And frankly, if we're keeping score on generalized characterizations of one side by the other, that would be about 100,000 to 10. It used to be 8 before Raoul's post.

["100,000 to 10" is not a generalized characterization. It is hyperbole.]

You get the picture.

Of course I didn't comment on it. Why should I, when things are so uneven? If I were to count the number of times people on the other side of the aisle called each other on the carpet for making incredibly unfair characterizations, I might have to take one sock off to have enough digits.

Let's look again at what Raoul said:

The liberals are more concerned about people, more generous, more tolerant, more willing to compromise, unwilling to humiliate the other side.

Did he say that conservatives were not concerned, not generous, not tolerant, not willing to compromise? No. He said that there is less of that among conservatives, not none. As for being unwilling to humiliate the other side, I invite you to look at numerous posts whose focus is not individual public figures, who invite criticism by being public figures, but whose focus is large groups. Apply the adjectives describing opposition groups in those posts to yourselves, and your families. See how much fun it is.

Apply the Golden Rule to your posts, gentlemen.

The conservatives use insults much too often,

That stands on its own.

are cynical,

This doesn't apply to Ed. I think he believes everything he writes.

selfish,

I will say that that's a little harsh personally. But the economic outlook of conservatives, as I have seen it stated here and elsewhere, can be boiled down to "I've got mine and to hell with you", which I would define as selfishness. If you point out, as is fair, that there are many conservatives who support charities, and who are not therefore personally selfish, I agree. However, if all the conservatives in the country actually did that, the level of poverty and misery would be much lower than it is. I believe that many people who hold a conservative view use it as a shield to protect themselves from having to be their brothers' keepers.

Just yesterday, I was part of a discussion in which a very nice, very conservative lady who goes to a Christian church twice a week said that the library should charge for internet services, because if she pays for it at home, the people who come in should have to pay, too. (They do pay for printing, and for floppies.) The people who come in to use the internet are often our poorest citizens, who haven't even a phone, let alone a computer. They get there on foot, or by bus. Their need for access is often greater because they have no means to hire people who can inform them of things they need to know. She didn't understand that they pay in shoe leather and in access limited by our hours and their turn, and could not see it even when it was explained to her. I've got mine and to hell with you. Fortunately, our director, who is also very conservative and goes to a Christian church, does understand this.

And then there was the church group who refused to help their maintenance man's paraplegiac granddaughter when he asked, because the medical bills are killing the family. "He should ask his own church," they said. I've got mine and to hell with you. Well, he had. And they helped. But they are not comprised of wealthy members.

unwilling to compromise.

Prove him wrong.

Regards--
Mary Anne