« Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™ | Main | PlameGate Answers To Come Today »

Explaining Liberals to Our Conservative Readers

Liberals can be a confusing lot. So as a service to our conservative readers who might not otherwise understand them, I offer this handy guide to understanding the liberal mindset.


Perjury according to Liberals

Perjury by the President of the United States: No big deal. Everyone lies. Perjury by an assistant to the Vice-President who until last month almost no one had ever heard of: A serious challenge to our democracy and he should be executed.

Special Prosecutor expanding an original investigation to cover perjury by the President of the United States: A partisan tool, out of control prosecutor , hell-bent on destroying our country.
Special Prosecutor expanding an original investigation to cover perjury by an assistant to the Vice-President who until last month almost no one had ever heard of: An absolute requirement for the sake of our country. Democracy would crumble without it.


Lies vs Truth according to Liberals

Telling the truth about Saddam Hussian trying to get uranium from Niger. = Lie
Joe Wilson lying about the "16 words." = Truth


Good vs Evil according to Liberals

Bush telling the truth about Saddam. Bad Bad Bad
Wilson telling a lie about the President Good Good Good
Telling the truth about Joe Wilson whose lies helped Saddam. Bad Bad Bad


In short, they are 180 degrees out of phase.

And notice the difference between the behavior of the 2 parties. When a Democrat is accused of wrong doing, all the democrats run to the TV and attack the accuser and defend the wrongdoer. (Ken Starr was an evil horrible out of control thug and Clinton was an innocent victim.)

Do you see the right smearing Fitzgerald? Nope. (granted I'm busy with a hurricane but) I have not seen a single example. During the Monica era, you could not turn on the TV without seeing 10 Democrats attacking Ken Starr. All the news weeklies ran stories on how horrible Starr was. Do you see that with Fitz? Nope.

This is why I so often find myself using the word "delusional" to describe liberals. To be a liberal you must simply believe things that are not true.

That's why the nation is increasingly voting them out of office. Sure, young kids and blacks who have been spoon feed lies from birth will vote for them, but anyone who can tie their own shoes knows better.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Explaining Liberals to Our Conservative Readers:

» sisu linked with Liberals see things we don't

» Conservative Outpost linked with Quick Links

» Red State Rant linked with Liberals see things that we don't

» Searchlight Crusade linked with Links and Minifeatures 10 30 Sunday

» New England Republican linked with The Libby Indictment

Comments (24)

Can't we just kill the peop... (Below threshold)
mumon:

Can't we just kill the people who think like this?

I recently added your site ... (Below threshold)
Blue Neponset:

I recently added your site to my bookmarks because I thought your commentary was more intelligent and less partisan than many of the conservative blogs I have run accross. I am now admitting that I was wrong about you. This 'conservatives are good, liberals are bad' essay of yours isn't much different from the pickings at Free Republic.

Can't we just kill the p... (Below threshold)
joe:

Can't we just kill the people who think like this?

I'm guessing you're a liberal troll, posting this, then pointing to this post from other blogs to say, "Look how evil they are!"

Does the Bush administratio... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

Does the Bush administration dare ask the families of those who have sacrificed their lives on Bush's personal war of revenge? Why does the Bush administration, if they are so convinced of the righteousness of their cause, try to prevent coverage of the funerals of those Americans who have paid the ultimate price for such a disastrous war?

Well, then, goodbye Blue! ... (Below threshold)
Sheik Yur Bouty:

Well, then, goodbye Blue! We'll miss you!

There is nothing partisan about calling a spade a spade.

Alternatively, the TRUTH is not partisan.

Take your pick.

Steve,What the ***... (Below threshold)
Sheik Yur Bouty:

Steve,

What the **** does that have to do with the topic of this post?

TROLL

Blue, apparently you hadn't... (Below threshold)

Blue, apparently you hadn't read too many posts by Paul :)

And, as a quasi-conservative myself, I'm going to both agree and disagree. Yes, there are people (political ideology is irrelevant) who call foul on the other team and turn their head when their own do the same thing. If you don't see any conservatives doing this right now, you're just not looking hard enough.

I have no need to damn liberals for their actions (I condemn the philosophy that government is the solution to social problems) because, in the end Liberals are human and their actions spring from being so, not necessarily their politics. For every liberal action, there is an equally stupid reaction from a conservative. Natural law and all..

To bring up examples such as these speak more of the hypocrisy of being human rather than errors in a particular political ideology.

Steve Crickmore:<... (Below threshold)
MikeB:

Steve Crickmore:

Why does the Bush administration, if they are so convinced of the righteousness of their cause, try to prevent coverage of the funerals of those Americans who have paid the ultimate price for such a disastrous war?

Because those who fought and died for the cause would not want their death used as a political tool to undermine the very cause for which they gave their life.

- MikeB

Ridiculous post. "Sharp as... (Below threshold)
Earl:

Ridiculous post. "Sharp as a Marble" is right -- there's plenty of hypocrisy to go around. Anyone who focuses on just one side of the political spectrum being hypocritical is part of the problem, not part of the solution. If you don't believe that some Repubs can be every bit as bad in this respect than some Dems, check out Sen. Hutchison's recent comments about perjury being a "technicality".

"Republicans good; Democrats bad" adds nothing to the discourse, but rather detracts from it. Same goes for the equally prevalent "Democrats bad; Republicans good".

"Bush telling the truth abo... (Below threshold)
stewdajew:

"Bush telling the truth about Saddam. Bad Bad Bad
Wilson telling a lie about the President Good Good Good"

You've basically boiled it down to if you believe this, you're conservative, if you don't you're liberal. You're talking about lies as if they were truth.

While it has been proven that Bush lied about Saddam, how the hell do you know anything about uranium in Niger? How can you say Wilson lied? More specifically, what authority do you have to say that Joe Wilson's Niger report is a lie?

I can't fathom how you came to this conclusion that Saddam must have sought uranium from Niger because [the italians] said so, and if our own investigator disproves it he must be a liar.

Hi Blue, I take it... (Below threshold)
BC Monkey:

Hi Blue,

I take it that you disagree with the post. Can you please tell us exactly which parts you disagree with? Was Ken Starr not demonized? Has the right been smearing Fitzgerald? Do you disagree with Paul's comments about the Wilson/Iraq?Niger info? Do you accept the info that Paul's thesis is based on and disagree with the conclusion instead? How about a bit of elaboration?

"While it has been proven t... (Below threshold)
LJD:

"While it has been proven that Bush lied about Saddam,..."

It has? Where? By Whom? What was the evidence?

You Moonbats just love to make shit up...

stewdajew: From <a... (Below threshold)
strictnein:

stewdajew:

From the washington post

-------------------------------
The report also said Wilson provided misleading information to The Washington Post last June. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on documents that had clearly been forged because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong."

"Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the 'dates were wrong and the names were wrong' when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports," the Senate panel said. Wilson told the panel he may have been confused and may have "misspoken" to reporters. The documents -- purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq -- were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger.

Wilson's reports to the CIA added to the evidence that Iraq may have tried to buy uranium in Niger, although officials at the State Department remained highly skeptical, the report said.

...

According to the former Niger mining minister, Wilson told his CIA contacts, Iraq tried to buy 400 tons of uranium in 1998.
-------------------------------

Just a little bit different than what he was going around saying on his press circuit.

But, of course, the washpo is just a organ of the GOP, right?

stew, blue and steve,... (Below threshold)
jab:

stew, blue and steve,

don't you guy's get it man! thanks, your own comments above, prove paul's point for him. pull your heads out and see the sunshine once in a while.

Trackback didn't seem to wo... (Below threshold)

Trackback didn't seem to work. Here's my post:

Liberals see things we don't

Thanks for the response Sha... (Below threshold)
Blue Neponset:

Thanks for the response Sharp as a marble.

BC Monkey, this issue and most other issues aren't as black and white as Paul's essay would lead us to believe. He also doesn't offer any links or other evidence for his conclusions. Everything in his essay is his opinion. It is a waste of time to use his essay as a starting point for a conversation about former and current special prosecutors.

I just saw FarhenHYP... (Below threshold)
jc:


I just saw FarhenHYPE 9/11 (the one by Dick Morris) and it was illuminating. Liberals will stop at nothing to get what they want.

I thought it was ironic that Michael Moore forged a newspaper headline out of an opinion piece by cropping it, enlarging the font, and moving it to the top (then changing the date). I think this "fake but accurate" phenomena goes deeper than we realize.

When I saw Fahrenheit 9/11 I assumed a lot of the facts were true because nobody on the national level could get away with, for example, claiming Saudis own 7-8% of our country by dividing a total investment into our annual GDP, right? But such fuzzy math is the only way he could have come up with such a grossly overblown "fact."

Dick Morris takes every major point Michael Moore made and blows it out of the water. Great movie.

You're absolutely right, Pa... (Below threshold)
Oh, FTLOG:

You're absolutely right, Paul. Because we all know that a president lying about a blow-job is waaaay worse than a nobody lying about outing a CIA agent.

Blue, just to add more clar... (Below threshold)
BrianOfAtlanta:

Blue, just to add more clarification on the nature of the post, it's more or less Paul's job here to be the lightning rod. He's just been out of practice, lately. You should have been here for April Fools Day! That's about the time I started reading this blog, and boy was my head spinning for a couple days!

Wizbang is solidly right of center, but not on the fringe. Stick around, if you're interested in what the mainstream Right is thinking.

err umm, damn blacks have b... (Below threshold)
baby:

err umm, damn blacks have been lied to by liberals and conservatives for years.all of you suck...lies by liberals and conservatives ha, what else is new? pick a clue next time u make a comment and then use it.

Yo Blue, you said:... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Yo Blue, you said:

BC Monkey, this issue and most other issues aren't as black and white as Paul's essay would lead us to believe. He also doesn't offer any links or other evidence for his conclusions.

Sorry for stating an opinion in the blogosphere, what was I thinking? lol

But seriously, I don't need links. If you don't know that Wilson was lying then you haven't been paying attention. Google is your friend. Go learn.

You can start by reading the link that someone posted above about Wilson. He's a liar - and a bad one at that.

I don't need to prove the 16 words were true. That had been done so conclusively that for me to repeat it would be to insult the intelligence of our regular readers. Next I'll tell them the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor.

Is some of this my opinion? Sure- but need I remind you that YOU also posted YOUR opinion???? Twice. Without Links. lol

And these issues are black and white. The left keeps saying that Bush lied about the 16 words and Wilson did not. I'm very sorry but that simply is not true. In fact the opposite is true.

Tell ya what. Next time instead of demanding links (to nothing specific) if I say something wrong, you drop me a link telling me what I screwed up and I'll fix it as soon as time allows.

Or as an alternative, if you doubt a specific point, ask about one point and I'll use google for you. (Although 50 commenters will beat me to it no doubt)

Do me this: Go read it again and tell me one thing I got wrong.

If you can't, then maybe -just maybe- you need to admit I have a point.

P

About providing evidence: A... (Below threshold)
Adam:

About providing evidence: As a blog reader, I have high standards for the initial posts. I don't have high standards for the comments.

About expanding investigations: Didn't Ken Starr begin with "Whitewater-gate" and somehow end up with Monica Lewinski? That's quite a change of topic. Fitzgerald started with the Plame case, and is still addressing the Plame case.

About smearing the prosecuter: I haven't heard anything bad about Fitzgerald, but I've heard a ton of bad stuff about Earle. Maybe Fitzgerald hasn't been attacked because he hasn't gone after anyone with any real power. What will happen if he indicts Cheny?

By the way: "liberal" does not equal "Democrat" d.n.e. "leftist" d.n.e "politician". When you smear a large group for the action of a small portion of that group, you mark yourself as a demagogue.

If you want to make a compa... (Below threshold)
Adam:

If you want to make a comparison between Fitzgerald and Starr, you may want to reply to this criticism of Starr.

http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2005/10/a_thousand_disb.html

Liberals are genetically... (Below threshold)
Armed:

Liberals are genetically defective. They are born without an integrity gene and therefore cannot distinguish right from wrong, truth from lie. Liberal Democrats, in addition, are born with a double dose of the smarmy, hubris and the arrogance gene.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

tips@wizbangblog.com

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy