Conservatives More Honest Than Liberals

The Washington Examiner, owned by Philip Frederick Anschutz, with this bio:
(born 28 December 1939 in Russell, Kansas) is an American businessman and supporter of conservative Christian causes. With an estimated current net worth of around $7.8 billion, he is ranked by Forbes as the 31st richest person in the USA.

Conducts a study on the relatively honesty of Liberals and conservatives. The article is written by Peter Schweizer, with this bio:
(b. 1964) is a conservative author and a research fellow at the Hoover Institution. His book Do as I Say (Not as I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy received praise from conservative political pundits including Bill O’Reilly.

Can we be at all surprised at the conclusions of the article? Of course Conservatives will believe it, 100%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Anschutz

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Philip_Anschutz

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schweizer,_Peter

http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/

Oh, He is a *gasp* “conservative”??!!??? We will immediatly ensure his thoughts are not allowed to “poison” the masses as only “party approved” (leftist) thoughts and sources are allowed on this blog (as per Steve’s censorship… erm… thought purity demands…. it is Steve’s blog after all you know).

In response, readers are to reference only material provided from Party Approved Sources. This includes any publishing firm owned by Soros and Co or other “progressive” elites, Kos, DU, Huffington, CNN, MSNBC, AP (photoshopping is preferred), the DNC or Jamal Hussein.

Conservatives, after all, are not allowed to conduct polls, have opinions, or dare to question leftists (who are so much more enlightened and elite than us evil “conservatives”). Those of us who are especially evil and have also joined the oppressive, “Imperial US Military”(tm), are absolutly forbidden to point out how wrong the media is as they make up (erm… improvise) stories about bombings and setbacks in Iraq, Afghanistan, or other places.

Rejoice comrades, Steve will ensure only progressive Party Truth(tm) prevails. All others will be silenced.

Of course, leftist will believe whatever drivel the Party states 100%…

“When you can’t argue with the substance, attack the messenger, eh Steve?”

That’s pretty disingenuous, and you know it.

“Studies have also found that those on the left were more likely to say it was OK to drink a can of soda in a store without paying for it”

Strange, with the left polling a bit higher currently, shouldn’t that mean there is a massive crime wave in grocery stores everywhere?

ChrisG – that’s a veritable dogs breakfast of stereotypes there.

“Steve will ensure only progressive Party Truth(tm) prevails.”

What, about his post, is untrue? Calling it partisan doesn’t make it false.

I hardly “know” it, Flower.

Steve’s response clearly implied that since Schweizer is a known conservative, as is the owner of the newspaper, anything he says cannot be trusted. Should we say the same thing about the New York Times, which is populated by a bunch of leftists? No. Most of what the NYT prints is in fact accurate, although their editorial bias is clear.

Schweizer in his column claims to recite conclusions from various studies, some of which carry very prestigious names, including American Taxation Association’s Journal of Legal Tax Research and the Journal of Psychology. I don’t subscribe to those and have no idea if Schweizer’s conclusions are in fact correct, but I assume that he wouldn’t just make it up (a journalist’s career can end rather quickly if he does that – just ask the NYT). If you want to argue against Schweizer’s column, Steve should try to find those studies and find out if their findings were accurately reported, not just attack the journalist by saying, “Oh, he’s a conservative”.

Finally, his main point appears to wrap around the reasoning behind such behaviour – moral relativism. Relativism has long been a staple of leftist dogma (I hate to call it Liberalism – Liberalism in most of the world relates to freedom of choice, minimal government, what in America we know as Libertarianism. Only in America has the Left hijacked the term to create “American Liberalism”). Relativism basically says that there is no absolute right and wrong, but right and wrong according to the conditions and desired outcomes, or in other words, whatever you feel like. This is the kind of logic that defends serial rapists on the grounds that they had a rotten childhood. A moral absolutist would say that Hitler was evil. A moral relativist would say that he needed a hug.

Today, we see the same happening where Islamic encroachment on western society, with their history of child abuse, nonexistant women’s rights, extreme violence against anything they disagree with and other issues which in our western sense of right and wrong, we see it as wrong and intolerable. But relativists say that they just have different values and they are just as valuable as ours, and that we should not judge them.

That’s the center of relativism – you can’t judge anyone else.

Lets see, “I did not have sex with that woman Monica Lewinski” “I had to dodge sniper fire in Bosnia” I could go on and on but you get the Idea.

If Ipost information sources from, say “Salon.com”, will Conservatives here bepermitted to argue it on its merit? Or will I see printed “Liberal Salon.com…!” comments and more personal insults?

Let’s test it, shall we?

It appears that the Bush Administratoin has been somewhat less than honest in some of its statements. And conservatives care to discuss “honesty” here? Or is this “different”?

http://www.salon.com/news/primary_sources/2008/06/10/abramoff_report/

June 10, 2008 | On Monday, a congressional panel released a draft report confirming extensive contact between disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff and the White House.

When the Abramoff scandal exploded, President Bush’s spokespeople said there had been only very limited contact between Abramoff and the White House. New documents from the White House and other federal agencies show 70 previously undisclosed contacts between Abramoff or his associates and White House officials, according to the draft report, which was produced by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Those documents confirm an additional 84 contacts the committee had already figured out by combing through Abramoff’s billing records back in 2006. Those billing records had showed yet 401 more White House contacts that this new report does not corroborate (or rule out).

The committee didn’t uncover any evidence that Abramoff lobbied Bush personally. Bush said in early 2006 that he didn’t know the man. The committee uncovered six photographs of Bush and Abramoff together: at a meeting in the Executive Office Building, at three political receptions, at one political dinner and at a White House Chanukah party.

The fact of the story is that the Bush Administration and George W. Bush lied about his contacts, denying he even knew him. That was the “honesty” part.

Of course, in your diversionary mode, you are trying to shift the discussion as to whom the Abrahamoff scandal touched the most. The fact is, Abrahamov’s clients were, under h is direction, reducing their payments to Democrats and increasing them to Republicans: All under the guidance of “honest” Tom DeLay.

But we are talking about whether or not Liberals are more honest than Conservatives, and my noting that the “source” of this story was a Conservative publisher and writer. Conservatives here declared that we should debate the information and not the source. So I brought up another story about “honesty” from a source that you would call “Liberal” (Salon.com…).

As I expected, you tried to deflect the discussion, in orde to serve the White House agenda.

MataHarley

I agree with your above point.