BerettaNut92
Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2002
- Messages
- 9,723
When I was in the debate club in high school, my last-ditch comeback was, "well...that sounds like something Adolf Hilter would say." 
Conservative? Here's what's wrong with you....
- Thread starter 2dogs
- Start date
- Status
Oh gosh!! When those old boys from Berkeley interviewed me about how I, as a staunch conservative, handled problems, I guess I should not of told them that as far as I was concerned,
....there were few problems in life that couldn't be solved with a 1911 and the proper amount of high explosive......
(a modified version of an old Navy Seal bit of wisdom)
and now, I guess this means that we will no longer be friends.
....there were few problems in life that couldn't be solved with a 1911 and the proper amount of high explosive......
(a modified version of an old Navy Seal bit of wisdom)
and now, I guess this means that we will no longer be friends.
longeyes
member
Khornet
I know people in both camps who view their antagonist as "wacky."
It's intellectually lazy, that's all.
Of course, not all debates can be resoved rationally.
I know people in both camps who view their antagonist as "wacky."
It's intellectually lazy, that's all.
Of course, not all debates can be resoved rationally.
Liberal bunkum
David Limbaugh
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: July 26, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com
Have you read about the university study that purports to show psychological links among Ronald Reagan, Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Rush Limbaugh and other "political conservatives"? There's so much here, where should I begin?
The study was conducted by four American university researchers, and its findings were reported in an article in the American Psychological Association's Psychological Bulletin, titled "Political Conservatism as Motivated by Social Cognition." The enlightened professors concluded that certain psychological motivations characterize conservatives, including "fear and aggression, dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity; uncertainty avoidance; need for cognitive closure; and terror management."
"From our perspective," wrote the professors in a press release, "these psychological factors are capable of contributing to the adoption of conservative ideological contents, either independently or in combination."
Liberals have often hinted there was something deeply wrong with conservatives, but now they have "academic" support for their position. Conservatism is symptomatic of deep-rooted negative psychological character traits.
Most amazing is the professors' manifest ignorance of political theory, upon which they base their conclusions. To suggest that Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini were political conservatives is pathetic. Since the '60s, liberals have been getting away with calling conservatives "nazis" and "fascists," but Nazism and Fascism are, in essence, socialistic systems. Such systems are the logical conclusion of big-government liberalism, not free-market conservatism.
And don't talk to me about conservatives being proponents of a police state, either. There is nothing inconsistent between conservatives' advocacy of law enforcement and their championship of individual liberties.
Like most good liberals, these professors believe that the thought processes of conservatives are less nuanced and more black and white. One of them, Jack Glaser of UC Berkeley, said, "[Conservatives] are more comfortable seeing and stating things in black and white in ways that would make liberals squirm. … The latest debate about the possibility that the Bush administration ignored intelligence information that discounted reports of Iraq buying nuclear material from Africa may be linked to the conservative intolerance for ambiguity and need for closure."
Surely the professor can do better than that. This example tends to demonstrate the liberals' lack of nuance more than the conservatives', as do many other examples I'll give you. Can't these paragons of complexity understand that Bush's words were at most ill advised based on disputed, not phony intelligence? Don't they understand that a lie involves the intent to deceive, not just arguably erroneous information? Further, can't they grasp that this was not even one of the major reasons we used to attack Iraq?
Let me give you a few other examples of the liberals' seeming inability to make intellectual distinctions. They seem too narrow-minded to understand that:
perjury, obstruction of justice and contempt of court are different from merely "lying about sex";
likening Ronald Reagan and Rush Limbaugh to Hitler is the grossest form of hate speech they otherwise pretend to decry;
the desire to reverse liberal judicial activism is not conservative judicial activism;
one can favor action against Iraq without being a "neo-conservative";
opposition to affirmative action is born of egalitarianism not racism;
advocacy of government-forced wealth redistribution is not synonymous with compassion, and opposition to it is not incompatible with compassion;
their championship of tolerance as the highest virtue is inconsistent with their intolerance toward conservatives, particularly Christian conservatives;
opposition to federal control over education is neither anti-children nor anti-education, but precisely the opposite;
the tax code can affect economic behavior such that marginal tax rate cuts do not result in dollar-for-dollar losses in revenue;
the terrorist threat of suitcase nuclear bombs does not obviate strategic missile defense (SDI) – we continue to face multiple threats;
developing SDI is not an offensive gesture, but defensive, and should not be deceptively dubbed "Star Wars";
America can attack Iraq without attacking all other despotic regimes in the world and not be guilty of inconsistency in its approach to foreign policy;
school choice will liberate and uplift minorities;
irresponsible gun control measures will cost, not save lives;
promoting "separation of church and state" often stifles rather than promotes religious freedom;
this bogus study by biased liberal professors so close-minded and arrogant that they don't even realize their findings were predetermined by their ideological prejudices speaks loudly to their tunnel-vision simplicity.
Were it not for the destructive influence of their jaundiced ideas we should feel nothing but sympathy for these misguided professors. But they and their ilk are helping to poison the minds of America's next generations of leaders. Or is that too simplistic for us to understand?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33772
David Limbaugh
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: July 26, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com
Have you read about the university study that purports to show psychological links among Ronald Reagan, Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Rush Limbaugh and other "political conservatives"? There's so much here, where should I begin?
The study was conducted by four American university researchers, and its findings were reported in an article in the American Psychological Association's Psychological Bulletin, titled "Political Conservatism as Motivated by Social Cognition." The enlightened professors concluded that certain psychological motivations characterize conservatives, including "fear and aggression, dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity; uncertainty avoidance; need for cognitive closure; and terror management."
"From our perspective," wrote the professors in a press release, "these psychological factors are capable of contributing to the adoption of conservative ideological contents, either independently or in combination."
Liberals have often hinted there was something deeply wrong with conservatives, but now they have "academic" support for their position. Conservatism is symptomatic of deep-rooted negative psychological character traits.
Most amazing is the professors' manifest ignorance of political theory, upon which they base their conclusions. To suggest that Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini were political conservatives is pathetic. Since the '60s, liberals have been getting away with calling conservatives "nazis" and "fascists," but Nazism and Fascism are, in essence, socialistic systems. Such systems are the logical conclusion of big-government liberalism, not free-market conservatism.
And don't talk to me about conservatives being proponents of a police state, either. There is nothing inconsistent between conservatives' advocacy of law enforcement and their championship of individual liberties.
Like most good liberals, these professors believe that the thought processes of conservatives are less nuanced and more black and white. One of them, Jack Glaser of UC Berkeley, said, "[Conservatives] are more comfortable seeing and stating things in black and white in ways that would make liberals squirm. … The latest debate about the possibility that the Bush administration ignored intelligence information that discounted reports of Iraq buying nuclear material from Africa may be linked to the conservative intolerance for ambiguity and need for closure."
Surely the professor can do better than that. This example tends to demonstrate the liberals' lack of nuance more than the conservatives', as do many other examples I'll give you. Can't these paragons of complexity understand that Bush's words were at most ill advised based on disputed, not phony intelligence? Don't they understand that a lie involves the intent to deceive, not just arguably erroneous information? Further, can't they grasp that this was not even one of the major reasons we used to attack Iraq?
Let me give you a few other examples of the liberals' seeming inability to make intellectual distinctions. They seem too narrow-minded to understand that:
perjury, obstruction of justice and contempt of court are different from merely "lying about sex";
likening Ronald Reagan and Rush Limbaugh to Hitler is the grossest form of hate speech they otherwise pretend to decry;
the desire to reverse liberal judicial activism is not conservative judicial activism;
one can favor action against Iraq without being a "neo-conservative";
opposition to affirmative action is born of egalitarianism not racism;
advocacy of government-forced wealth redistribution is not synonymous with compassion, and opposition to it is not incompatible with compassion;
their championship of tolerance as the highest virtue is inconsistent with their intolerance toward conservatives, particularly Christian conservatives;
opposition to federal control over education is neither anti-children nor anti-education, but precisely the opposite;
the tax code can affect economic behavior such that marginal tax rate cuts do not result in dollar-for-dollar losses in revenue;
the terrorist threat of suitcase nuclear bombs does not obviate strategic missile defense (SDI) – we continue to face multiple threats;
developing SDI is not an offensive gesture, but defensive, and should not be deceptively dubbed "Star Wars";
America can attack Iraq without attacking all other despotic regimes in the world and not be guilty of inconsistency in its approach to foreign policy;
school choice will liberate and uplift minorities;
irresponsible gun control measures will cost, not save lives;
promoting "separation of church and state" often stifles rather than promotes religious freedom;
this bogus study by biased liberal professors so close-minded and arrogant that they don't even realize their findings were predetermined by their ideological prejudices speaks loudly to their tunnel-vision simplicity.
Were it not for the destructive influence of their jaundiced ideas we should feel nothing but sympathy for these misguided professors. But they and their ilk are helping to poison the minds of America's next generations of leaders. Or is that too simplistic for us to understand?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33772
Edward429451
member
Why does this sound familier? Low level public servants debate like this, as well as the high level ones. It sounds exactly like...(**** *** ***) ! I'll be good.
Ouch.
Ouch. I gotta hit the books more.
Ahhh, slight reprieve. Monday for sure.
Anybody see themselves in this? Be honest.
MeekandMild
Member
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2002
- Messages
- 1,877
seeker_two, I think you could thin down your Liberal differential diagnosis list a good bit but it will take some background reading. Ignoring the purely sociopathic "Morlocks" such as Bill and Hillary for a moment we find the "Eloi" more easily chategorized. (Using class distinctions among the antis already defined on TFL.)
IMHO it is clear most all varieties of modern Liberal dogma are driven by and obtain their sustainance from the five clusters of behavior among their Eloi which may be lumped into the category of "Borderline Personality disorder".
Description and Background
Criteria
Description and Psychodynamics
Of course Conservatives are much simpler than Liberals. When you tell the truth there isn't much to say. It is only when you lie to yourself you have to develop many stories.
(Hitler wasn't a Conservative nor a Liberal; he was a State Socialist. He just happened to be skilled in evoking emotions among the German people. You are going to have opportunists like him more often among the Liberal camp than among the conservatives as it is easier to fool a few millionaires into contributing funds than it is to fool a hundred thousand middle class folk.)
IMHO it is clear most all varieties of modern Liberal dogma are driven by and obtain their sustainance from the five clusters of behavior among their Eloi which may be lumped into the category of "Borderline Personality disorder".
Description and Background
Criteria
Description and Psychodynamics
Of course Conservatives are much simpler than Liberals. When you tell the truth there isn't much to say. It is only when you lie to yourself you have to develop many stories.
(Hitler wasn't a Conservative nor a Liberal; he was a State Socialist. He just happened to be skilled in evoking emotions among the German people. You are going to have opportunists like him more often among the Liberal camp than among the conservatives as it is easier to fool a few millionaires into contributing funds than it is to fool a hundred thousand middle class folk.)
I would hold the opposite might be true. I don't think that analyzing their position is so important as analyzing how they got to their position. It is really hard to understand arguments when they are based on something internal to the arguer unless you can find their pattern of thought don't you think?
CasualShooter
Member
I'm not surprised to see something like this come out of Berkeley. I've grown used to it!
But, it would be of interest to know who funded this so called Research Study . Who paid for it? Where did the money come from?
:banghead:
But, it would be of interest to know who funded this so called Research Study . Who paid for it? Where did the money come from?
:banghead:trooper
Member
How come that conservatives are supposed to champion individual liberties? Just think Patriot Act...
I will let gun control out of this because it's a specifically American issue; but in most other countries (including mine) it's usually the conservative side who demands stricter laws, less tolerance for "unnormal" behaviour (such as homosexual marriages), more power to LE agencies and so on.
The report is biased and ideological, but there IS some truth in it.
Regards,
Trooper
I will let gun control out of this because it's a specifically American issue; but in most other countries (including mine) it's usually the conservative side who demands stricter laws, less tolerance for "unnormal" behaviour (such as homosexual marriages), more power to LE agencies and so on.
The report is biased and ideological, but there IS some truth in it.
Regards,
Trooper
MicroBalrog
member
In my country, it's the conservatives who support gun control.
The Likud representative in my town officially told me that "If it were up to us, we wouldn't give out any gun licenses AT ALL"
The Likud representative in my town officially told me that "If it were up to us, we wouldn't give out any gun licenses AT ALL"
trooper
Member
In my experience liberal arguments for gun control are something like "Violence is not a solution, and besides this you will hurt yourself with it," while conservatives usually go like "Firearms in the hands of citizens are a danger to our police officers."
Liberals want to ban guns because they think they're evil and morally wrong. Conservatives simply think they pose an unacceptable risk.
Of course, none of the above arguments make much sense.
Oops, got into the gun control thing anyway...
Trooper
Liberals want to ban guns because they think they're evil and morally wrong. Conservatives simply think they pose an unacceptable risk.
Of course, none of the above arguments make much sense.
Oops, got into the gun control thing anyway...
Trooper
- Status
