The difference between liberals and conservatives

(WISN.com) — The signatures of Mickey Mouse and Adolf Hitler will be counted on recall  petitions targeting Gov. Scott Walker as long as they are properly dated and  include a Wisconsin address, the board charged with reviewing the petitions was  told Tuesday.

[…]

“We will flag them, but we will not strike them without challenge,” Buerger said  after being asked whether Mickey Mouse’s signature would be counted.

This has been a regular (and widely un-condemned) behavior of the political activist left (ACORN).   They view tactics such as submitting fictional and historic names on petitions to recall Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker as just another option to achieve a political goal.  Consider this exchange between a liberal political activist and a news reporter:

Man:“I think I signed about 80 times.”

Wainscott:“You’ve signed 80 petitions, you think?”

Man:“I signed a lot of them for the past two weeks. I’ve been  seeing them at the Grand Avenue Mall. Out here by Pick ‘n Save and stuff like  that.”

Wainscott:“Well, you know they’re only going to count one of your  signatures?”

Man:“Oh well. Whatever it takes to get Scott Walker out of here,  I’m happy.”

Wainscott:“That means signing repeatedly?”

Man: “Yeah. They cheated for Bush, so hey, I’m going to cheat to  get Scott Walker out of here.”

Does it matter that this political activist’s signature will only count once?  No, because duplicates will be counted once only if they are discovered and contested by the candidate.  This is the typical ends justifies the means mentality of the liberal political activist.  They consider their view as so correct that they are morally permitted to do whatever is necessary to achieve the desired result if the voting public is not smart enough realize the importance.  These are the same people who feign befuddlement when conservatives seek to impose voter ID laws.

But let’s not forget the bastion of liberalism that is New Haven Connecticut.  It wasn’t long ago that Mayor John DeStefano pushed for a policy that allowed illegal residents of the city to obtain official city photo ID which was overwhelmingly approved by the (Democrat) city legislature 25-1.  Of course the policy was well-intentioned *snicker* allowing for illegals to use libraries and open bank accounts.  But liberal Democrat activists like DeStefano think long-term — even longer-term than his career in office as Mayor.  New Haven is now lobbying the State to allow for illegals to vote.

(NBCConnecticut.com) — New Haven Mayor John DeStefano plans to ask the state Legislature to allow illegal immigrants who live in the city to be able vote in municipal elections.  DeStefano said on Tuesday that the proposal would build a more engaged community…

[…]

New Haven has about 10,000  non-citizen immigrants.  Immigrants who are in the U.S. legally or illegally and cannot vote now would still be unable to vote in state or federal elections.  DeStefano, a Democrat, said illegal immigrants pay taxes indirectly through rent and send their kids to New Haven schools and should be able to vote.

Of course non-citizen immigrants — Demspeak for illegal immigrant — use public schools and pay taxes through rents and purchases (sales tax), but voting is a privilege for citizens.  But what would motivate politicians to lobby so heavily for illegals to garner the right to vote?  Could it be that they would indeed vote Blue in droves?  I think this was inevitably where the official ID policy was headed.  Connecticut currently required photo identification to vote.  DeStefano had to let the smoke clear from his IDs for illegals program to clear, and let people get used to it.  Now conservative law makers (endangered species in CT) cannot use the notion that illegals cannot produce the valid photo ID required to cast a vote.

And this is the difference between liberals and conservatives when it comes to political thinking.

Comments

  1. “Demspeak” — LOL. “GOPspeak”? “Conspeak”?
    “pro-life”, “pro-choice”
    “smart bombs”
    Words are used to trick all sides. Most people love black-and-white thinking: Us vs. Them. It makes the world so much easier for them. It makes their false security seem so much more solid. The consumer loves language that dichotomizes!

    • So then you chose to focus on one word and comment on dichotomization rather than the political issues I raised. You actually comment like a politician answers questions. They don’t answer what you ask, they answer what’s they wish you had asked. And you comment on the angle of an issue you’d have rathered I wrote on.

  2. Some people are such black-and-white thinkers that they only see black-and-white thinkers and non-black-and-white thinkers.

    Excellent post. The rank dishonesty of the Left should surprise me, but it doesn’t. Anyone who wants illegal aliens to be able to vote or who opposes voter identification tips their hand at how dishonest they are.

  3. The left is dishonest? To that I reply Fox News.
    If the left were dishonest, they’d have national health care, no death penalty, and an abortion clinic available around the country. Unfortunately lying and intimidation is the realm of the right.
    The response to the petitioning issue is that’s how it works.
    http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/anti-gay-petition-runs-trouble-florida
    Petitions are manual and hard to control. They have to be reviewed afterwards, and I’m sure that opposing counsel will be more than happy to filter out any invalid addresses and names along with valid signatures they consider to be illegible or otherwise invalid for no good reason. That goes on with petitions, regardless the cause.

    And you prove my point here, suggesting that a library card constitutes voting authority. It’s simply dishonest. The mayor knows that his constituents see illegal immigrants as people rather than felons and that the blame lies as much on the state as with the illegal immigrants. It’s the right-wing hate machine that has kept them in poverty and obscurity rather than helping them to become worthy citizens. And the justification at it’s heart is that they’re ‘stealing’ jobs. That’s a convenient message for those who would otherwise promote the free enterprise.

    • That’s the left’s problem, they see illegals as people, not felons. The right see things as reality. Illegals are people who are felons. There is a process by which non-citizens can become citizens. Those on the left view illegally crossing the border as just another option to becoming citizens.

      Read carefully, I didn’t say an ID used for library services bestows voting rights. The mayor made it policy for illegals to be able to obtain valid photo ID supposedly to go to the library and open bank accounts. Now the mayor is petitioning the state to allow illegals the right to vote in elections. And because CT required valid photo ID to vote, the mayor has relieved himself of one more obstacle to putting another 10,000 votes in his pocket. But he doesn’t need them, he is in no danger of losing his seat. This move is for Democrats state wide.

      Do you have an example of fox news lying?

  4. You have to remember that liberals have no ultimate standard of morality. Not all conservatives do either, but Christian conservatives do indeed have a standard, which is why you won’t find this sort of dishonesty as a rule on the conservative side, while it is pervasive on the LEFT.

    • Glenn

      Let me make a distinction for you. The dishonesty in the electoral process is more prevalent in liberal circles than conservative circles. As a rule people are always surprised when electoral dishonesty happens at the hands of conservatives because they are expected to be grown-ups. Almost no one is surprised when electoral dishonesty is discovered in liberal camps, its almost expected.

      So its not that it doesn’t happen with conservatives, but it is so rare that it is a big deal. Liberals excuse their fraud away as being a necessary evil in order to get the right guy in office.

  5. @ John
    Your post mixed lots of stuff. You try to cram too much. Instead of staying focused, you can’t help but throw out unsupported stuff along with your supported stuff and just suppose that your choir will sing along with you. So you wouldn’t invite my sort of criticisms if you stayed focused.

    So let me tell you what I agree with:
    (1) ACORN gathers fake signatures
    (2) Politicians disguise their true objectives with deceptive incrementalism. DeStefano was such a case.
    (3) Democrats are trying to support immigration to support their voting block.

    Here are the other generalizations which I feel lack support and are hinting at a too simplified worldview (black and white):
    (i) “This is the typical ends justifies the means mentality of the liberal political activist.”
    (ii) “They consider their view as so correct that they are morally permitted to do whatever is necessary to achieve the desired result if the voting public is not smart enough realize the importance.”

    And then in your comments:
    (a)”The right see things as reality. ”

    If you keep your analysis to particulars and stay away from gross generalizations, you do yourself a favor. Leave the demagoguery to the radio talk hosts. Some people on the Right with their militarism (and all the Conspeak that supports it) and their corporate welfarism with all the lies and contradictions that support that, show us that both sides are guilty of much wrong-doing.

  6. Sabio, forgive me. I had been laboring under the illusion that Mr. Barron, though obviously deluded in matters of faith, was worthy of my respect in other elements of character. Until I read this post. This is the biggest, stinking pile of garbage I’ve run into in a long, long time. Lying and cheating is the preferred province of neither political affiliation. It is the province of those without honor. There are honorable and dishonorable conservatives and there are both persuasions on the left as well.

    I am proudly liberal, do not believe in God, and would never engage in such blatantly dishonorable behavior as Mr. Barron believes I must as a fundamental aspect of my liberal and atheistic character. Pure, unadulterated horsecrap.

  7. It depends on how strongly I feel about a particular issue. I have been a political activist in the past and I have never experienced the temptation to betray my principles in the process. I’ve known an awful lot of leftists in my time as well and have never known anyone who fits the description of your caricature. I know such dishonorable people exist, on both sides of the issues, but I would never make such a simplistic characterization of anyone I disagree with. Deluded, yes, it’s the human condition and I think many conservatives are deluded (as are many liberals). Dishonorable? No, that’s a gross and stupid generalization, and it is something up with which I will not put.

  8. @ Max
    Yeah, John’s broad generalizations were classic, perhaps he will be more careful next time. But I am afraid John often likes painting with a broad brush both when discussing politics and religion. He feels he can get much more work done quickly with a broad brush. I get the temptation, I have done so several times myself and often fall into the temptation.

  9. I know conservatives who believe that liberals are so dangerous that any means justifies thwarting the horrible inevitable consequences of twisted policies.
    Heck, I fear many liberal policies too — I understand those temptations.
    We have many examples of immoral conservatives — and from my conversations with liberals, they don’t expect conservatives to be moral at all.

    Liberals and Conservatives love to paint each other with broad brushes.

  10. “a liberal”

    You work with our glorious leader!

  11. Sabio

    So then you’re saying that people tend to write and speak of their experiences?

  12. @Sabio,

    Liberals and Conservatives love to paint each other with broad brushes.

    And they rightly lose credibility when they do. That is, with those who are open-minded enough to be potentially swayed by their arguments. For those who just want an echo chamber to validate their prejudices a broad brush works quite well.

  13. John,
    Not following your question since it is so obvious. You wrote about your experience as evidence for your broad generalization and so I offered my anecdotal evidence to reflect your reasoning.

  14. @ Max
    I absolutely agree with you.

    @ John Barron
    If you watched for offensives ‘persistent’ also on the Right, you might be less tempted to use that broad brush. But confirmation bias and echo chambers stop of seeing the crimes of our loved ones.

Any Thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: