Why Are Conservatives So Mean?

good to know...I gave up on Genoves when he stated that Cicerone had been held in a "concentration" camp in Idaho in 1944 guarded by Israelis.

Bliss = Liberal Ignorance

This is just priceless. On the video, Andrew Klavan (brother of Cliff?), addressing recent college grads, says:

And he needs to explain why conservatives are so mean? I think it's obvious: it's because they're all assholes like Andrew Klavan who feel the perverse need to denigrate the very people they're trying to recruit. And the Republicans wonder why they're losing the youth vote.

Joe is offended by breasts that jiggle - no wonder liberals are such pussies and momma's boys.

H20.. My concept of quote.."pussies and momma's boys" in the USA was..
Gun toting hairy obese dick heads driving around in great big 4 wheel drive gas guzzeling tanks.... Drunkenly boasting about the great big dangerous man eating deer they have killed... But then I could be wrong.
After reading what Joe said there was no way I would look and listen to your video.

H2O MAN

Out of curiosity, what did you hope to achieve by posting the link to this video?

The title virtually guaranteed the sort of responses provided thus far.

I hope you didn't expect any of our liberal friends to watch this clip and declare:

"Damn! That guy hit it right on the head. I've been such a fool!"

To the extent that a "soft tyranny" is actually in store for us, the folks with which you engage in these threads are certainly not about to acknowledge its current incubation.

Not actually knowing any of them I can't be sure, but I doubt that any are likely to be among the elite few who would actually prosper under such a tyranny, and so their unwillingness to acknowledge it's taking root is not because they wish to keep it hidden, but because they simply do not believe it to be the case.

At this point in time, this is certainly a reasonable position to take, more reasonable, in fact, than dire predictions of slavery to the State.

This is always the case though.

Whenever free people willingly surrender their freedom, the process is relatively gradual and there is no shortage of justifications for capitulation. There are always good reasons to do so and the process of surrendering is seen clearly as a triumph, rather than a defeat. Anyone who might have the foresight to see what is in store for them is likely to be considered, at the very least, paranoid.

The same sort of dynamic took place during the last presidency.

Many warned that Bush was in the process of establishing a "hard tyranny," and that the American people were accepting it as the price of being secure; that the triumph was in setting things straight in the world and taking care of the bad guys; while the real defeat was the loss of our personal liberties.

Personally, I believed all of the liberal doomsayers to be, at the very least, paranoid and so I can hardly be surprised if they believe that dire predictions from the opposite end of the spectrum are anything other than kooky.

It's your thread and I don't mean to hijack it, but I think it might be more engaging if we discussed if such a soft tyranny was even possible in the short term, and what would it take for it to be revealed to enough liberals/Democrats/Obama Supporters so that an effective resistance could be mounted.

By resistance I don't mean a Red Dawn scenario in which citizens are fighting para-military "community organizers" in the streets, I mean, at the very least, an electoral surge that would bring the process to a halt.

What would it take for those who currently support Obama to begin to seriously question his policies?

A lot more, I would think, than this video clip.

You just described the typical rural liberal


Do you do whatever Joe tells you to do?

Finn, you are welcome to take the thread in any direction you want.

Am I correct to think that conservatism is equated to the Republican Party, and liberalism is equated to the Democratic party? If that is true, then can we remember that the Vietnam Conflict was under Democratic administrations, and a Republican ended the war? The dichotomy today, that allows for the belief that the two parties connote liberalism vs. conservatism is that today's Democratic party, in my opinion, seems to have been taken over by a very left leaning constituency. Farther left than the party may have ever been, including FDR, in my opinion. I do not believe today we see conservatives vs. liberals, but rather many that were alienated from the existing society and those that were not. This, I believe, equates closer to some of those that might be intellectuals, lgbt, or young, or of color, or the working poor, or of any number of subcultures within the larger society, vs. those that are able to succeed under the standards of what had been mainstream society. What used to be called "losers," in the conforming generation of the 1950's, seem to be the new progressive liberals in many instances, in my opinion.

I think many liberals really believe they have an objectively correct world-view. Sort of like German Jews that thought they were Germans first, and Jews second. Boy, did they find out that they were wrong. Similarly, I believe liberals will find out that their world-view is just as wrong, in that there are those in the world that do not care how empathetic one is, they want what you have.

Only when they're your breasts.

Sad, but true.

This post is false and ignorant (meaning uninformed).
U are close about the distrust.
I voted for Reagan and for Barry Goldwater before Reagan.
I offer these credentials in proof of my conservatism.

Conservative means non-deviant; it means orthodox.
It means inflexibly holding on to the terms of an agreement,
or to a statute or to any body of rules, refusing to be seduced
by arguments or supplications or threats or enticements to the contrary.

For instance, if a conservative mathematician
is asked how much are 2 + 2 he will answer 4
and he will not be dissuaded into amending his assessment to 4.3,
regardless of how sweetly he is begged. If he is sufficiently
intimidated or bribed into asserting that 2 + 2 = 4.3,
then by so doing, he is no longer a conservative mathematician.

If a man dresses very conservatively in black suits and neckties
and then begins to dress in colorful clown suits,
he is no longer a conservative dresser because he has DEVIATED from the paradigm.

If a man rigidly adheres to the historical political principles of the US Constitution,
supporting laissez faire free enterprize, Individualism and very limited government,
then he is a political conservative and libertarian.

In contrast, liberal means deviant, straying from the terms
thereof, corruptly misinterpreting them.
Without deviation from SOMETHING, there can be no liberalism.

Conservative and liberal are both relative terms,
having no meaning of themselves without reference to some criterion.


The emotional issue between American conservatives
and liberals, in its deepest essence, is this question:
if u r beset with an appeal for charity
do u have the freedom to choose whether to reject it or not?
If u reject the appeal, shoud government force u to grant it anyway?
(i.e., government ripping off your property by taxation
and begifting it to the beggars)

Conservatives know that, by their laissez faire freedom under the US Constitution,
that choice belongs to them. Liberals wish to benefit the poor.
Frequently, the liberals ARE the poor,
who wish to use government as a weapon to rip off the rich and the middle classes.

This was foreseen by Alexis de Tocqueville:
the poor woud use democracy as a weapon
to steal from the rich and middle classes.



`

"Because they're pusillanimous, timid, insecure, intellectually stunted atavistic throwbacks who fear change and distrust those who are different from themselves? Am I close?"

WOW. Apparently you have low opinions of anyone who has a different point of view from you.

Would that make you a narrow minded individual?

Can we assume you are a "liberal" but have eliminated the "sensitivity training" from your teachings?

What's this "we" ****? You got a mouse in your pocket?

You can assume any damned thing you like, but i suspect you will be especially gratified to assume things which are consonant with the prejudices you bring to the discussion.

Well said Yankee, well said.

OmSigDAVID gets it!

well then, let's get rid of this evil democracy thing before it destroys us all

interesting comment, liberals would like to try and open dialogue, perhaps reason with their enemies, conservatives would rather try out the newest military hardware and skirt the geneva convention with theirs, who has the low opinion of people they disagree with now

djjd62,
Are you saying Obama is trying to reason with Muslim terrorist that want nothing more in life than to enslave, kill or die trying to kill us?
Are you also saying conservatives understand the clear and present danger and are doing everything to protect this country and her citizens?

obama is dealing with the muslim terrorists, more troops are going to afghanistan, where they should have been all along, not in iraq