Or is it Welsh? I'm too darn stupid (Liberal? Conservative? You choose) to decode it, at this late hour. Sorry, if I've missed your reference. Maybe I SHOULD be ashamed. I'd know better, if I could follow your meaning... Alas, my word processor doesn't understand them, either. I'll wait for you to enlighten me.

YOU fools debate liberal and conservative thinking. Our collective asses are at steak. Wake up, what kind of country do you wish to live in. make a choice that reflects that choice.

To Oscar H:

"…
Not to mention that those kids were probably spoiled rich kids trying to deprive somone of their right to free speech.
…"

Further proof that I'm not a Liberal, at least by your definition, is that I would never, never, NEVER wish to deprive you, or anybody else, their Right of Free Speech. However, I would like to dissuade us all of the notion that Speech, although it may be Free, is also Cheap! No, no! Free Speech can be quite costly, in fact. Even human lives have been paid for it! I make no defense of PC (Political Correctness).

I think the very IDEA of PC is abhorrent to Democracy, to Human discourse, and to me, personally. PC has been the cause of much that is wrong with our society, as well as others. The most extreme and salient cases have, of late, been surfacing in countries with significant Muslim populations, who do not apparently have continuity with this tradition, as we do. Though, in times past, I understand that Muslims had been well known for their tolerant, cooperative demeanors, this tradition has apparently been eclipsed by the more vocal factions, who espouse Fatwas and worse, against writers (Salmon Rushdi, et al.) and political cartoonists who question their morals and ethics. And the rabble-rousers there apparently have few scruples about 'manufacturing' evidence—or at least, hyping it--for their venomous and nefarious purposes, if required. Of course, the result is the inhibition of free expression—the SAME goal that PC is pushing for. 'If we don't like it, then no one else should hear it, most especially our own members!' I guess, is their reasoning. Is this RC, (Religious Correctness), since some of these groups are more religion-based that politicly-based? Regardless, in MY opinion, it all comes to the same BAD end! Agree, or die! Agree, or be ostracized, Agree, or be shouted down, Agree, or be sued. The point is, in all these cases, it's 'Agree, or else!' This is obviously not conducive to free thought, and not consistent with the idea that Society, in order to evolve in the best possible way, MUST be allowed to open and explore ALL the paths available to it, even ones that look bad to certain segments of the populace. The Christians had their Heretics, some of whom turn out to be prophets! (Gallaleo?), The Muslims have their Rushdi. All prophets, if they really were, have CHALLANGED the status quo, and hence, have encountered significant resistance.

We may UNDERSTAND this tendency, since we had similar issues ourselves… But we are foolish if we tolerate it. We should all, as Humans together, try NOT to reinvent the wheel every few hundred years. Those who fail to see the worth of Free Expression are doomed to stagnation and limitations (self-imposed) on their possible modes of progress. Such regimes cannot be long maintained! At least, not over the scale of centuries. But, clearly, they manage to sustain themselves long enough to bollix things up pretty effectively, over the shorter term.

For these, and many other reasons, I will never support any limitations upon Free Speech. Or expression, or even pornography! Am I still a Liberal, Oscar? If you looked the word up in the Dictionary, you'd see that this position is, in fact QUITE liberal! I just don't think it's what YOU mean by the word. Don't you also value Free Speech? If so, why? If your reasoning has anything in common with MINE, then watch out! You might be a closet Liberal! Better get that Brain Surgeon! You could be headed for a Sinistral Cerebrum-ectomy! (Left-Brain-Removal, for the non-Latinates who might be reading over my shoulder)


"I wish I'd studied Latin in school, so I could talk to those people."—Dan Quayle, vis-à-vis the Latin-American countries of South America (Possibly apocryphal)

I agree with Joseph. This is pointless, Oscar. Let's give it up, and agree to disagree, shall we?

But fun while it lasted!

One would think that if Liberals were smart and articulate that they could think up an alternative vision for the country, then articulate it.

The proof is in the pudding, ya know.

Not that I'm a Liberal in the sense that seems applicable, but be careful what you wish for, Greg! Someone just might do that! Although, I suppose that you'd be under no obligation to actually READ such drivel, would you? No skin off YOUR teeth, eh?,

But really, gents! Let's put together a common (communal? too close to 'commie'?) reading list! Then, maybe (just maybe) some of the so-called facts that get slung back & forth here like so much dogs**t might have, at the very least, a pedigree. After all, to make it to print, the Authors are, at the very least, spell-checked! Maybe (just maybe) we'd have a prayer of getting to some kind of consensus!

Any takers for this concept?

How 'bout to start, we all agree to read Oscar H.'s featured favorite, Atlas Shrugged (by Ayn Rand) ? Of course, with this heavy a tome (1168 pages!) it may take a day or two before we can get 100% participation! Maybe instead we could 'fast-track' this concept, and start with "The Fountainhead"? Granted, I can't think of any cool catch phrases from that one—certainly none as pithy or cryptic as "Who is John Galt?" But, nonetheless, the underlying philosophy is very much the same, I think. It's like the RD condensed version.

Well anyway, I bet some of Oscar's conservative chums probably would not be "on the same page" when it comes to the Sexual mores that seem to be advocated, therein! As a matter of fact, it's sort of hard to see much in common between the current crop of conservative thought, such as it is, and the kind I got out of Atlas Shrugged!

Which things about Ms. Rand's philosophy are you promulgating, Oscar? Not the sexy parts, right? How about the virtue of selfishness? Not the laissez-faire capitalism, I'd think, either, since that wouldn't square too well with the way Bush/Cheney and Haliburton are in bed together, would it? (Maybe they're practicing Ms. Rands' sexual theory, but on a more corporate/governmental level? Hmmm… THAT would explain a lot!) Not the atheistic parts, I'm sure! How about the concept of a "Natural Aristocracy"? None of these? Well, if we skip over all THOSE parts, we could be done reading it by lunchtime!

Hey! Maybe it's Wesley Mouch! His position, of all the characters I can think of, HE is the one most closely aligned with current Conservative thinking, as far as I can tell… God, Please, tell me this isn't what Oscar thinks! That our government should be run by Wesley Mouch Look-alikes!

You know, Oscar, can I make a suggestion? Re-read your book. Then run immediately to your favorite dictionary, and look up the word "Liberal". It might be somewhat instructive!

Oscar says (to me)
"…
You talk as if Bush actually pays attention to what you people say.
…"

Maybe I'm giving the wrong impression, then! Because I sure do NOT think he pays attention to me, and my kind, if such there be! I don't think he listens to much of anybody at all, except those few of his 'inner circle', the Cheneys, Rumsfelds, Roves, Wolfowitz's, and maybe Laura. You know, the neocon men (except for Laura). This, by most estimations, would normally be considered a character flaw, wouldn't it? Especially in the realm of politics, domestic & international, I'd think! Don't politicians and leaders have some obligation to unite the fractious, vying populace? To at least ATTEMPT to arrive at some kind of consensus? Or, is leadership more like the top-down Bush style: "I decide, you tow the line"; or else you are unpatriotic, or treasonous, or in league with the Enemy, or worst of all, an Enemy combatant. Habeas Corpus? Ha! Don't hold your breath! Well, maybe you'd better hold your breath! Hear comes that water-board!

If we're at war, couldn't we have a few POWs? We sometimes call it the Iraq war, sometimes the War on Terror. If it's the War on Terror, than get ready for the long haul! How can you kill a concept? (Not that they haven't tried! They killed the concept of independent thinking in their adherents (Conservatives & Republicans), apparently. Would Hank Reardon just shut up and tow the line? Dagny? John Galt? Who IS this guy, anyway? Maybe Francisco would, but he'd be just pretending, wouldn't he? Maybe Reardon would, too, for a time… but not if you screwed with his train set!

No, the War on Terror is like the War on Drugs, and similarly endless, I fear. Like the War on Drugs (which, BTW, had Afghanistan as one of its fronts, too. How's that other war going, BTW? I hear there's quite a good crop this year in Afghanistan! I know those guys sure could use the infusion of cash!) the War on Terror will only end (or be forgotten) when it is eclipsed by some larger, deadlier, more potent threat. Hard for the Rs and Cs to see what such a threat might look like, but the Ls & Ds aren't suffering from such patent failures of the imagination. They know well and good what that threat might be: Global Warming! What's 3 or 4 measly buildings compared with the loss of 3/4 of Florida, Manhattan, Holland, Venice…

The OPEC States better sell, sell, sell, while they still can! In fifty years it may be a crime, even a Crime Against Humanity to operate an internal combustion engine! Where will the Children of the Oil industry derive their dividends at that point?

Libs are the children, Conservatives are the parents.

Why else do you think there's so much whining, protesting, tantrum-ing, and threatening going on in the country right now? Hopefully, the voters will give the Left Wing the 'time-out' it deserves............about 2 year's worth.

Yeah it's clear to me that libs do think that they are just superior. There's nothing really anyone can say to change their minds.

This is just about the longest article i've ever had. Thanks people.

I saw a great bumper sticker the other day that reminded me of the adolescent behavior of the Left Wing :

"Hire a teenager today - while they still know everything"

Kinda sums up the Howard Dean approach to running a party, don't you think?

Quote: "Any 20 year-old who isn't a liberal doesn't have a heart, and any 40 year-old who isn't a conservative doesn't have a brain." Unknown (often attributed to Winston Churchill)

Oscar, I thought you'd like to respond to the Atlas Shrugged stuff. No? I guess I'm not much of a judge of human nature...

It is amazing how well we all speak from the sidelines....or most of us anyway. Unfortunately, one brain, one vote. And you can put "money in the bank" that the voters of the "red-states" below and on the Mason-Dixon Line weren't voting from anything that conspires to be intellect. The majority of those votes came from the religiously UNinformed parishioners who could only decipher the sputum drooling from the lips of George Jr.

What was MOST AMAZING was that you people voted for him twice. That actually precludes any reasonable hope of your being able to hold an intelligent conversation about almost anything....let alone politics. I'm not talking Liberal or Conservative...I'm talking about whoever thought it an intelligent move to re-elect a President who so thoroughly showed his ineptitude!! PLEASE!!! What were you thinking? I "honestly" want to know. I have friends...believe it or not....who voted for him twice, but at least they do not defend those actions. They were, and are, indefensible. But maybe not...I hear so much intelligent banter here that I reserve my right to make that statement until after Oscar responds. Or perhaps he was wise enough not to have voted that way. Well?

Harry -

The topic of this post was "Why do liberals think they're always the smartest people in a conversation?"

I don't think I've heard anyone verbalize such a potent validation of this post's title, until you spoke. Thanks for clearing that up.

Harry -

To answer your question, "why did we vote for Mr. Bush in 2004?", the quick answer is : look at who his competition was.

What was MOST AMAZING was that you people voted for him twice.

Nothing amazing there.....simply look at the alternative.

All liberals think...All conservatives say...All of you...All of them...

What a bunch of hooey. The better question would have been why do we (always) have to be all or nothing?

Today, I'm glad I'm neither liberal nor conservative. I hate being lumped in with "All."

"President Bush's approval ratings have taken somewhat of a dive. A senior slump, if you will. Leading President Bush to one conclusion: He is the only one who realizes what a great job he's being doing." -John Stewart

"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." -John Stuart Mill

"That's the interesting thing about being President. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation." George W. Bush, in Bush at War by Bob Woodward.

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."—George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004

How true. How very true.

I think this notion that "liberals" think they are smarter than "conservatives" is misguided. Those that oppose Mr. Bushe's policies are not all "liberals", many are moderates or even conservatives themselves. What you should have asked was:

Why do people that oppose the President's policies think they are smarter than those that favor them?

Then the answer is both obvious and self evident.

I personally stand on the right, the right side of wrong(which is the left)and I just hope our great nation does not fall in the hands of the democracts, because then we will only have ourselves to blame when 9/11 happens all over again.

Liberals are smarter by definition. They are more open minded more willing to accept change, as well as perpetuate change, and more eclectic in their thinking.

Conservative by definition have found the truth in the way they think and are less willing to alter their views, regardless of what the reality is. The last thing they want is a change that conflicts with what they believe the world should look like. They are happy to just stagnate.

Definitions?

Oh that was just too tempting!

Mirriam Webster Online:

lib·er·al
Pronunciation: 'li-b(&-)r&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin liberalis suitable for a freeman, generous, from liber free; perhaps akin to Old English lEodan to grow, Greek eleutheros free
1 a : of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts b archaic : of or befitting a man of free birth
2 a : marked by generosity : OPENHANDED b : given or provided in a generous and openhanded way c : AMPLE, FULL
3 obsolete : lacking moral restraint : LICENTIOUS
4 : not literal or strict : LOOSE
5 : BROAD-MINDED; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms
6 a : of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism b capitalized : of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism; especially : of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives

con·ser·va·tive
Pronunciation: k&n-'s&r-v&-tiv
Function: adjective
1 : PRESERVATIVE
2 a : of or relating to a philosophy of conservatism b capitalized : of or constituting a political party professing the principles of conservatism : as (1) : of or constituting a party of the United Kingdom advocating support of established institutions (2) : PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE
3 a : tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions : TRADITIONAL b : marked by moderation or caution c : marked by or relating to traditional norms of taste, elegance, style, or manners
4 : of, relating to, or practicing Conservative Judaism
- con·ser·va·tive·ly adverb
- con·ser·va·tive·ness noun

vincent,

A fascinating concept, that one is "right" by virtue of choosing a socio/political label that bears that name. I suppose then the "left" should consider renaming itself 'righter'...but then the right might decide to call themselves 'rightest'...and then we'd have to work through all the various forms of 'better', 'best', 'besterest' and so on...

"Good" thinking though, it proves you can recognize a homonym.

I guess John Kerry has made himself the poster child for the liberals. That just about says it all. He gets a degree, goes to war and then come back to blast the very guys who were covering his back accusing them of being rapists and murderers. I am sure we had some soldiers who were not on the up and up because there is that factor in every society. However, they were few and far between. The newest saying now: "he was for the joke before he was against it".
Now, America knows exactly how Kerry feels about the troops.

My nephew joined the Air Force, and became a doctor. He would never have been able to afford medical school had it not been for the benefits of the Armed Services. Upon graduation, he had to serve for several years in the Service before he could retire and go into private practice.

June,

I don't suppose you could actually explain how what Mr. Kerry said is an insult to the troops, could you? Just saying it is doesn't make it true.

I think this whole situation with Kerry insulting the troops is being extremely overdone. The man is an American and just because liberals do not agree wiht the war does not mean they do not support our troops. I havent met one person liberal or conservative who doesnt support our troops. If I was stationed in IRaq I'd be a liberal because I'd want this damn war to end. It is a tactic being used by the conservatives to draw attention away from the real issues, which is a large deficeit and little progress in Iraq. The fact is that conservatives are out for the next couple years, but they'll be back because both politcal parties are realtively the same in my opinon. it's not like a superior party exists I mean they each have their own agendas, and they follow them blindly at some point liberals will mess up the same way the conservatives did. Then conservatives will gain power again and around and around the cycle we go arguing over what some senator said in some speech about something. It's pointless I personally reject party politics and prefer to think on my own terms not on their corporate influenced agendas.

I think this whole situation with Kerry insulting the troops is being extremely overdone. The man is an American and just because liberals do not agree wiht the war does not mean they do not support our troops.

Sorry Alex, Mr. Kerry has made the same statement before. He is on record warning of a volunteer army because he claimed it would be dominated by the uneducated and under-class.

Mr. Kerry formed this opinion in the Vietnam era and simply has not updated his worldview in 40 years, typical of a liberal of his era.

The reality is that the modern army is staffed with people who are older and more educated than at any time in the history of the services.

Mr. Kerry's gaffe was rooted in this biased view.

Oscar H. Says:
"…
Yeah it's clear to me that libs do think that they are just superior. There's nothing really anyone can say to change their minds.
…"

Oscar, if you think that this sort of inflexibility is a (solely) property of liberalism, then—again—look to your dictionary, man! Someone even conveniently cut & pasted Websters' take on it here, so you don't even need to buy one!

Or is it that your mind is SO flexible, SO changeable that it doesn't feel itself to be slavishly bound by such traditional orthodoxies as dictionary definitions?

Please, please, please, tell us how you've changed YOUR OWN mind on even one of the issues at hand! Lead us all, Liberals & Conservatives alike, with YOUR shining example of BROAD-MINDEDness! (def. 5)

Oscar, show us how it's done! Show us that YOU (a Conservative, if I may be so bold) are the smartest guy in THIS room!

Unfortunately, I fear that Oscar's broad-mindedness and native intelligence precludes him from being RESPONSIVE! He's like the Democrats in this cycle, I guess. You ask him a question, he says nothing, next to nothing, something irrelavent, or redirects the conversation to the problems with the opposition! Like the Ds, I surmise that he understands that specificity would make him too easy of a target, strategically.

Alas, I guess it is our loss… not to have the benefit of his wisdom, as it relates to our particular questions.

The smug superiority of Liberals has always been off-putting. Its just that in this election cycle, they have grabbed the spotlight and forced everyone to listen to their tirades.

Too bad this Iraq war wasn't short - then we could go back to ignoring the Left Wingers.................and they could have stayed in their cages.

Kerry is sure getting flak, and he sure is insensitive, but no one seems to be discussing the underlying issue: Is he correct?

From Slate Magazine:

As a result, the Army Times reported this week, the Pentagon has decided to make up the difference by expanding the pool—by letting up to 10 percent of new recruits be young men and women who have neither graduated high school nor earned a General Equivalency Diploma.

More than that, the Los Angeles Times reports today that 4 percent of recruits will be allowed to score as low as in the 16th to 30th percentile—a grouping known as "Category IV"—on the U.S. Armed Forces' mental-aptitude exam.

Randall, I fail to understand the significance of that other than a typically inept lefty talking point. Frankly, I am tired of smarmy elitism.

Years ago I worked at the Faribault State Hospital in Minnesota helping people who were deemed "retarded" adjust to life in an open society. One of the struggles we had with hiring was convincing places like McDonald's that Downs Sydrome people could be effective workers. McDonald's was reluctant to "lower their standards". Eventually, corporations adjusted and these workers are some of their best.

Not all people in the military carry guns and fight. There are a lot of tasks that can done by a broad range of people.

The reality that the military will now open itself up to the full spectrum of candidates in no way cancels out the reality of the quality of people who now staff our armed forces.

I would hope that one day I may find a handicapped person wearing a uniform proudly.

Greg,

"The reality that the military will now open itself up to the full spectrum of candidates in no way cancels out the reality of the quality of people who now staff our armed forces"

Glad to see you're thinking more like Mr. Kerry, he's smart too.

Well, Greg,
If you're trying to make me feel unwelcome, you've succeeded. If you're trying to goad me, your approach needs refinement. If you're trying to demonstrate that you are unaware of the difference between sarcasm and insincerity, you're doing well. If you need assistance in the discovery of its significance, I would help if I could, but I fear you haven't the humility. A prerequisite for learning is the recognition of the fact that you don't already know!

John -

I hope you were joking. Kerry is far from smart. He's not even smart enough to shut up when he should.

Does this idiot not know that there's an election in a couple of days? He should be locked in the basement with Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, Fat Ted, and John Conyers - until at least November 10th.

JENNIFER FRENCH Yeah, YOU, awwwaaaaay up there!

I just gave your comment a second read. What a sensible, thoughtful, meaningful response! BRAVO TO YOU!

(Why didn't I think to say that?)

I second Webwriter's applause of Jennifer, and amplify:

Why do Conservatives always think they are Right?

Did I really get the last word in? Does that mean I won?

How many Gather points is that?

Or did everyone vacate to Galt's Gulch?

(I'm always the last to know!)