Lumping all Conservatives together

In an earlier post I stated my view that Matt Drudge was a "typical conservative." It was pointed out that I should not use such a broad brush approach, that many conservatives are disapproving of Drudge and that he is not really a real conservative. I have received other reactions to my posts about how so many conservatives don't like what the Drudges of the world do and I shouldn't be so generic in my criticisms. Fine. They have talked the talk. How bout walking the walk? When are "real" conservatives going to clean house? When are "real" conservatives going to let the drudges and limbaughs of the world know they do not speak for them in a loud and longing way. Where were the "real" conservatives in the 90's when ken starr was raping the constitution and abusing the powers of his office? I will gladly narrow my brush when the "real" conservatives I'm told exist act on their beliefs and apply their standards to their own. In the meantime, I will continue to paint the american political landscape as I see it; vast right wing hate supported by "real" conservatives.

The conservatives that I've met fall into one of two camps:

1. They don't give a darn about anything but themselves and their business

2. They still have a virolent hate of anything to do with the Clintons and villify anyone who has a contrary opinion.

I have to put up with Conservative 1, who shares an office with me. But I'd rather listen to how well his company is doing and how many fish he caught than be anywhere near Conservative 2, who was so obnoxious I quit my volunteer post at the Senior Center where I met her.

:toast:

I agree. They stay silent because though they may not like the messenger, they benefit from the message.

In the old south many weren't memebers of the KKK and "didn't approve" of their tactics. BUT they kept silent because it maintained their style of living.

The story is as old as man.

in the political areana (liberal versus conservative). The easiest way to put it is that's it's the simplest contrast that is productive. Or to try to make my point another way: it's a useful distinction, although not very precise.

(1) the rich and sophisticated, those who manipulate the less sophisticated, use others, guide corporate America and ensure the income goes straight into their pockets, are willing to risk environmental disaster, more terrorism, world instability, and even risk to the survival of the human race if their profits are big enough, and don't worry about the suckers they take advantage of as their Social Darwinism tells them suckers should be outwitted and left at the bottom; and

(2) the suckers, the joe sixpacks and religious righties and other unsophisticated simpletons, those who believe the lies and allow themselves to be manipulated, who are willing to believe that giving their rich neighbor a tax cut that will inevitably raise their own taxes later will in the end benefit them, who listen to Limbaugh and other talk radio, read the Washington Times (owned by a corporation under the control of the anti-American Rev. Moon), believe the nonsense on Fox News, and gullibly swallow all the Bush administration propaganda, who keep on believing and keep on getting the shaft.