5
   

Why Are Conservatives So Mean?

 
 
H2O MAN
 
Reply Tue 2 Jun, 2009 08:09 am


Watch this 5 minute video
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 5 • Views: 4,353 • Replies: 53

 
joefromchicago
 
  7  
Reply Tue 2 Jun, 2009 08:54 am
@H2O MAN,
H2O Man wrote:
Why are Conservatives So Mean?

Because they're pusillanimous, timid, insecure, intellectually stunted atavistic throwbacks who fear change and distrust those who are different from themselves? Am I close?
H2O MAN
 
  -4  
Reply Tue 2 Jun, 2009 08:55 am
@joefromchicago,


Did you watch the video?


Also, are you saying that no liberal is different from any other liberal? You are all the same?

And NO, you are not even close.
boomerang
 
  5  
Reply Tue 2 Jun, 2009 09:44 am
I watched the video and was it ever eye opening. You're so right!!!



















Thanks, joefromchicago!


0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  2  
Reply Tue 2 Jun, 2009 10:13 am
http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/3754/bushhitler.jpg

actually de Tocqueville was refering to these two when he said:"I know of no other country where love of money has such a grip on men's hearts or where stronger scorn is expressed for the theory of permanent equality of property."
0 Replies
 
kuvasz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Jun, 2009 10:18 am
FYI

Quote:
Right-Wing and Left-Wing Authoritarian Followers
Authoritarian followers usually support the established authorities in their
society, such as government officials and traditional religious leaders. Such people
have historically been the “proper” authorities in life, the time-honored, entitled,
customary leaders, and that means a lot to most authoritarians. Psychologically these
followers have personalities featuring:

1) a high degree of submission to the established, legitimate authorities in
their society;
2) high levels of aggression in the name of their authorities; and
3) a high level of conventionalism.

Because the submission occurs to traditional authority, I call these followers rightwing
authoritarians. I’m using the word “right” in one of its earliest meanings, for in
Old English “riht”(pronounced “writ”) as an adjective meant lawful, proper, correct,
doing what the authorities said. (And when someone did the lawful thing back then,
maybe the authorities said, with a John Wayne drawl, “You got that riht, pilgrim!”)
1 (Click on a note’s number to have it appear.)
In North America people who submit to the established authorities to
extraordinary degrees often turn out to be political conservatives, 2 so you can call
them “right-wingers” both in my new-fangled psychological sense and in the usual
political sense as well. But someone who lived in a country long ruled by Communists
and who ardently supported the Communist Party would also be one of my
psychological right-wing authoritarians even though we would also say he was a
political left-winger. So a right-wing authoritarian follower doesn’t necessarily have
conservative political views. Instead he’s someone who readily submits to the
established authorities in society, attacks others in their name, and is highly
conventional. It’s an aspect of his personality, not a description of his politics. Rightwing
authoritarianism is a personality trait, like being characteristically bashful or
happy or grumpy or dopey.

Authoritarian Submission. Everybody submits to authority to some degree.
Imagine a world in which people ignored traffic laws and sped through red lights. The
cost of auto insurance would shoot through the roof (although the line-ups to buy it
would become much shorter). But some people go way beyond the norm and submit
to authority even when it is dishonest, corrupt, unfair and evil. We would expect
authoritarian followers especially to submit to corrupt authorities in their lives: to
believe them when there is little reason to do so, to trust them when huge grounds for
suspicion exist, and to hold them blameless when they do something wrong. We don’t
expect absolutes here; people are much too complicated to completely, always, blindly
submit, no matter what. But IF the RWA scale truly measures the tendency to be an
authoritarian follower, those who score highly on it should tend to do these things,
right? So do they?

Well, they will tell you that people should submit to authority in virtually all
circumstances. If you give them moral dilemmas (e.g. should one steal an absurdly
expensive drug to save a life?) they’re more likely to say, “The law is the law and
must be obeyed” than most people are. High RWAs also say they would bow more to
show respect for their fathers, the president of companies where they worked, and so
on, than most people indicate. (An astronomer suggested I ask about the bowing,
which I thought was silly, but he was right. “Social scientists are such blockheads!”)
High RWAs trusted President Nixon longer and stronger than most people did
during the Watergate crisis.11 Some of them still believed Nixon was innocent of
criminal acts even after he accepted a pardon for them.12 (Similarly the Allies found
many Germans in 1945 refused to believe that Hitler, one of the most evil men in
history, had ordered the murder of millions of Jews and others. “He was busy running
the war,” Hitler’s apologists said. “The concentration camps were built and run by
subordinates without his knowing it.”) To pick a more current example, authoritarian
followers believed, more than most people did, President George W. Bush’s false
claims that Saddam Hussein had extensive links to al-Qaida, and that Iraq had
weapons of mass destruction. And they supported the invasion of Iraq, whereas less
authoritarian Americans tended to doubt the wisdom of that war from the start.

AUTHORITARIANS by Bob Altemeyer's

http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

or noble prize winner and icon of liberatarianism, F A HAYEK

"WHY I AM NOT A CONSERVATIVE"
http://www.fahayek.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=46

Quote:
As has often been acknowledged by conservative writers, one of the fundamental traits of the conservative attitude is a fear of change, a timid distrust of the new as such,[5] while the liberal position is based on courage and confidence, on a preparedness to let change run its course even if we cannot predict where it will lead. There would not be much to object to if the conservatives merely disliked too rapid change in institutions and public policy; here the case for caution and slow process is indeed strong. But the conservatives are inclined to use the powers of government to prevent change or to limit its rate to whatever appeals to the more timid mind. In looking forward, they lack the faith in the spontaneous forces of adjustment which makes the liberal accept changes without apprehension, even though he does not know how the necessary adaptations will be brought about.

When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike.


As for my personal opinion, I consider conservatives as a bunch of frightened little children who need to bully others into thinking and acting like themselves otherwise their own philosophy could be challenged.

Think of the TALIBAN, and you get a clear image of the rigidity and intolerance towards heterodoxic behavior of conservatives.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Jun, 2009 10:21 am
Well, Panzade has invoked Godwin's Law very quickly in this thread. Even in a discussion as pathetic as this, there is absolutely no point in comparing any American politician to Adolf Hitler, and all it will do is inflame irrational hatreds--it will certainly not forward any discussion.

Smooth move, Panzade.
panzade
 
  4  
Reply Tue 2 Jun, 2009 10:27 am
@Setanta,
heh...I knew you'd comment...
I'm trying out a new style...the gunga-H2O-Genoves-CJ style which is polluting all political discourse on a2k threads...how I long for the golden days when conservative minds here posted intelligent, persuasive arguments Smile

I was wondering how well I'd do at this sort of thing
H2O MAN
 
  -4  
Reply Tue 2 Jun, 2009 10:46 am

A2Ks lefty Loons are quick to make the not so smooth personal attacks while ignoring the facts.

No wonder this country is suddenly in a world of hurt and sinking fast.
You liberals are so dependent on government and Obama that you have abandoned free choice, free will and self reliance.
You have traded away your constitutional freedoms and become Obama's slaves... you sicken me.
joefromchicago
 
  5  
Reply Tue 2 Jun, 2009 11:37 am
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:

Did you watch the video?

What, spend five minutes of my life watching a video put out by the same people who hired "Joe" the "plumber" as a "reporter?" No thanks.

H2O MAN wrote:
Also, are you saying that no liberal is different from any other liberal? You are all the same?

I can't imagine how you jumped to that conclusion. I didn't say anything about liberals.

H2O MAN wrote:
And NO, you are not even close.

It was the "atavistic throwback" part, wasn't it? Too soon?
H2O MAN
 
  -4  
Reply Tue 2 Jun, 2009 11:44 am
@joefromchicago,
Quote:
Too soon?


No, you and your ilk are just too ignorant.
kuvasz
 
  3  
Reply Tue 2 Jun, 2009 12:35 pm
@H2O MAN,
Quote:
No, you and your ilk are just too ignorant.


Really? Just where did you get your Ph.D? I bet you never even attempted to go to college or flunked out.
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 2 Jun, 2009 12:36 pm
@kuvasz,


What did you think of the video?
kuvasz
 
  3  
Reply Tue 2 Jun, 2009 01:13 pm
@H2O MAN,
You are referring to the wrong Frenchman whose writings define America.

Detouqueville merely was driven around the US and wrote about his observations. The video speaker did not mention the other Frenchman upon whose writings the Founding Fathers based their own and the nascent nation's political philosophy, Montesquieu.

Montesquieu advocated constitutionalism, the preservation of civil liberties, the abolition of slavery, gradualism, moderation, peace, internationalism, social and economic justice.

He believed in justice, and the rule of law; detested all forms of extremism and fanaticism; put his faith in the balance of power and the division of authority as a weapon against despotic rule by individuals or groups or majorities; and approved of social equality.

The aformentioned does not define American conservativism, but it does define American liberalism.

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

Waterboy, you ought to pay me for educating you because each time I respond to you, you get schooled.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Tue 2 Jun, 2009 01:26 pm
@joefromchicago,
Quote:
It was the "atavistic throwback" part, wasn't it? Too soon?


You're really quick, Joe . . . that didn't even occur to me . . . of course you can't be a throwback if you've never ceased being a moronic troglodyte.
0 Replies
 
kuvasz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Jun, 2009 01:28 pm
@panzade,
panzade said;
Quote:
I'm trying out a new style...the gunga-H2O-Genoves-CJ style which is polluting all political discourse on a2k threads...how I long for the golden days when conservative minds here posted intelligent, persuasive arguments


Panzade, I tried just that, viz., fighting fire with fire, and got attacked as a pompous prick by Nimh for doing so. Apparently, one living in the comfortable convines of Switzerland 3,000 miles away thinks reading about America over the Internet without living here makes one a toothsucking arbiter and expert of our political culture and internicine discussions.
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Jun, 2009 01:36 pm
@kuvasz,
NIHM's a pretty good interpreter of American culture and BTW, he's Dutch....he probably didn't pick up that you were lampooning these guys
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 2 Jun, 2009 02:22 pm


Poor, poor pitiful liberals... they lack the capacity to understand when they are being used.
0 Replies
 
kuvasz
 
  0  
Reply Tue 2 Jun, 2009 02:46 pm
@panzade,
I tried to explain what I was doing by returning smashmouth with smashmouth, but it was akin to water off a duck's ass. You would have had to live in the US over the last decade to appreciate using such rhetoric against the Right. Anyway, I like the Dutch alot more than the Swiss I've met. So thanks for the geographic corrrection. You do know that gnoves is masseggeto, do you not? Somehow, he has shown restraint in not capitalizing his words for emphasis.
H2O MAN
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 2 Jun, 2009 02:49 pm
@H2O MAN,




And now we return to our subject already in progress...



0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Why Are Conservatives So Mean?
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/13/2020 at 03:20:23