Seven Things Liberals Do and Conservatives Don't

Liberals and Conservatives are just opposite sides of the same coin, aren't they? When it comes right down to it, there's no real difference between them other than which side of the political pole they're on, right?

Not so fast.

There are many things Liberals do all the time, and see as perfectly acceptable, that Conservatives just don't do.

Oh, they're accused of doing them all the time, and that's due to projection (more on that later). How do you know what Liberals are up to? Look at what they're accusing their competition of doing.

All the same, here's a list of things Liberals do habitually, that Conservatives just plain don't do.

7. Engage in misogeny, racism and religious intolerance while claiming to be against such things. Conservatives are routinely accused of racism, sexism, etc., but at this point the argument is essentially "They have to be racist/sexist! They're Conservatives/Republicans! Everybody knows they're racist/sexist!"

Of course, can there be anything more sexist than the way leftists routinely talk about Sarah Palin, and of late, Michelle Bachman? Look at the Newsweek cover calling Bachman "The Queen of Rage", and how purposefully they made her look crazy and frail. The left HATES women who don't fall under their definition of "feminism" which is basically "treats men badly, has promiscuous sex, is pro-choice, and puts their careers ahead of their family, assuming they have a family." In other words, a true "woman" tries to be as macho and pig-headed as the way they see men. Nothing could be more mysogenistic. And despite the way Maureen Dowd, Gloria Steinem, etc. repeatedly tear down Conservative women, you never see Conservatives of either gender going after left-leaning women this way. You just don't. Find me the article where a Conservative calls Maxine Waters a "c#nt" or Hilary Clinton a bitch. Many people were calling Hilary a bitch while she was Obama's competitor for the Democratic Nomination, but guess who was doing that? Not Republicans, Conservative or otherwise.

And you just don't get more racist than the sort of bile the left spews at Black Conservatives. I've already discussed this at length, so I won't bother going over it again, but you know what I'm talking about. You just don't see this kind of vitriole from Conservatives against Black liberals. We hope they change their minds, and we hope they'll understand that just because Charles Rangel, Maxine Waters, Al Sharpton, etc. share skin color with them doesn't mean they share ideals or have their best interest at heart. But we don't hate them and we don't use racist language against them. Liberals use that kind of language against black Conservatives all the time.

6. Approve of literally everything, even illegal things, if it means they win. See Journolist. See the fact that there is no Conservative equivilant. See the Democratic efforts to pass Obamacare. They made it clear they would pass it no matter what. The fact that so many Democratic Senators suddenly changed their minds is highly suspect, or would be if they were Republicans, whose every act is suspect.

Conservatives are strongly law-bound. When a conservative gets caught in a scandal or breaking the law, their career is over. Liberals can be guilty of murder, or at least manslaughter (Ted Kennedy) and go on to have long careers. Consider that nobody connected with Journolist lost their jobs. Consider that East Anglia University's Climate Dept. is still the research centre of record for Global Warming BS despite the leaked emails. This would be unacceptable to Conservatives.

5. See opposing viewpoints as "the enemy". Obama literally told Latino Americans that Republicans were their "enemy". In fact, read any article by any left-winger talking about any right-winger. To them, we're not simply "wrong" or "arrogant" or "misguided" or "stupid" (we're all those things, too), but we're also "evil". The way they always talk about us is the way you talk about an opposing force to be wiped out. Liberals don't want to change conservative minds; they want conservatives DESTROYED. How else do you interpret their literally calling for our deaths, and rejoicing when we do die?

Conservatives often make fun of liberals, often suggest that their stupid policies are what got us headed on the wrong track in the first place, etc. but I've rarely if ever seen a conservative wish death on a liberal, or rejoice at a liberal's death. We see them as the opposition, but not a literal "enemy". Maybe we should.

4. Change the meaning of words like "tolerance" or "hate". To a liberal, "hate" means "you disagree with me". How else to explain liberals' constant complaint that the Tea Party "hates" Obama, and by extension all black people? But before the recent race-baiting spate began, liberals were already using "hate" to describe anyone opposed to gay marriage, regardless of what grounds they disagreed with it on. Strongly held religious convictions? No, it must be HAAAATE! Of course, the opposite of "hate" is "tolerance", and "tolerance" is a virtue that all liberals claim to hold dearly, despite proving over and over again that they are only willing to tolerate what they find tolerable, which is pretty much nothing outside the umbrella of liberalism.

Conservatives may not claim to be tolerant, but they at least use the word correctly, and don't claim to be something they're not.

3. Accuse others of doing things they do themselves. Projection is one of the watch-words of modern liberalism. Remember what I said above? The best way to find out what liberals are up to is look at what they accuse conservatives of doing. Bush "stole" the election? Sure. The far more likely scenario is that Gore was trying to win at any cost, including voter fraud, and failed. Why do you think Democrats hate the idea of needing ID to vote? Because it makes voter fraud harder! Why else?

But nowhere is liberal projection more obvious than the recent "new tone" of "civility" the Democrats are all insisting we go by now. Remember when President "Punch Back Twice as Hard" demanded that we all begin "using words that heal rather than hurt" in the wake of his own comments getting Kenneth Gladney a beatdown from SEIU thugs? Oh, wait, I'm sorry. This was in the wake of the Jared Loughner shootings that happened to hit Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. The way the media tried to spin it, Loughner was a right-wing extremist who was inspired by Sarah Palin, who had put a map on her facebook page with cross-hairs over electoral districts "targeted" as potential Republican victories. The map was obviously a call for violence in these regions, so Loughner was not to blame for the shootings. Sarah Palin was.

Never mind that Loughner was described by all who knew him not only as "a-political" but as "creepy" and "unbalanced", and he had once made a joke in a college classroom about strapping aborted fetuses to bombs. Never mind that at no point could anyone on the Left provide any direct link between Palin's map and Loughner's decision to get a gun and start shooting up Tuscon.

This meant that a "new tone" of civility was called for, so that the "violent rhetoric" of people like Palin, and Glen Beck, et al, would never inspire another crazed right-winger to violence like that again.

Of course, liberals have violated the new tone all over the place. And they don't care at all that Obama's encouragement to his followers to "bring a gun to a knife fight", "get in their faces" and "punch back twice as hard" were made THE DAY BEFORE the Gladney incident.

Got that? Sarah Palin makes a map with cross-hairs on it, targeting electoral districts, and months later a lone nutcase with a history of mental issues shoots several in Tuscon and hits a Democratic congresswoman = Sarah Palin is DIRECTLY at fault.

While Obama in a speech uses violent words to encourage his followers to beat down conservatives, and the NEXT DAY his own followers do exactly that = nothing to see here.

2. Name-call, accuse, and use "yeah right" or "oh, come on" instead of refute. I have no doubt that by this point any liberal reading this has made several comments like "Oh, whatever" or "Can you believe this idiot?" or "He probably pleasures himself to a picture of Mitt Romney" or "I bet he's a racist" or any number of things. In fact, I would imagine that if anyone leaves a comment (assuming anyone is reading this), I can probably tell whether you're liberal or conservative just by how dismissive your tone is. I mocked liberal's "debate" style in my first post. This attitude is deliberate; it's a classic Alinsky tactic. That way they put us on the defensive, or make it look like what we say is so "obviously" ridiculous that no smart person would dare pay it any heed. Think all those "ethics violations" Sarah Palin was sued for had anything to do with actual ethics violations on her part? No, but she wasted time, money and effort fighting them to the point where she could no longer successfully govern, so she resigned. Which was the entire point.

1. Evade the slightest possibility of debate. Of course all of the above lead to this one. Liberals know that if they actually debate the issues, and not engage in any of the former, they'll lose. Everything liberals do is designed to stop a debate with conservatives before it even starts. Anthropogenic global warming is "settled science". Obamacare will fix everyone's problems and we don't need to know what's in the bill. Period. Our economy sucks because of Bush, the Tea Party, the Republican Congress not "compromising" (ie: just doing what the Democrats want), etc. and that's all there is to it. Don't debate us, just agree with us. If you don't, you're an idiot, probably racist, uncivil, etc.

Liberals, I welcome your response. I guarantee you will prove me right.