From: kellyj@leland.Stanford.EDU (Kelly Johnson)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Why are conservatives so stupid ?
Keywords: liberals, conservatives, intellegence
Date: 27 Jan 93 02:04:12 GMT
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA

In article <nate.1114@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm) writes:
>>  There are a great number of regularly posting liberals who apparently 
>>think that conservative = idiot.  Most of the time this is an inference; 
>>others say it explicitly.  Why do liberals think they corner the 
>>intelligence market?
>
>    I would hope that you don't consider me as one of the ones who think 
>that conservative == idiot, but just in case here's my 2 cents.
>
>>  I agree that some conservatives are red-neck, uneducated people, but an 
>>equal number of liberals are sheep following the crowd to slaughter.  There
>>are many conservatives who listen to RL and have high IQ's.  We listen to 
>>him because he is entertaining, and he is the only conservative voice in the
>>mass media.            
>
>    Well, I listen to him for just about those exact reasons, and I suppose 
>that this is a good time to ask whether you agree with Rush's explicitly 
>stated opinion that liberalism is heinous, and that liberals are stupid 
>for holding liberal opinions?
>
>>  I am sick of hearing liberals that dismiss everything RL says as drivel      
>>calling people that go to the opposite extreme 'dittoheads'.  Conservatives
>>need a similar term for these liberals, maybe 'eraseheads' after that wonderful
>>David Linch movie.
>
>    Sorry to break this to you but the term Dittohead was not invented by 
>liberals. Some of what Rush says *is* drivel, and highly inconsistent 
>drivel to at that. At one point I can recall Rush speaking disparagingly 
>of the theory of Evolution saying that he couldn't accept that humanity 
>could have happened by accident, and yet in other instances I've heard 
>Rush talking about the amount of time that mankind has been present on 
>Earth and by gosh he's using dates and timelines lifted directly from 
>Evolution. 
>
>    Essentially, when the "scientific facts" appear to support Rush, Rush 
>supports the "facts", but when those "facts" appear to disprove his position 
>he ridicules them and their originators.
>
>    I'd also say that Rush could use a refresher course on world history.
>
>>  Sorry, just needed to vent my spleen over these 'know-it-all' liberals.
>
>    Consider this point; how many of the liberals posting here are just 
>venting their spleens over their favorite 'know-it-all' conservative? 
>('Of course I've heard of it - that's why I'm the host...')
>
>--
>Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
>Psychology Department               Indiana University
>nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu

I suggest that there are alot of liberals out there that need to do
a little research in the area of economics.  I can understand why
liberals are liberal on issues like gay rights, abortion, etc.,
but how so many of them can actually believe that a socialist economy
can work is beyond me.  You can see all over the world how societies
built on this kind of garbage are crumbling and trying to move toward
more free market economies.  They tried it.  It failed miserably.
Why do we (in this country) have some many "intellectuals" that seem
to think we can make it work better?  I'm not interested in a flame
fest as much as I am interested in why this form of economics is
so appealing to the "LEFT"?  Anyone favoring this kind of stuff
care to "enlighten" me?
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13411 alt.politics.clinton:20878 alt.politics.bush:16240 alt.politics.homosexuality:10000